The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of animals and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 through 99).

On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 34155-34168, Docket No. 98-090-1) a proposal to amend the regulations by recognizing—with the exception of specified areas in Germany and Italy—the countries of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain as a region in which hog cholera (classical swine fever (CSF)) is not known to exist, and from which breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported into the United States under certain conditions.

We also proposed to add Greece and eight Regions in northern Italy to the list of regions recognized as free of swine vesicular disease (SVD). Additionally, we proposed to add Greece and the eight Regions in Italy to the list of SVD-free regions whose exports of pork and pork products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions because those regions either supplement their national pork supply with fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals from a region where SVD is considered to exist, have a common border with such regions, or conduct certain trade practices that are less restrictive than are acceptable to the United States.

In our proposed rule, we stated that we were preparing an environmental assessment in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). We also stated that when the environmental assessment was completed, we would inform the public through a notice in the Federal Register that it was available.

This notice announces the availability of two environmental assessments for public review and comment. They are titled “Proposed Rule for Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, and Pork and Pork Products from Certain Regions Within the European Union, Environmental Assessment,” dated October 2002; and “Proposed Rule for Importation of Pork and Pork Products from Greece and Certain Regions of Italy, Environmental Assessment,” also dated October 2002. The environmental assessments do not take into consideration any regions that had an outbreak of either CSF or SVD following publication of the June 1999 proposed rule and for which, consequently, import restrictions due to CSF or SVD would not be removed.

The environmental assessments may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/vsdocs.html. You may request paper copies of the environmental assessments from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the environmental assessments when requesting copies. The environmental assessments are also available for review in our reading room (the location and hours of the reading room are listed under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health.

The topic of discussion at the meeting will be the development of a low pathogenic avian influenza surveillance program for the commercial table egg, broiler, and turkey industries.

The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. 02-118-1 when submitting your statements.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Title: Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and Market Access Program.

OMB Number: 0551-26 and 0551-0027, respectively. These will be combined into OMB Number 0551-0026 if this request is approved.

Expiration Date of Approval: March 31, 2003, for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and June 30, 2003, for the Market Access Program.

Type of Request: Extension and revision of currently approved information collections, with change to combine 0551-0026 (Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program) and 0551-0027 (Market Access Program).

Abstract: The primary objective of the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and the Market Access Program is to encourage and aid in the creation, maintenance and expansion of commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products through cost-share assistance to eligible trade organizations. The programs are a cooperative effort between CCC and the eligible trade organizations. Currently, there are about 70 organizations participating directly in the programs with activities in more than 100 countries.

Prior to initiating program activities, each Cooperator or MAP participant must submit a detailed application to Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) which includes an assessment of overseas market potential; market or country strategies, constrains, goals and benchmarks; proposed market development activities; estimated budgets; and performance measurements. Prior years' plans often dictate the content of current year plans because many activities are continuations of previous activities. Each Cooperator or MAP participant is also responsible for submitting: (1) Reimbursement claims for approved costs incurred in carrying out approved activities, (2) an end-of-year contribution report, (3) travel reports, and (4) progress reports/evaluation studies. Cooperators, or MAP participants must maintain records on all information submitted to FAS. The information collected is used by FAS to manage, plan, evaluate and account for Government resources. The reports and records are required to ensure the proper and judicious use of public funds.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 21 hours per response.

Respondents: Non-profit trade organizations, state groups, cooperatives, and commercial entities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 71.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 62.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 91,442 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568.

Request for Comments: Send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, or any other aspect of this collection of information, to: Director, Marketing Operations Staff, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 1042, Washington, DC 20250-1042. Facsimile submissions may be sent to (202) 720-9361 and electronic mail submissions should be addressed to: mosadmin@fas.usda.gov.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

Title: CSREES Proposal Review Process.

OMB Number: 0524-NEW.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: Not applicable.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish an information collection for three years.

Abstract: The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) is responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to CSREES competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by CSREES are of high quality, and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program.

Proposals submitted to CSREES undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and mail-in reviews.

The information collected from the evaluations is used to support CSREES grant programs. CSREES uses the results of the proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When CSREES has rendered a decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director. Listings of panelists' names are released; however, no association is made with the review of an individual proposal.

Estimate of Burden: CSREES estimates that anywhere from one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. It is estimated that approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of four reviews.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Robert C. MacDonald, Grants Policy Program Leader, Information Systems and Technology Management, CSREES, USDA, STOP 2216, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2216. Telephone (202) 205-5967. E-mail: rmacdonald@reeusda.gov.

Comments: 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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden 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 those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

The business meeting January 8, begins at 4 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas. Agenda topics will include approval of November 13 minutes, reports from subcommittees, and discussion of potential projects for fiscal year 2004 that will improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and restore and improve health and water quality that meet the intent of Public Law 106-393. Time will also be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited.

Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On June 28, August 30, September 13, September 20, October 4, October 18, October 25, and November 8, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 FR 43582, 55776, 58014, 59249, 62224, 64351, 65531 and 68091) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

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 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: FSA Students Portal Web site.

Frequency: On occasion, monthly, annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 5,000,000.

Burden Hours: 200,000.

Abstract: Federal Student Aid (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Education seeks to establish a registration system within the “Students Portal”, an Internet Portal Web site (hereafter “the Web site”) The Web site will make the college application process more efficient, faster, and accurate by making it an automated, electronic process that targets financial aid and college applications. The Web site uses some personal contact information criteria to automatically fill out the forms and surveys initiated by the user. The Web site will also provide a database of demographic information that will help FSA target the distribution of financial aid materials to specific groups of students and/or parents. For example, studies have shown that providing student financial assistance information to middle school (or elementary school) students and/or their parents dramatically increases the likelihood that those students will attend college. The demographic information from the Web site will help us to identify potential customers in the middle school age range and is information that was previously unavailable to us.

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 directed to her e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be 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 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: Reinstatement.

Title: Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 225.

Burden Hours: 2,250.

Abstract: GAANN grantees must submit a performance report annually. The reports are used to evaluate grantee performance. Further, the data from the reports will be aggregated to evaluate the accomplishments and impact of the GAANN Program as a whole. Results will be reported to the Secretary in order to respond to Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirements.

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 directed to her e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be 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 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: Extension.

Title: State-Flex Application.

Frequency: Semi-annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 21.

Burden Hours: 13.440.

Abstract: Application for State-Flexibility Authority (“State-Flex”). By statute, the Department can grant State-Flex to up to seven state educational agencies (SEAs) through a competitive process. State-Flex SEAs receive (1) the flexibility to consolidate certain Federal formula funds reserved for State administration and State-level activities for any educational purpose authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to assist the SEAs, and the local educational agencies (LEAs) with which it enters into performance agreements, in making adequate yearly progress and narrowing achievement gaps; (2) the authority to specify how LEAs in the State use Innovative Program funds under Part A of Title V; and (3) the authority to, in turn, enter into performance agreements with four to ten LEAs in the State (half of which must be high poverty LEAs), permitting those LEAs to consolidate certain Federal funds and to use those funds for any ESEA purpose consistent with the SEA's State-Flex plan. The purpose of State-Flex is to assist SEAs and LEAs in those states to meet the State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and narrowing achievement gaps.

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 directed to her e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be 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 e-mail 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.

As we begin to consider proposals to reauthorize the HEA, we look to ensure that the significant amounts of funding for the programs authorized in the HEA are wisely spent. We also look to build upon successful program results in providing access to students and improving the quality of postsecondary education.

Since the last reauthorization of the HEA in 1998, funding for the programs authorized under the HEA has increased significantly. Notably, the amount of Federal student aid available has been increased by $23 billion between 1998 and 2002. The fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill signed by President Bush on January 10, 2002, increased the Federal student aid available to students through the grant, loan, and work-study programs authorized by the HEA to a record $69 billion for an estimated 8.1 million students. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request would provide Federal student aid to an additional 340,000 students.

Many of these increases have been directed to those HEA programs that serve the neediest students. For example, the Pell Grant maximum was increased from $3,000 in 1998 to $4,000 in 2002, and funding for the Pell Grant program has increased from $7.3 billion in 1998 to $10.3 billion in 2002. The amount appropriated for the Work-Study program increased 22 percent from 1998 to 2002 to more than $1 billion.

The period since the last reauthorization of the HEA has been a period of constant change and rapid growth for the Federal student loan programs. Education loans have become a valuable source of postsecondary student aid for many students and parents. The total amount borrowed annually, including consolidation loans, under the two major Federal loan programs, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program-formerly the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) Program—and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program, has increased more than 50 percent, from $36 billion in fiscal year 1998 to an estimated $55 billion in fiscal year 2002.

Funding has also increased significantly for programs that aim to expand access and encourage first-generation, low-income, college students to attend and complete college. In fiscal year 2002, the Federal TRIO programs were funded at $803 million, an increase of 52 percent from 1998. These programs serve more than 850,000 at-risk students by providing outreach and support services, as well as information about postsecondary opportunities. Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) has grown significantly since its inception in 1998 and in fiscal year 2002 was funded at $285 million and serves 1.2 million students. Taken together, these programs represent more than $1 billion each year in annual funding and provide services to 2.1 million students from low-income families to help them enter and complete postsecondary education.

Funding for programs authorized by Title III of the HEA that strengthen the quality of institutions that serve large numbers of disadvantaged and minority students has also been increased since 1998. Specifically, funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) has increased by 74 percent and 96 percent, respectively. Funding has also been increased for the Strengthening Institutions program to improve the academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability of a wide range of postsecondary institutions that serve large numbers of financially needy students by 33 percent.

Funding for the Hispanic-serving Institutions (HSIs) program authorized by Title V of the HEA has increased by $75 million—a six-fold increase. This program provides significant support to expand and enhance the academic quality, institutional management, fiscal stability, and self-sufficiency of the colleges and universities that enroll large percentages of Hispanic students.

The emerging importance of American higher education in the international arena has also been reflected in the amount of funding for programs in this area. Appropriations for international education and foreign language studies have increased 63 percent from 1998 to 2002.

Many of the programs authorized under the HEA work well and provide a strong foundation of support for higher education. Some need to be made more effective in achieving better results. As part of reauthorization, we will consider how to make the HEA programs work better and complement the President's efforts to ensure that all Federal programs focus on stronger accountability for results.

The Department's goal is to develop proposals that will best use the significant levels of funding for the HEA programs, build upon the successful results in those programs, improve the quality of and access to postsecondary education, promote greater emphasis on achieving results, improve student achievement, and ensure accountability for taxpayer funds.

The Secretary has already established several goals and objectives in the Department's strategic plan that relate directly to the programs authorized under the HEA:

• Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student populations differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability while increasing the educational attainment of all.

• Enhance efforts to prepare low-income and minority youth for college.

• Increase public communication about postsecondary options.

• Improve student support services.

• Highlight effective strategies for nontraditional students.

• Provide support to students with disabilities.

• Refine the teacher quality accountability system mandated by Title II of the HEA.

• Create a reporting system on retention and completion that is useful for State accountability systems.

• Investigate postsecondary funding strategies.

• Improve the efficiency of the Federal student aid process.

• Offer technical assistance for planning, implementation, and evaluation.

• Assist in promoting the technology infrastructure of institutions serving low-income and minority students.

• Collaborate with HBCUs, HSIs, and TCUs on K-12 improvement efforts.

• Increase the use of performance-based contracting.

• Encourage customers to conduct business with the Department on-line.

• Create a more efficient Federal student aid delivery system.

• Improve program monitoring.

• Document program effectiveness.

In addition, the Department also plans to apply its Department-wide objectives to programs authorized under the HEA:

• Create performance-based grants.

• Increase flexibility for grantees and recipients within Federal Programs

• Expand choice in Federal programs.

• Revise grant applications to reflect scientifically based research.

• Work with the Congress to embed scientifically based research in all Federal programs.

• Increase learning options for students.

• Reduce barriers to teaching for highly qualified individuals.

• Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs.

• Provide technical assistance and outreach.

• Remove regulatory barriers to the full participation of faith-based organizations.

• Implement novice applicant procedures.

• Eliminate statutory barriers to full participation of faith-based organizations.

We are seeking comments and recommendations on the issues and ideas presented here, as well as the following questions, as we begin to consider proposals for the reauthorization of the HEA.

a. How can we improve access and promote additional educational opportunity for all students, especially students with disabilities, within the framework of the HEA? How can the Federal Government encourage greater persistence and completion of students enrolled in postsecondary education?

b. How can existing HEA programs be changed and made to work more efficiently and effectively? In what ways do they need to be adapted or modified to respond to changes in postsecondary education that have occurred since 1998?

c. How can the HEA programs be changed to eliminate any unnecessary burdens on students, institutions, or the Federal Government, yet maintain accountability of Federal funds? How can program requirements be simplified, particularly for students?

d. How can we best prioritize the use of funds provided for postsecondary education and the benefits provided under the HEA programs? How can the significant levels of Federal funding already provided for the HEA programs best help to further the goals of improving educational quality, expanding access, and ensuring affordability?

e. Are there innovative and creative ways the Federal Government can integrate tax credits, deductions, and tax-free savings incentives with the Federal student aid programs in the HEA to improve access to and choice in postsecondary education?

f. What results should be measured in each HEA program to determine the effectiveness of that program?

g. Are there other ideas or initiatives that should be considered during reauthorization that would improve the framework in which the Federal Government promotes access to postsecondary education and ensures accountability of taxpayer funds?

Interested persons are invited to submit comments and recommendations regarding the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment period at 1990 K Street, NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

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: http://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 Moab Project Site is located about 3 miles northwest of the City of Moab in Grand County, Utah, and lies on the west bank of the Colorado River at the confluence with Moab Wash. The site encompasses approximately 400 acres; a 130-acre uranium mill tailings pile occupies much of the western portion of the site. The Moab Project Site is bordered on the north and southwest by steep sandstone cliffs. The Colorado River forms the southeastern boundary of the site. U.S. Highway 191 parallels the northern site boundary, and State Highway 279 transects the southwestern perimeter of the property. Arches National Park has a common property boundary with the Moab Project Site on the north side of U.S. Highway 191, and the park entrance is located less than 1 mile northwest of the site. Canyonlands National Park is located about 12 miles to the southwest.

Originally, the property and facilities were owned by the Uranium Reduction Company (URC) and were regulated by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, a statutory predecessor agency of DOE. In 1956, URC began operation of the mill. In 1962, the Atlas Minerals Corporation acquired URC and operated the Site as the Atlas Mill Site until operations ceased in 1984. Between 1956 and 1984, uranium mill tailings were disposed of on-site in an unlined impoundment. Decommissioning of the mill began in 1988, and an interim cover was placed on the tailings impoundment between 1989 and 1995. In 1996, Atlas proposed to reclaim the tailings pile for permanent disposal in its current location. Atlas declared bankruptcy in 1998, and subsequently the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as Trustee of the Moab Mill Reclamation Trust and licensee for the Site. In 1999, prior to the transfer of the Site to DOE, NRC completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Related to Reclamation of the Uranium Mill Tailings at the Atlas Site, Moab, Utah (NUREG-1531), which focused on surface remediation and cap-in-place. DOE will use information from the NRC EIS as appropriate in preparing this EIS.

In October 2000, Congress passed the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2001 that authorized transfer of the title and responsibility for cleanup of the site to DOE and required that the Moab Project Site undergo remediation in accordance with Title I of UMTRCA. The Act directed that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provide assistance to DOE in evaluating costs, benefits, and risks associated with remediation alternatives. DOE completed a preliminary draft Plan for Remediation that evaluated cap-in place and a generic off-site relocation alternative. The preliminary draft Plan identified several areas where the existing technical data were not conclusive, summarized existing information about the two alternatives, and was submitted to the NAS on October 30, 2001. After reviewing the preliminary draft Plan, the NAS provided a list of recommendations on June 11, 2002, for DOE to consider during its assessment of remediation alternatives for the Moab Project Site. DOE does not intend to finalize a separate Plan for Remediation, but instead will incorporate information from the Plan with the EIS, and will use the EIS process to support its decisionmaking for the remediation of the Moab Site. DOE has incorporated the NAS recommendations into its internal scoping of this EIS and is committed to addressing the NAS recommendations, in either the EIS or supporting documents.

During its years of operation, the mill accumulated approximately 11.9 million tons of uranium mill tailings that contain contaminants at levels above the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards in 40 CFR part 192, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.” The tailings are located in a 130-acre tailings pile, which averages 94 feet above the Colorado River terrace and is located about 750 feet from the Colorado River. Surveys indicate that soils outside the pile also contain radiological contaminants at concentrations above the EPA standards.

Ground water in the shallow alluvium at the site has also been contaminated by uranium milling operations. Ground water in the alluvium consists of a relatively thin zone of fresh water overlying a thicker brine zone. Preliminary investigations indicate that the major constituents of potential concern may be ammonia, arsenic, manganese, molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, sulfate, and uranium. Although final decisions for site and ground water remediation will not be made before the record of decision (ROD) that will consider the analyses provided in this EIS and other factors, and our subsequent proposals to Congress for implementing funding, DOE will be implementing actions such as ground water restoration in the interim to mitigate the impacts of ground water contamination.

The Colorado River adjacent to the site has also been negatively affected from site-related contamination, mostly due to ground water discharge. The primary site-related contaminant in surface water is ammonia, which potentially affects endangered fish species in the river. Concentrations of other constituents, particularly uranium and manganese, are also elevated in surface water samples.

Based on experience at other uranium milling sites, DOE anticipates that there may be contamination in areas adjacent to the milling site resulting from either historic off-site usage of the mill tailings for fill or construction material, wind blown transport of tailings from the milling site, or from the accumulation of residual stock of unprocessed ores or low-grade materials at off-site locations prior to processing at the mill. Under UMTRCA, these off-site properties are referred to as “vicinity properties,” defined to include any properties in the vicinity of the milling site contaminated with residual radioactive materials derived from the milling site. UMTRCA considers vicinity properties part of the milling site for purposes of cleanup. The EIS will address the impacts that would result from the remediation of any vicinity properties and include contaminated materials from vicinity properties in the assessment of both on-site and off-site disposal alternatives.

DOE proposes to select remediation alternatives for contaminated surface materials (tailings pile, surrounding soils, and vicinity properties) and ground water. The range of reasonable surface remediation alternatives includes both on-site and off-site disposal of the tailings and impacted soils. As a result, the analyses of ground water remediation alternatives in this EIS will include site conditions under both on-site and off-site surface remediation alternatives. The remediation alternatives being evaluated are described below under the No Action Alternative, Surface Actions, and Ground Water Actions.

Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would not remediate the uranium mill tailings, surface soil contamination, vicinity properties, or the contaminated ground water. This alternative is included to provide a basis for comparison to the action alternatives described above as required by NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14(d)).

Both on-site disposal and off-site disposal alternatives will be considered for the tailings pile, surrounding soils, and vicinity properties. On-site disposal would involve depositing contaminated soils on the tailings pile and capping the tailings pile in place. The off-site disposal alternatives would remove the tailings and contaminated soils and dispose of these materials at one of several locations within the region. The following off-site disposal locations, described below, will be assessed under the off-site disposal alternatives: Klondike Flats, Crescent Junction, White Mesa Mill, and the East Carbon Development Corporation (ECDC) site. Under the off-site disposal alternatives, three transportation modes will be evaluated: truck, rail, and slurry pipeline for some or all of the off-site disposal locations.

For all on-site disposal and off-site disposal alternatives, DOE must demonstrate that the combination of engineered controls ( e.g. , cover and liner systems), institutional controls, and custodial care performed as part of the Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program under UMTRCA, would ensure long-term protection of public health and safety and the environment.

The on-site disposal alternative would consolidate all contaminated soils and stabilize the 130-acre tailings pile in place in an above-grade disposal cell at its current location on the Moab Project Site. A final cover would be designed to meet the requirements of EPA's standards (40 CFR part 192), utilizing DOE's experience with other uranium mill tailings disposal cell covers. Flood protection would be constructed along the base of the pile and cover materials for radon attenuation and erosion protection would be brought to the site from suitable borrow areas. The final design would meet the requirements of disposal cells under EPA (40 CFR part 92) and NRC (10 CFR part 40, Appendix A) standards.

DOE is considering several off-site disposal alternatives. For these alternatives, DOE would remove the tailings pile and contaminated soils from the Moab Project Site and transport these materials to another location for disposal. To date, DOE has considered numerous off-site disposal locations and has determined that the range of reasonable sites within the region around Moab can be represented by four sites. The Klondike Flats and Crescent Junction sites represent locations where new disposal cells could be constructed; the White Mesa Mill and the ECDC sites represent existing facilities that could receive these materials.

Klondike Flats. Klondike Flats is a low-lying plateau about 17 miles north of Moab in Grand County, Utah. The Klondike site consists of undeveloped land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) interspersed with Utah State Lands. The eastern Klondike site boundary is adjacent to U.S. Highway 191 and is north of the privately-owned Canyonlands Field Airport property.

Crescent Junction. The Crescent Junction site is approximately 28 miles northwest of Moab and 30 miles east of Green River, just northeast of Crescent Junction in Grand County, Utah, on the north side of Interstate 70. The site also consists of undeveloped land administered by the BLM interspersed with Utah State Lands.

White Mesa Mill. The White Mesa Mill is located approximately 85 miles south of the Moab Project Site and 6 miles from Blanding in San Juan County, Utah. The mill, which is owned by the International Uranium Corporation, processes uranium-bearing materials and disposes of them on-site in lined ponds. It has been in operation since 1980. Although the facility has an NRC license to receive, process, and permanently dispose of uranium-bearing material, it would need a license amendment before it could accept material from the Moab Project Site. The mill has the potential to process materials from the Moab Project Site to extract valuable constituents and then dispose of the residues on-site or dispose of the materials without processing.

ECDC Site. The ECDC facility is located in East Carbon, Carbon County, Utah, and is approximately 100 miles northwest of the Moab Project Site. The site is leased by ECDC from the City of East Carbon. The estimated total lifetime disposal capacity of the facility is 300 million cubic yards. The facility is operating under a May 1990 Solid Waste Plan (permit) issued by the Utah Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste, which subsequently became the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. Wastes accepted under the permit include household waste, ash from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act facilities, mining wastes, and petroleum-contaminated media. As with the White Mesa site, permitting and/or licensing issues would have to be resolved before the material from the Moab Project Site could be disposed of at ECDC.

Under the off-site disposal alternatives, three transportation modes will be evaluated: truck, rail, and slurry pipeline for some or all of the off-site disposal locations.

Truck Transport. Truck tractors hauling two bottom-dump trailers would likely be used. The trucks would use U.S. Highway 191 as the main route to the disposal site alternatives, with some usage of Interstate 70 to reach the ECDC site and perhaps the Crescent Junction site. Construction of highway entrance and exit facilities could be required to safely accommodate the high volume of traffic currently using this highway. Highway 191 is a main thoroughfare for commercial vehicles between Interstate 70 and the southwestern United States and receives seasonal tourist traffic. The State of Utah is currently in the design phase of widening the highway to four lanes from Moab north to State Highway 313. Construction for the first phase closest to Moab is tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2003.

Rail Transport. An existing rail line runs from the Moab Project Site north along U. S. Highway 191 and connects with the main east-west line near Interstate 70. The Klondike Flats, Crescent Junction, and ECDC disposal sites could be accessed from this rail line; however, the White Mesa Mill site could not, as there is no rail line extending south from the Moab Project Site. At the Moab Project Site, a railroad spur for loading rail cars would be constructed parallel with the main rail line. A covered conveyor system would be constructed from the tailings pile north across State Highway 279 to a train loading station that would be constructed on the rail siding. The extent of additional rail spur and haul roads needed would vary among the disposal sites.

Slurry Pipeline. This option would require the construction of a pipeline from the Moab Project Site to a disposal site. The tailings would be mixed with water at the Moab Project Site into a liquid (slurry) state, and pumped to drying beds at the disposal facility, where the slurry mixture would be dewatered prior to placement in the disposal cell. Reclaimed water would be returned through a second pipeline to the slurry mixing area of the Moab Project Site for reuse.

Identification of the range of reasonable ground water remediation strategies that would achieve compliance with EPA ground water protection standards at the Moab Project Site for both on-site and off-site disposal alternatives will follow the framework defined in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Ground Water Project (DOE/EIS-0198), issued in October 1996, and a Record of Decision, issued April 28, 1997 (62 FR 22913-22916). The PEIS framework takes into consideration human health and environmental risk, stakeholder input, and cost. In applying the ground water remediation framework, DOE assesses ground water compliance in a step-by-step approach, beginning with consideration of a no-remediation strategy and proceeding, if necessary, to consideration of passive strategies, such as natural flushing with compliance monitoring and institutional controls, and finally to consideration of more complex, active ground water remediation methods, or a combination of strategies, if needed. This process has been used to support ground water remediation decisionmaking at 21 other UMTRCA Title 1 uranium mill tailings sites.

For the Moab Project Site, the process defined by the PEIS has begun, but is not yet complete. Therefore, the specific ground water remediation strategies to be assessed in this EIS have not yet been identified. Based on currently available characterization information, it appears likely that the remediation strategies may be specific to individual contaminants. For example, some contaminants may require no remediation to meet EPA's standards, and other contaminants may require natural flushing and/or active ground water remediation to meet the standards. DOE will continue to evaluate ground water characterization information for the on-site, off-site and no action alternatives, and apply the PEIS framework to identify the range of reasonable ground water strategies that will be included in the DEIS.

The Moab Project Site is located within the 100- and 500-year floodplain designations of the Colorado River. A small section in the southeast section of the existing tailings pile falls within the 100-year floodplain.

U.S. Geological Survey data indicates that a 500-year flood would result in a water level 8 feet above the base of the existing tailings pile. The NAS identified severe flooding and changes in the river's path as an issue for the on-site disposal alternative.

Wetlands may be identified along the Colorado River, within riparian habitat, along the eastern boundary of the existing Site. Floodplain and wetland designations at alternative sites have not been completed, but will be evaluated in the EIS.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 mandate evaluation of Federal actions in floodplains and wetlands. The orders further require Federal agencies to issue regulations that include providing the public an opportunity to review proposals or plans for actions in floodplains or wetlands. DOE's floodplain and wetlands regulations are codified at 10 CFR part 1022. In compliance with requirements of the Executive Orders and regulations, this notice serves as notification for the public to provide comment on the proposed action and its potential to impact floodplains or wetlands. A separate notice will not be published in the Federal Register . Assessment of potential impacts to floodplain and wetlands will be included in the draft EIS, and a floodplain statement of findings will be included in the final EIS.

A primary purpose of this notice is to solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. As background for public comment, this notice contains a list of potential environmental issues that DOE has tentatively identified for analysis. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts. Following is a preliminary list of issues that may be analyzed in the EIS:

• Ground water contamination mitigation and prevention;

• Impacts to human health and safety;

• Impacts to protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats;

• Impacts to floodplains and wetlands;

• Impacts to cultural or historic resources;

• Socioeconomic impacts;

• Impacts on air, soil, and water;

• Noise impacts;

• Visual impacts;

• Disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low income populations;

• Long-term surveillance and maintenance of the site;

• Future land uses;

• Impacts from natural disasters such as climate change, flooding, or seismic events;

• Impacts to traffic and transportation systems;

• Cumulative impacts.

DOE is committed to working cooperatively with Federal, State, Tribal, and local governmental agencies and organizations to foster a collaborative approach to making decisions that affect local communities. In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's provisions for cooperating agencies (40 CFR 1501.6) and recent guidance, DOE has invited six Federal and five state agencies, and four Indian Tribes with jurisdiction or expertise to participate as cooperating agencies in preparing this EIS. The White Mesa Ute Tribe has agreed to participate as a cooperating agency. Any additional Federal or State agencies, tribes, or units of local government that desire to be designated as a cooperating agency should contact Mr. Berwick at the address listed above by February 14, 2003.

The public scoping process is an opportunity for the public to assist DOE in determining the alternatives and issues for analysis. The scoping meetings will use a format to facilitate dialogue between DOE and the public and will be an opportunity for individuals to provide written or oral statements. DOE welcomes specific comments or suggestions on the content of these alternatives or on other alternatives that could be considered. The above list of issues to be considered in the EIS analysis is tentative and is intended to facilitate public comment on the scope of this EIS. Again, it is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor does it imply any predetermination of potential impacts. The EIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts of the alternatives, by using available data where possible, and by obtaining additional data where necessary. Copies of written comments and transcripts of oral comments will be available at the following locations: Grand County Library, 25 South 100 East, Moab, UT 84532 (Phone: (435) 259-5421) and DOE Grand Junction Office, Technical Library, 2597 B 3/4 Road, Grand Junction, CO 81503 (Phone: (970) 248-6089):

The DEIS is scheduled to be issued in January 2004, at which time its availability will be announced in the Federal Register and local media, and public comments will again be solicited. People who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a copy of the DEIS for review and comment when it is issued, should notify Mr. Berwick at the address, phone numbers, or e-mail address listed above. The DEIS will also be made available in the reading rooms listed above, on the project Web page at http://www.gjo.doe.gov/moab/moab.html, and on the DOE NEPA Web site at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.

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

Tentative Agenda:

• The meeting will focus on transuranic wastes at the Oak Ridge Reservation. Gary Riner, DOE-OR, will discuss these wastes as a primer for the Board and public prior to the EM SSAB Workshop on Transuranic Waste Management at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, to be held January 31-Feb 1, 2003.

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

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

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

Tentative Agenda:

• Discussion on transuranic waste shipments to the WIPP.

• Discuss Environmental Management issues.

Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting.

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

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Kevin Rohrer at the address listed above.

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

Tentative Agenda:

1. Update on Rocky Flats site closure progress.

2. Review and finalize draft end-state recommendation language.

3. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary.

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

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Public Reading Room located at the Office of the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 9035 North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250, Westminster, CO 80021; telephone (303) 420-7855. Hours of operations for the Public Reading Room are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be made available by writing or calling Deb French at the address or telephone number listed above. Board meeting minutes are posted on RFCAB's Website within one month following each meeting at: http://www.rfcab.org/Minutes.HTML.

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

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, January 13, 2003.

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

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Fleming, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 725-5374.

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

Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact David Dollins at the address listed above or by telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments as the first item of the meeting agenda.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday thru Friday or by writing to David Dollins, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6819.

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

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

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing or calling Menice Manzanares at the address or telephone number listed above.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.10. On April 16, 2002 (67 FR 18609), and May 15, 2002 (67 FR 34703), EPA sought comments in this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received a number of comments, which are addressed in the body of and attachments to the ICR.

EPA has established a public document for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT-2002-0005, which is available for public viewing at the EPA Public Reading Room, Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays ((202) 566-0280). An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov, or by mail to: Document Control Office (DCO), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 7407T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OPPT-2002-0005, and (2) Mail a copy of your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET.

Title: Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) (EPA ICR No. 2055.01). This is a request to establish a new collection.

Abstract: VCCEP is a voluntary program intended to provide data to enable the public to understand the potential health risks to children associated with certain chemical exposures. EPA has asked companies which manufacture and/or import 23 chemicals which have been found in human tissues and the environment to volunteer to sponsor their evaluation in VCCEP. VCCEP consists of three tiers which a sponsor may commit to separately. Thus far, EPA has received Tier 1 commitments for 20 chemicals. As part of their sponsorship, companies would submit commitment letters, collect and/or develop health effects and exposure information on their chemical(s), integrate that information in a risk assessment, and develop a “Data Needs Assessment.” The Data Needs Assessment would discuss the need for additional data, which could be provided by the next tier, to fully characterize the risks the chemical may pose to children.

The information submitted by the sponsor will be evaluated by a group of scientific experts with extensive, relevant experience in toxicity testing and exposure evaluations, a Peer Consultation Group. This Group will forward its opinions to EPA and the sponsor(s) concerning the adequacy of the assessments and the need for development of any additional information to fully assess risks to children. EPA will consider the opinions of the Peer Consultation Group and announce whether additional higher tier information is needed. Sponsors and the public will have an opportunity to comment on EPA's decision concerning data needs. EPA will consider these comments and issue a final decision. If the final decision is that additional information is needed, sponsors will be asked to volunteer to provide the next tier of information. If additional information is not needed, the risk communication and, if necessary, risk management phases of the program will be initiated.

Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.

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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to be about 520 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: manufacturers, processors, importers, or distributors in commerce of certain chemical substances or mixtures who have volunteered to sponsor a chemical under the VCCEP.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 23.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 154,332 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $12,553,894.

Changes in Burden Estimates: This is a new ICR; therefore there is no change in burden estimates from that previously approved by OMB.

Title: General Hazardous Waste Facility Standards , OMB Control No. 2050-0120, EPA ICR No. 1571.07, expiring on December 31, 2002. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develop standards for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment. Subsections 3004(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), and (6) specify that these standards include, but not be limited to, the following requirements:

• Maintaining records of all hazardous wastes identified or listed under subtitle C that are treated, stored, or disposed of, and the manner in which such wastes were treated, stored, or disposed of;

• Operating methods, techniques, and practices for treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste;

• Location, design, and construction of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage facilities;

• Contingency plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage from any treatment, storage, or disposal of any such hazardous waste; and

• Maintaining or operating such facilities and requiring such additional qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operation, training for personnel, and financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable.

The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, parts 264 and 265. The collection of this information enables EPA to properly determine whether owners/operators or hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities meet the requirements of section 3004(a) of RCRA. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on August 13, 2002 (67 FR 52718); no comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 319 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Business or other for profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,675.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 719,059.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating/Maintenance Cost Burden: $760,000.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1571.07 and OMB Control No. 2050-0120 in any correspondence.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46663-4), and no comments were received.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2002-0021, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to docket.oeca@epa.gov , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov./edocket .

Title: Notices of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (OMB Control No. 2070-0020, EPA ICR No. 0152.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection scheduled to expire on December 31, 2002. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The U.S. Customs regulations at 19 CFR 12.112 require that an importer desiring to import pesticides into the United States shall, prior to the shipment's arrival, submit a Notice of Arrival of Pesticides and Devices (EPA Form 3540-1) to EPA who will determine the disposition of the shipment. After completing the form, EPA returns the form to the importer, or his agent, who must present the form to Customs upon arrival of the shipment at the port of entry. This is necessary to insure that EPA is notified of the arrival of pesticides and devices as required by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 17(c) and has the ability to examine such shipments to determine that they are in compliance with FIFRA. The information is used by EPA Regional pesticide enforcement and compliance staffs, OECA, and the Department of Treasury. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Importers of Pesticide and Devices.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 18,500.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 5,550 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $396,085.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 3,450 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This increase is due to an adjustment in the number of respondents, based on a survey of responses reported to the EPA Regions in calendar year 2002.

HSWA, which was enacted on November 8, 1984, imposed substantial additional responsibilities on those who handle hazardous waste. The amendments prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous waste beyond specified dates, unless the EPA determines that the prohibition is not required in order to protect human health and the environment for as long as the waste remains hazardous (RCRA section 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(2), (g)(5)). RCRA specifically defines land disposal to include any placement of hazardous waste into an injection well (RCRA section 3004(k)). After the effective date of prohibition, hazardous waste can only be injected under two circumstances:

(1) When the waste has been treated in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part 268 as required by section 3004(m) of RCRA, (the EPA has adopted the same treatment standards for injected wastes in 40 CFR part 148, subpart B); or

(2) When the owner/operator has demonstrated that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. Applicants seeking an exemption from the ban must demonstrate that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the physicochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made either:

(a) That fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years: (1) Vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (2) laterally within the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) (the no-migration standard); or

(b) That before the injected fluids migrate out of the injection zone or to a point of discharge or interface with USDW, the fluid will no longer be hazardous because of attenuation, transformation or immobilization of hazardous constituents within the injection zone by hydrolysis, chemical interactions or other means.

EDS has submitted a petition that uses mathematical models to demonstrate that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years.

The EPA published regulations setting forth the requirements for petitions for exemption from the disposal prohibition in the Federal Register on July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118). The demonstrations are based on direct measurements of geological properties of the injection zone made during the construction and subsequent testing of the wells at the EDS facility on Citrin Drive or on values measured at similar locations where conditions can be expected to be near equivalents. Because the model encompasses a region which is much larger than sampling techniques employed along and between the well bores can reach, the demonstration allows for uncertainty by using values which are more conservative than those which the petitioner believes are most appropriate. The measurements are used to create a conceptual model of the geological framework into which waste is injected. Models must account for such geological properties as the porosity, permeability, and compressibility of the strata within the injection zone which will serve as the reservoir and the strata which are expected to confine the waste within the injection zone. Characteristics, such as density and viscosity, of the brine currently within the injection zone and of the waste which will be injected are also considered. Equations have been developed to calculate the pattern and extent of pressure increase resulting from injection for many different geologic models. When the proposed injection is simulated, computer programs use the appropriate equations to calculate the amount and distribution of increased pressure in the disposal reservoir. The distance which fluid and then independent molecules of the injected waste will move through the reservoir and confining zone are also calculated.

During the period of injection, fluids are pumped through the injection wells into porous geological formations at pressures which are sufficient to force the fluids to flow thousands of feet into the formations. In most cases, the operator of a particular group of injection wells controls the only injection occurring in the area. If there are other nearby injection or production wells, however, they will also affect how fluids move.

Injection moves the fluids at a relatively high velocity. This movement slows immediately, but continues at greatly reduced speed for a time after injection ends. The length of that time is approximately equal to the length of the injection phase. By the end of that time, the continued movement has allowed the hydraulic pressures around the injection wells to return to the pre-injection level, if it is a large injection formation. After the pressure dissipates, significant movement of waste fluid results from three phenomena: Natural background or regional flow, density differences, and diffusion of individual molecules through geological materials.

The simulation of waste movement is carried forward for a period of 10,000 years. EPA chose a time limit of 10,000 years for the demonstration because a demonstration over that time period would both suggest containment for a substantially longer time period and a 10,000-year time frame would allow time for geochemical transformations which might render the waste nonhazardous or immobile. ( See 53 FR 28126). The EPA's Science Advisory Board agreed that the 10,000 year time frame is appropriate in a 1984 study dealing with the storage of radioactive wastes. The EPA's standard does not imply that leakage will occur at some time after 10,000 years. It requires a demonstration that leakage will not occur within that time frame. Understanding geological factors such as the permeability of intact rock, the presence of transmissive fractures, and the identification of artificial penetrations of the confining zone provides the key to constructing an accurate model and performing a valid simulation. Because 10,000 years is a relatively short interval of geologic time, we assume that only the three phenomena listed above affect the rate of movement. Each of these phenomena is well understood, and their effects can be calculated. If the simulation establishes that the injected waste will not escape a defined volume of rock which is some distance below the USDWs or discharge to a USDW for a period of 10,000 years, the operation meets the regulatory no migration standard.

EPA previously issued permits to the proposed EDS facility to commercially dispose of liquid wastes by deep well injection. The operator has constructed two wells. The proposed exemption is based on a long term average injection rate, for the facility as a whole, of 166 gallons per minute (gpm) averaged over one-month periods for a total of 7,275,780 gallons per month. The instantaneous injection rate may reach 270 gpm for the facility. The long term average rate limit is used to bound the area of the waste plume so that the plume will be no larger than the area estimated in the petition. The instantaneous limit will allow EDS to inject more waste for some periods of time than others to accommodate deliveries during normal business hours and other occurrences. The rate at which EDS may inject is also limited by the maximum allowable surface injection pressure.

The conservative nature of the demonstration is a significant aspect of the demonstrations. The result of the simulations which comprise the demonstration are not predictions of the distance to which the hazardous waste plume will move. Rather, they are predictions of a distance beyond which movement will not occur. That is, the actual distance of movement is expected to be considerably less than that simulated.

On January 21, 2000, EDS submitted a petition for exemption from the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste injection under the HSWA of RCRA. EPA reviewed this submission for completeness and provided comments. EPA received revised documents on October 3, 6, 27, and 31, 2000; January 12, April 24, and October 16, 2001; and January 31, August 22, September 25, 2002 and October 23, 2002, responding to EPA comments.

Under the proposed exemption, EDS can inject wastes from a variety of industrial sectors and processes including: pharmaceutical production, steel pickling operations, automobile parts fabrication, and other commercial disposal operations at facilities which do not have the means to dispose of hazardous liquid wastes. EDS has petitioned the EPA, Region 5, to grant an exemption to allow injection of wastes bearing the following RCRA waste codes:

Agenda

The third meeting of the Superfund Subcommittee will involve reports from the Subcommittee's working groups about their activities since the last full Subcommittee met in September 2002. The meeting will also include presentations and discussions of priority topics. To obtain a copy of the meeting agenda, contact Lois Gartner at (703) 603-9046.

The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting. Members of the public who plan to file written statements and/or make brief (suggested 5-minute limit) oral statements at the public sessions are encouraged to contact the Designed Federal Officer.

In 1996, two Louisiana environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Louisiana Environmental Action Network (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), styled Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al. , No. 96-0527, (E.D. La.). Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to establish Louisiana TMDLs in a timely manner.

By this notice EPA is seeking comment on the following 1 TMDL for waters located within the Ouachita river basin:

EPA requests that the public provide any water quality related data and information that may be relevant to the calculations for 1 TMDL. EPA will review all data and information submitted during the public comment period and revise the TMDL where appropriate. EPA will then forward the TMDL to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The LDEQ will incorporate the TMDL into its current water quality management plan.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0584.

Title: Administration of U.S. Certified Accounting Authorities in Maritime Mobile and Maritime Mobile-Satellite Radio Services.

Form Nos: FCC Forms 44 and 45.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 25 respondents; 50 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, semi-annual and annual reporting requirements, third party disclosure requirement, recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The FCC has standards for accounting authorities in the maritime mobile and maritime-satellite radio services. Information will be used to determine eligibility of applicants for certification as an accounting authority, to create internal studies and ensure compliance, and to identify accounting authorities to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Respondents are individuals or entities seeking certification or those already certified to be accounting authorities.

OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Data Network Identification Code (DNIC).

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1 hour.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: A Data Network Identification Code (DNIC) is a unique, four-digit designed to provide discreet identification of individual public data networks. The DNIC is intended to identify and permit automated switching of data traffic to particular networks. The Commission grants the DNIC's to operators of public data networks on an international protocol. The operators of public data networks file an application for a DNIC on the Internet-based, International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The DNIC is obtained free of charge on a one-time only basis unless there is a change in ownership or the owner chooses to relinquish the code to the Commission.

OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

Title: International Signaling Point Code (ISPC).

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 40.

Estimated Time Per Response: .166 hours (10 minutes).

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

Total Annual Burden: 7 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: An International Signaling Point Code (ISPC) is a signaling point code with a unique format used at the international level for signaling message routing and identification of signaling points involved. The ISPC consists of a unique seven-digit code, synonymous with a telephone area code that identifies each international carrier. The Commission assigns ISPC's to international carriers in response to their filing of an ISPC application on the electronic, Internet-based International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The Commission issues the code to international carriers free of charge on a first-come, first-served basis and informs the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) of its actions.

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 14, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint C. Michel Butler of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Alabama to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 8, 2002:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated December 4, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint William Lokey of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Alaska to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All areas within the State of Alaska are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Mississippi is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 14, 2002:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 14, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Michael Bolch of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Mississippi to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Mississippi are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 13, 2002:

Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated November 13, 2002, the President declared a major disaster under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5206 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I hereby appoint Gracia Szczech of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared disaster.

I do hereby determine the following areas of the State of Tennessee to have been affected adversely by this declared major disaster:

All counties within the State of Tennessee are eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of November 5, 2002:

The PCMR acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services, and supports for persons with mental retardation. The Committee, by Executive Order, is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in programs and supports for persons with mental retardation, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact the quality of life that is experienced by citizens with mental retardation and their families.

After the enactment of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (the NLEA), FDA issued regulations establishing general requirements for health claims in food labeling (58 FR 2478, January 6, 1993 (conventional foods); 59 FR 395, January 4, 1994 (dietary supplements)). By regulation, FDA adopted the same procedure and standard for health claims in dietary supplement labeling that Congress had prescribed in the NLEA for health claims in the labeling of conventional foods ( see 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3),(r)(4)). The procedure requires the evidence supporting a health claim to be presented to FDA for review before the claim may appear in labeling (21 CFR 101.14(d),(e); 21 CFR 101.70)). The standard requires a finding of “significant scientific agreement” before FDA may authorize a health claim by regulation § 101.14(c) (21 CFR 101.14(c)). FDA's current regulations, which mirror the statutory language in 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(3)(B)(i), provide that this standard is met only if FDA determines that there is significant scientific agreement, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate such claims, that the claim is supported by the totality of publicly available scientific evidence, including evidence from well-designed studies conducted in a manner that is consistent with generally recognized scientific procedures and principles (21 CFR 101.14(c)). Without a regulation authorizing use of a particular health claim, a food bearing the claim is subject to regulatory action as a misbranded food ( see 21 U.S.C. 343(r)(1)(B)), a misbranded drug ( see 21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)), and an unapproved new drug ( see 21 U.S.C. 355(a)).

In Pearson , the plaintiffs challenged FDA's general health claims regulations for dietary supplements and FDA's decision not to authorize health claims for four specific substance/disease relationships. The district court ruled for FDA (14 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 1998)). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the lower court's decision (164 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). The appeals court held that, on the administrative record compiled in the challenged rulemakings, the first amendment does not permit FDA to reject health claims that the agency determines to be potentially misleading unless the agency also reasonably determines that no disclaimer would eliminate the potential deception. On March 1, 1999, the Government filed a petition for rehearing en banc (reconsideration by the full court of appeals). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the petition for rehearing on April 2, 1999 (172 F.3d 72 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

In the Federal Register of October 6, 2000 (65 FR 59855), FDA published a notice announcing its intention to exercise enforcement discretion with regard to certain categories of dietary supplement health claims that do not meet the significant scientific agreement standard in § 101.14(c). The notice set forth criteria for when the agency would consider exercising enforcement discretion for a qualified health claim in dietary supplement labeling. FDA is now issuing these criteria in the form of guidance and is expanding them to include health claims in the labeling of conventional foods. The October 6, 2000, Federal Register notice also described the process that FDA intends to use to respond to future health claim petitions; FDA is reissuing this information in the form of guidance. FDA is also clarifying that the agency will use a “reasonable consumer” standard in evaluating whether food labeling is misleading.

FDA believes that this guidance will assist food manufacturers and distributors in formulating truthful and nonmisleading messages about the health benefits of their products. As the agency has found (52 FR 28843, August 4, 1987), food labeling is a vehicle for “improv[ing] the public's understanding about the health benefits that can result from adhering to a sound and nutritious diet.” Food labeling can also communicate information concerning positive health consequences, beyond basic nutrition, of consuming particular foods. Such consequences can be communicated in nutrient content claims or health claims, for example.

Consumers are more likely to respond to health messages in food labeling if the messages are specific with respect to the health benefits associated with particular substances in the food. According to the Bureau of Economics Staff of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (Bureau of Economics Staff, “Advertising Nutrition & Health: Evidence from Food Advertising 1977-1997” (September 2002)), “consumers are not as responsive to simple nutrient claims” as they are to health claims. This difference in responsiveness reflects the explicit linkage in health claims of health benefits to particular nutrients or food components. If consumers understand the health advantages of consuming foods containing particular components, they are more likely to select foods containing those substances. In the aggregate, decisions by individual consumers to incorporate beneficial foods into their diets improve public health.

Conventional food manufacturers and distributors are more likely to include specific health claims in labeling if FDA makes clear their entitlement under the law to engage in such communications with consumers. There is evidence, reviewed by the FTC Bureau of Economics Staff (Bureau of Economics Staff, “Advertising Nutrition & Health: Evidence from Food Advertising 1977-1997” (September 2002)), that the content of food promotional messages responds to changes in applicable legal and regulatory requirements. As the FTC report stated, “the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that a more open environment leads to competitive pressures that induce producers to reveal information on more nutrient dimensions in advertising.” By making clear the lawfulness of conventional foods labeled with truthful and nonmisleading health claims, FDA believes that this guidance will precipitate greater communication in food labeling of the health benefits of consuming particular foods, thereby enhancing the public's health.

As discussed further in the guidance, to meet the criteria for a qualified health claim, the petitioner would need to provide a credible body of scientific data supporting the claim. Although this body of data need not rise to the level of significant scientific agreement defined in FDA's previous guidance, the petitioner would need to demonstrate, based on a fair review by scientific experts of the totality of publicly available scientific information, that the “weight of the scientific evidence” supports the proposed claim. The test is not whether the claim is supported numerically ( i.e. , whether more studies support the proposed claim than not), but rather whether the pertinent data and information presented in those studies is sufficiently scientifically persuasive. For a claim that meets the “weight of the scientific evidence” standard, the agency would decline to initiate regulatory action, provided the claim is qualified by appropriate language so consumers are not misled as to the degree of scientific uncertainty that would still exist.

FDA anticipates that this policy will facilitate the provision to consumers of additional, scientifically supported health information. FDA expects that, as scientific inquiry into the role of dietary factors in health proceeds, particular qualified health claims will be further substantiated, while for other qualified health claims the “weight of the scientific evidence” will shift from “more for” to “more against.” It is conceivable, therefore, that the information provided to consumers through qualified health claims in food labeling could change over time. FDA nevertheless believes that the dissemination of current scientific information concerning the health benefits of conventional foods and dietary supplements should be encouraged, to enable consumers to make informed dietary choices yielding potentially significant health benefits.

As FDA facilitates the provision of scientifically supported health information for food products, the agency must also strengthen its enforcement of the rules prohibiting unsubstantiated or otherwise misleading claims in food labeling. In assessing whether food labeling is misleading, FDA will use a “reasonable consumer” standard, as discussed below in section I of this document. Use of this standard will contribute to the rationalization of the legal and regulatory environment for food promotion, by making FDA's regulation of dietary supplement and conventional food labeling consistent with the FTC's regulation of advertising for these products.

The FTC's jurisdiction over food advertising derives from sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act (15 USC 45 and 52), which broadly prohibit unfair or deceptive commercial acts or practices and specifically prohibit the dissemination of false advertisements for foods, drugs, medical devices, or cosmetics. The FTC has issued two policy statements, the Deception Policy Statement (appended to Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110, 174 (1984)) and the Statement on Advertising Substantiation (appended to Thompson Med. Co., 104 F.T.C. 648, 839 (1984)), that articulate the basic elements of the deception analysis employed by the FTC in advertising cases. According to these policies, in identifying deception in an advertisement, the FTC considers the representation from the perspective of a consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances: “The test is whether the consumer's interpretation or reaction is reasonable.” 103 F.T.C. at 177.

FDA's general statutory authority to regulate food labeling derives from section 403(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 343(a)(1)), which deems a food misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading “in any particular.” 1 The act contains similar provisions for drugs and medical devices (21 U.S.C. 352(a)) and cosmetics (21 U.S.C. 362(a)). In some cases, the courts have interpreted the act to protect “the ignorant, the unthinking, and the credulous” consumer. See, e.g., United States v. El-O-Pathic Pharmacy , 192 F.2d 62, 75 (9th Cir. 1951); United States v. An Article of Food * * * “ Manischewitz * * * Diet Thins ,” 377 F. Supp. 746, 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1974). In other cases, the courts have interpreted the act to require evaluation of claims from the perspective of the ordinary person or reasonable consumer. See, e.g., United States v. 88 Cases, Bireley's Orange Beverage , 187 F.2d 967, 971 (3d Cir.), cert. denied 342 U.S. 861 (1951). FDA believes that the latter standard is the appropriate standard to use in determining whether a claim in the labeling of a dietary supplement or conventional food is misleading.

The reasonable consumer standard more accurately reflects FDA's belief that consumers are active partners in their own health care who behave in health promoting ways when they are given accurate health information. In addition, the reasonable consumer standard is consistent with the governing first amendment case law precluding the Government from regulating the content of promotional communication so that it contains only information that will be appropriate for a vulnerable or unusually credulous audience. Cf. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 73-74 (1983) (“the government may not ‘reduce the adult population * * * to reading only what is fit for children.’”) (quoting Butler v. Michigan , 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957)).

Based on the FTC's success in policing the marketplace for misleading claims in food advertising, FDA believes that its own enforcement of the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to food labeling will not be adversely affected by use of the “reasonable consumer” standard in evaluating labeling for dietary supplements and conventional foods. Explicit FDA adoption of the reasonable consumer standard will rationalize the regulatory environment for food promotion while both protecting and enhancing the public health.

This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on qualified health claims in the labeling of conventional foods and dietary supplements. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

This guidance is a Level 1 guidance under FDA's good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (21 CFR 10.115). Under § 10.115(g)(2), the guidance is being implemented immediately, without prior public comment, to help ensure that FDA's policies on health claims in food labeling comply with the governing first amendment case law. Consistent with the GGP regulation, FDA is now soliciting comment on the guidance and will revise it, if warranted.

FDA tentatively concludes that this guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

Interested persons may, at any time, submit written or electronic comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch ( see ADDRESSES ). Submit a single copy of electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two hard copies of any written comments, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/dms/guidance.html or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .