The 2002 Act directed that the Commission consist of three members appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture; three members appointed by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate; three members appointed by the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives; and the USDA Chief Economist. The Secretary of Agriculture designated the USDA Chief Economist to serve as Commission Chairperson. The 2002 Act directs the Commission to conduct a study on the effects of further payment limitations on the receipt of direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments. The study is to be transmitted to the President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate, and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives. The Commission is also authorized to make recommendations it deems appropriate. The Commission is to report the results of its study by May 13, 2003.

The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference for the 2002 Act indicates that the Managers of the Conference intended for the Commission to examine the feasibility of improving the application and effectiveness of payment limitations, including the use of commodity certificates and the unlimited forfeiture of loan collateral. The 2002 Act also provides the Commission the authority to hold hearings, take testimony and receive evidence it considers necessary to conduct the study.

At its initial meeting in January 2003, the Commission concluded that public hearings are not feasible given the time available to complete its study. However, the Commission concluded that public comments on the payment limitation issues to be addressed by the Commission would be helpful. Consequently, the Commission decided to seek written comments from the public.

The Commission is specifically interested in receiving public input on the following:

1. The impacts of further payment limitations on the receipt of direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments on:

(a) Farm income;

(b) Land values;

(c) Rural communities;

(d) Agribusiness infrastructure;

(e) Planting decisions of producers affected; and

(f) Prices of all agricultural commodities, including fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops.

Comments are encouraged on the impact of farm program payments on the above and on the effects of further limitations on these issues. The range of effects is likely to depend on what further limitations are being evaluated. The phrase “further limitations” is not defined in the 2002 Act. The Commission believes that further limitations would be limitations that would result in total payments to producers being less than the level that would prevail under the payment limitations of the 2002 Act. Further limitations could be achieved a number of ways including: (1) Reducing the current dollar limitations imposed on specific types of payments, such as direct payments, that can be received by a producer, (2) restricting the number or types of entities eligible for payments, or (3) restricting or precluding payments based on a variety of other criteria, such as income. Each of these approaches may have different effects on producers and the agricultural economy, even if the total dollar reduction in payments is equal. The Commission welcomes comments on the effects of payments and further payment limitations under alternative approaches. The Commission requests that commentors identify the approaches they are assessing along with analytical methods and data employed to reach their conclusions.

2. The feasibility of improving the application and effectiveness of payment limitations, including the use of commodity certificates and the unlimited forfeiture of loan collateral. Payment limits currently involve complex determinations by the Farm Service Agency on the eligibility of persons for payments. Compliance with payment limitation provisions may involve extensive documentation of business organization and other information. It appears that the payment limit program results in a range of costs on producers and the government. The Commission seeks comments on the feasibility of improving the administration of payment limitations and reducing these costs. Questions have also been raised regarding the effectiveness of payment limitations. One measure of effectiveness is the degree to which payment limitations reduce payments that otherwise would be made. Some estimates suggest the amount of payments not made to producers participating in farm programs as a result of payment limitations is relatively small compared with the level of payments that are made. Other measures of effectiveness may be appropriate to assess, including possible impacts on the structure and size of farms. The Commission seeks comments on the effectiveness of payment limitations and the feasibility of making payment limits more effective in cost-efficient ways.

3. The expected response of farmers and ranchers if payment limitations become more stringent. For example, would affected producers increase or reduce farm size? Would producers shift production to alternative commodities? Would producers change the legal organization of their businesses? Some commentors may be able to poll producers on how they might react to alternative approaches to tightening payment limitations. If so, the Commission requests information on the types and locations of farms surveyed.

4. Any other information relevant to the study objectives of the Commission.

This notice is being issued to obtain public comment regarding issues associated with the study of the Commission on the Application of Payment Limitations for Agriculture. There are no regulatory findings associated with this notice.

Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging, and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices * * * .” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables are maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and Vegetable Programs and may be obtained by writing to the above address or on the internet at http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/standpfv.htm.

AMS is proposing to establish the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Celery using the procedures that appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR Part 36).

The petitioner, a grower and a processor of celery, requested that USDA develop a standard for frozen celery to be used by the industry. The petitioner provided information on style, sample size and description to AMS to develop the standard. AMS visited the petitioner's facility to collect information on grades of frozen celery and how to ascertain the grade of a sample and of a lot.

AMS prepared a discussion draft of the frozen celery standard, and distributed copies for input to the petitioner, the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), and the National Food Processors Association (NFPA). Input from the above groups was used to develop the proposed standard.

A notice proposing to create new United States Standards for Grades of Frozen Celery based on the petition was published in the May 2, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 21908). AMS received four comments in response to the notice. All of the responses but one were generally in favor of the new standard. These comments are available by accessing AMS's Home Page on the Internet at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/ppb.html.

One commentor did not see the need for a standard for frozen celery and felt the standard was too subjective. The other commentors were in favor of a standard for frozen celery and proposed changes to the Table I-Allowances For Defects In Frozen Celery for grade “A” and “B,” “sliced” and “diced” styles. These changes included a reduction in the sample size for Table I from a maximum-per 500 grams to maximum-per 283 grams for a 10-ounce portion, a separate allowance for seriously blemished units from blemished units, decrease the number of leaf material larger than a 1/4″ from “20 pieces” to “10 pieces,” change mechanical damage from “no more than 3 pieces” to “no more than 3% by weight” and for insect damaged change from “none” to “0.5%.”

Based on these comments, AMS has revised the proposed standard for grades of frozen celery. AMS is proposing to establish the U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Celery following the standard format for U.S. Grade Standards. AMS is proposing to define “frozen celery” and establish “sliced” and “diced” as the style designations. The proposal will also define the quality factors that affect frozen celery and determine sample unit sizes for this commodity.

This proposal will establish the grade levels “A,” “B” and “Substandard” and assign the corresponding score points for each level. The proposed tolerance for each quality factor as defined for each grade level will be established.

The grade of a sample unit of frozen celery will be ascertained by considering the factors of varietal characteristics flavor and odor, which are not scored; the ratings for the factors of color, defects, and character, which are scored; the total score; and the limiting rules which apply. This proposal will provide a common language for trade, a means of measuring value in the marketing of frozen celery, and provide guidance in the effective utilization of frozen celery. The official grade of a lot of frozen celery covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification of Processed Products Thereof, and Certain Other Processed Food Products (§ 52.1 to 52.83).

This notice provides for a 60 day comment period for interested parties to comment on changes to the standards.

The meeting is open to the public. Public comment opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

The Forest Service is currently developing proposed regulations, directives, and appraisal guidelines in response to the requirements of the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000 (CUFFA). The agency will publish notice of these documents in the Federal Register at a later date for public comment. Until final regulations, directives, and appraisal guidelines are adopted, the Forest Service will determine recreation residence fees and manage recreation residence permits during the transition period consistent with (1) the provisions in section 614 of CUFFA, (2) current agency directives applicable to the administration of permits and assessment of fees for recreation residences, and (3) the direction contained in interim directive (ID) 2709.11-2003-1 issued to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapter 30.

The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics consists of 25 members appointed from 7 categories covering a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests. During this meeting, the Advisory Committee will discuss: (1) Administrative Data, (2) Advisory Subcommittee for Hogs, (3) Publicity and Product Release Plan for the 2002 Census of Agriculture, and (4) Overview of the 2002 Census of Agriculture. The committee will observe and review NASS's data processing activities on Tuesday, February 25.

This advisory committee meeting will be open to the public. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comment during the meeting at 3:45 p.m. The public may file written comments to the USDA Advisory Committee contact person before or within a reasonable time after the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official records of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and will be kept on file for public review in the office of the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics Hog Subcommittee consists of 3 members from the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and 8 members from hog industry. During this meeting, the Subcommittee will discuss the hog estimation program.

This Subcommittee meeting will be open to the public. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comments during the meeting at 3 p.m. The public may file written comments to the USDA Advisory Committee contact person before or within a reasonable time after the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official records of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and will be kept on file for public review in the office of the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 10.353. This program is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), USDA invites comments on the information collection requirement in this notice. These requirements have been granted emergency clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB Control Number 0570-0043.

Comments on this notice must be received by April 21, 2003.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the 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 burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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.

Comments on these information collections should refer to the OMB control number. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the information collection requirements should direct them to Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, Rural Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. Mail courier service deliveries requiring a street address delivery should be sent to the same attention at 300 E Street, SW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20546.

Title: National Rural Development Partnership.

Type of Request: New collection.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.0 hours per Application.

Respondents: Joint proposals among public bodies, non profit and for-profit entities, including associations, in incorporated form or limited liability companies, tribal governments, and cooperatives.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 50.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 300 hours.

The National Rural Development Partnership began in 1990 as a component of the President's Initiative on Rural America. Eight pilot SRDCs were formed in 1990; ten years later, 40 SRDCs were in place.

The 2002 Farm Bill authorizes the continuation of the National Rural Development Partnership, with a slightly modified membership structure. The Farm Bill specifies that membership in the reconstituted National Rural Development Partnership is to consist of a National Rural Development Coordinating Committee (NRDCC) and the SRDCs. The National Rural Development Coordinating Committee will be the subject of a separate appointment process and notice.

The 2002 Farm Bill statutorily recognizes the National Rural Development Partnership and authorizes appropriations specific to it and its members. The statute provides eligibility criteria for recognition as a State Rural Development Council. It is contemplated that the NRDP and its components (SRDCs and the NRDCC) will receive funding from a variety of sources: Federal, state, and private. USDA is responsible for recognizing, and entering into a recognition agreement with, each selected SRDC in accordance with statutory criteria.

Each SRDC that previously participated in the National Rural Development Partnership, and is interested in continuing to be recognized as an SRDC, must apply and be recognized pursuant to this Notice. New applicants are also invited to apply. Potential applicants within a state are encouraged to work together to develop a single application. Only one SRDC per state will be recognized.

A more extensive history can be found at the following Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nrdp/about.

Funding Entity refers to the responsible legal entity which is to receive, hold and disburse funds received from the National Rural Development Partnership for a SRDC.

National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) refers jointly to recognized State Rural Development Councils and the National Rural Development Coordinating Committee.

National Rural Development Coordinating Committee (NRDCC) refers to a group to be composed of entities and representatives to be approved by the Secretary pursuant to a separate notice further implementing section 6021 of the 2002 Farm Bill.

Rural Area means all the territory of a State that is not within the boundaries of any standard metropolitan statistical area, and all territory within any standard metropolitan statistical area within a census tract having a population density of less than 20 persons per square mile, as determined by the Secretary according to the most recent census of the United States as of any date.

State includes each of the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, to the extent the Secretary determines it to be feasible and appropriate, the Freely Associated States and the Federated States of Micronesia.

State Rural Development Council (SRDC) refers to an entity recognized as such by the Secretary in an agreement with USDA that confirms the Council meets the eligibility criteria in the 2002 Farm Bill.

2002 Farm Bill refers to Farm Security and Rural Investment Act, Public Law 107-171, enacted on May 13, 2002. Section 6021 of this Act authorizes the Secretary to continue the National Rural Development Partnership and authorizes appropriations for this program.

As specified in the 2002 Farm Bill, a State Rural Development Council shall:

1. Be composed of representatives of Federal, State, local and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, regional organizations, the private sector, and other entities committed to rural advancement;

2. Operate with a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory membership that is broad and representative of the economic, social, and political diversity of the state;

3. Have a structure such that the membership is responsible for the governance and operations of the SRDC; and

4. Provide matching funds, or in-kind goods or services, to support the activities of the SRDC, as more fully described below.

SRDCs will enter into a Recognition Agreement with USDA. The Recognition Agreement will conform in all material respects to the form of agreement provided in Appendix A to this Notice, and will provide for a specific term of recognition. It will require compliance with any regulations as may be promulgated by USDA with respect to the NRDP that are not in conflict with this Notice or any enforceable Recognition Agreement.

As specified in the 2002 Farm Bill, upon entering into a recognition agreement with USDA, the SRDC must:

1. Facilitate collaboration among Federal, State, local, and tribal governments and the private and nonprofit sectors in the planning and implementation of programs and policies that have an impact on rural areas of the State;

2. Monitor, report, and comment on policies and programs that address, or fail to address, the needs of the rural areas of the State;

3. In conjunction with the NRDCC, facilitate the development of strategies to reduce or eliminate conflicting or duplicative administrative or regulatory requirements of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments;

4. Provide to the NRDCC an annual plan with goals and performance measures; and

5. Submit to the NRDCC an annual report on the progress of the SRDC in meeting the goals and measures established in the annual plan.

Further, to assure continuing Farm Bill compliance, changes made to the SRDC's bylaws, organizational structure, rules of governance, or any other modifications that change the SRDC's structure or rules of operation must be provided to USDA immediately.

Each federally-funded SRDC must, as required by the NRDCC, submit an annual report to the NRDCC on the use of the funds, including a description of strategic plans, goals, performance measures and outcomes for the SRDC.

A completed application must include the following:

(1) A brief description of the State Rural Development Council, including the legal structure, membership categories (e.g., corporate, individual, government agency), and the responsible contact person.

(2) Organizational documents for the SRDC and, if different from the SRDC, the proposed Funding Entity. If the SRDC has 501(c)(3) not for profit corporation status, for example, the organizational documents would consist of the corporate charter and any other document that addresses the legal relationship among the members. If the SRDC has a legal structure other than a corporate form, the organizational documents must reflect how the SRDC was established and the legal relationship among the members.

(3) Rules of governance for the SRDC. The rules of governance must provide evidence that the membership is totally responsible for the governance and operations of the SRDC. If the SRDC has 501(c)(3) not for profit corporation status, for example, a copy of the bylaws must be provided. The RBS reserves the right to grant provisional recognition until June 30, 2004 to an SRDC applicant that must consult with other officials on limited governance matters.

(4) A representative list of members, which must identify a minimum of one, and a maximum of five, member(s) of the Council from each of the following six or (if applicable) seven institutional categories: (a) Federal government, (b) state government, (c) local government, (d) regional organizations, (e) not for profit corporations, (f) private for profit corporations, and (if applicable) (g) federally recognized tribal government. It is acceptable that some members on this representative list come from institutions committed to rural advancement that are not included in the aforementioned categories; such representatives should be placed in category (h) other entities committed to rural advancement (this could include colleges, universities, foundations, etc.). Provide the following information for each member person listed: Name, Institutional affiliation, Institutional category, Contact information (mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and email address).

(5) A copy of the Council's written policy indicating that it operates in a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory manner, or, in the alternative, a statement, signed by the Council Chair, indicating that the Council operates in a nonpartisan and nondiscriminatory manner.

(6) (a) A summary description of the key economic, social, and political regions of the rural areas of the state and (b) a summary description of how the Council represents the economic, social and political make-up of the state's rural areas (e.g., cross-reference the members presented in item (4) above with the regions presented here). This section (6) of the application should not exceed two pages.

(7) Evidence that the SRDC is likely to have sufficient matching funds or in-kind goods or services for the period July 1, 2003 through May 13, 2007 to provide at least 33% in-kind or monetary match for any federal funds that might be provided under the provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill to cover SRDC activities during that period. Such evidence shall include letters of intent (or similar documents) from each organization that will provide matching funds or in-kind goods or services. For the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, these letters shall indicate intent to provide at least $25,000 (in total, across all letters) in matching funds or in-kind goods or services. In addition, these letters shall indicate intent to provide additional matching funds or in-kind goods and services for the period July 1, 2004 through May 13, 2007.

The application materials will be reviewed to confirm that the basic eligibility criteria set forth in the 2002 Farm Bill are met. USDA may seek to independently verify that the representations made in the application are correct.

All applicants are encouraged to apply in a timely manner. Applications will be reviewed beginning April 21, 2003. An application may be submitted after this date subject to the proviso that it will not be considered if an SRDC for that State has already been granted recognition and remains in good standing under its Recognition Agreement. In the event that more than one application is received for a state, USDA will permit the applicants to work together to develop a single application that may be resubmitted, such that each state is represented by only one SRDC. In the event multiple applicants that are acceptable from one state do not wish to work together to develop a single application, USDA will choose one of those applicants to be the recognized SRDC. In this case, RBS will use the following criterion to choose the SRDC: Which applicant has the largest number of institutions represented as members (as reported in Item (4) above)? If two or more acceptable applicants are tied on that score, the tie-breaker will be: Which applicant has the largest match (as reported in Item (7) above)?

A complete, original application may be electronically sent as an e-mail attachment to tia.trout@usda.gov. If applications are submitted electronically, a signature page must be submitted in hard copy or via fax. Alternatively, an original application package plus two paper copies may be submitted in hard copy to: Tia Trout, USDA National Rural Development Partnership, MAIL STOP 3205, Room 4225, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-3205.

On August 13, 2002, the President signed Executive Order 13272 entitled Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking. Executive Order 13272 requires federal agencies to issue policies and procedures to ensure that the potential impacts of agency rules in small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions are properly considered during the rulemaking process consistent with the statutory mandates of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA). See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The intent of the Order is to ensure that agencies work closely with the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration to address small business issues as early as possible in the regulatory process, particularly as they relate to disproportionate regulatory burden.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Order, the Department of Commerce prepared guidelines that establish procedures and policies ensuring compliance with the RFA. These guidelines ensure that the Department properly considers the potential impacts of rules on small business, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the rulemaking process. Specifically, the document provides guidance concerning the formulation of the initial regulatory flexibility analysis and final regulatory flexibility analysis, the certification process, and the SBA review process.

On November 13, 2002, the Department submitted a draft of the guidelines to SBA for review and comment. After reviewing the guidelines, SBA requested that the Department make minor editorial revisions and include the Department's procedure for notifying SBA of proposed rules that may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department addressed all of SBA's comments. The Department now makes available to the public its guidelines. To obtain a copy of the guidelines, please see the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

On August 19, 1993, the Department published the antidumping duty order on steel plate from Mexico (58 FR 44165). On February 18, 2000, the Department published the final results of the 1997-1998 administrative review. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 8338, February 18, 2000. The Department published three successive sets of amended results, on November 2, 2000 (65 FR 65830), December 12, 2000 (65 FR 77566), and January 24, 2001 (66 FR 7619).

Following the January 24, 2001 amended results, the foreign producer, AHMSA, contested certain aspects of the Department's final and amended final results at the CIT. The Department requested a voluntary remand, and on April 15, 2002, the CIT remanded the amended final results to the Department. On June 28, 2002, the Department issued its remand redetermination. See Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Order in Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. United States, et. al., Court No. 01-00018, June 28, 2002. See also Memorandum to the File from T. Killiam, Case Analyst, “Analysis of Programming Revisions in the Final Remand Results of Review of Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico A-201-809), June 28, 2002; and Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, from Peter S. Scholl, Senior Accountant, “Final Remand Redetermination - Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico,” June 28, 2002. In the remand determination, the Department used historical and inflation-adjusted information previously placed on the record by AHMSA to calculate a revised financial expense rate, and applied this revised rate to AHMSA's historical cost of manufacturing.

On November 12, 2002, the CIT sustained the Department's remand results.

We preliminarily determine that polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) from Japan is being sold, or is likely to be sold, in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.

Since the initiation of this investigation (Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 61591 (Oct. 1, 2002)) (Initiation Notice), the following events have occurred:

On September 30, 2002, we received scope comments from Celanese Ltd. and E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. (collectively, the petitioners), in which the petitioners requested that we revise the scope to exclude PVA used as, or in the manufacture of, excipients.

On October 11, 2002, the petitioners and two Japanese producers, Kuraray Co., Ltd. (Kuraray) and Marubeni Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (Marubeni), submitted comments on the model-matching criteria to be used by the Department. On October 15, 2002, Marubeni submitted an amendment to its model-matching comments.

On October 21, 2002, we received requests to exclude certain additional products from the scope of this investigation from Kuraray and two importers of PVA (i.e., Oxyvinyls, LP and Ricoh Electronics, Inc.).

Also on October 21, 2002, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) preliminarily determined that there is a reasonable indication that imports of PVA from Japan are materially injuring the United States industry. See ITC Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1014-1018 (Publication No. 3553, Polyvinyl Alcohol from Germany, Japan, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore, 67 FR 65597 (Oct. 25, 2002)).

On October 22, 2002, we issued antidumping questionnaires to Denki Kagaku Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha (Denki Kagaku), Japan VAM & POVAL Co., Ltd. (Japan VAM & POVAL), Kuraray, and the Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Nippon Gohsei), the producers/exporters accounting for all known exports of subject merchandise from Japan during the period of investigation (POI). For further discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple, Director, Office 2, from the Team entitled “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan - Selection of Respondents,” dated October 22, 2002.

On November 19, 2002 and November 25, 2002, respectively, Kuraray and Nippon Gohsei submitted responses to Section A of the Department's questionnaire. Both Japan VAM & POVAL and Denki Kagaku failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available (FA)” section of this notice.

On December 5, 2002, Kuraray notified the Department that it would no longer participate in this investigation, and it requested that the Department remove all of its business proprietary information from the record of this proceeding. On December 11, 2002, the Department destroyed Kuraray's business proprietary information and notified Kuraray of this action. For further discussion, see the “Facts Available (FA)” section of this notice.

On December 13, 2002, the petitioners and Nippon Gohsei submitted additional model-matching comments.

On December 23, 2002, the petitioners agreed to the exclusion requests made on October 21, 2002. On January 9, 2003, Kuraray requested that the Department modify the scope language in the petitioners' December 23, 2002, submission to avoid unnecessary restrictions on imports of certain of the products covered by that submission which are not manufactured in the United States. On January 22, 2003, the petitioners agreed to the majority of Kuraray's proposed revisions. Accordingly, certain exclusions have now been incorporated into the scope. For further discussion, see the “Scope Comments” section below.

On January 27, 2003, Japan VAM & POVAL requested that the Department revise the scope to exclude certain additional copolymers. Also on January 27, 2003, Nippon Gohsei requested that the Department modify the scope language in the petitioners' December 23, 2002, submission to avoid unnecessary restrictions on imports of the remaining copolymers covered by that submission not addressed in Kuraray's January 9, 2003, letter. On February 4, 2003, the petitioners agreed to all of the revisions requested by Nippon Gohsei, and an additional revision requested by Kuraray. On February 5, 2003, the petitioners submitted a letter noting that they were in the process of reviewing Japan VAM & POVAL's exclusion request, and had not yet agreed to the exclusion request. Because there was insufficient time to properly consider Japan VAM & POVAL's exclusion request, we will address it in the final determination.

In December 2002 and January 2003, we received responses to the remaining sections of the Department's original questionnaire, as well as certain supplemental questionnaires, from Nippon Gohsei.

The POI is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition (i.e., September 2002).

The merchandise covered by this investigation is PVA. This product consists of all PVA hydrolyzed in excess of 80 percent, whether or not mixed or diluted with commercial levels of defoamer or boric acid, except as noted below.

The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

The merchandise under investigation is currently classifiable under subheading 3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

In accordance with the preamble to our regulations (see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997)), we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage and encouraged all parties to submit comments within 20 calendar days of publication of the initiation notice. See the Initiation Notice, 67 FR at 61591.

On September 30, 2002, the petitioners requested that we exclude PVA used as, or in the manufacture, of excipients.

On October 21, 2002, Kuraray and two importers of PVA (i.e., Ricoh Electronics and Oxyvinyls) requested that the Department also revise the scope to exclude various PVA products with specific physical characteristics and/or specific end-uses. These products included: 1) C-polymers - certain copolymers of PVA and cationic monomer; 2) K-polymers - certain copolymers of PVA and carboxylic acid for use in a paper application; 3) M-polymers - certain copolymers of PVA and thiol for use in emulsion polymerization of non-vinyl acetic material; 4) MP-polymers - certain copolymers of PVA and paraffin; 5) R-polymers - certain copolymers of PVA and silan that are used in paper coating applications; and 6) PVA hydrolyzed at less than 83 percent. Each of the exclusion requests specified ranges of hydrolysis and viscosity and maximum levels of volatiles and ash, by weight.

On December 23, 2002, the petitioners agreed to these requests, shown as items 2, 3, and 5 through 13 in the “Scope of Investigation” section above, and modified as noted below.

On January 9, 2003, Kuraray requested that the Department broaden these exclusions to cover certain additional products not produced in the United States. Specifically, Kuraray requested that the scope exclusions agreed to by the petitioners with respect to certain copolymer products specify a minimum percentage of the non-PVA monomers present in these copolymer products outlined above (i.e., cationic monomer, carboxylic acid, thiol, and paraffin) instead of specifying exact levels of hydrolysis, viscosity, volatiles, and ash content as noted in the petitioners' December 23, 2002, submission.

On January 22, 2003, the petitioners agreed to the majority of the modifications proposed by Kuraray. Specifically, with respect to copolymers of PVA and carboxylic acid, the petitioners agreed to remove the specifications for hydrolysis, viscosity, volatiles, and ash content from the proposed exclusion language. However, the petitioners did not agree to change the end-use requirement in the proposed exclusion from “certified for use in a paper application” to “certified not for use in the production of textiles.” With respect to copolymers of PVA and paraffin, the petitioners agreed to remove the specification for hydrolysis, viscosity, volatiles, and ash content from the proposed exclusion language. However, the petitioners did not agree to change the concentration level of the additional monomer from one percent to 0.5 percent (or lower). Finally, the petitioners agreed to lower the viscosity level of homopolymers hydrolyzed greater than 85 percent from 90 to 80 centipoise, provided that, when the product has a viscosity of greater than or equal to 80 centipoise and less than 90 centipoise, it is certified for use in an ink-jet application. Accordingly, certain exclusions have now been incorporated into the scope. See the “Scope of the Investigation” section above.

On January 27, 2003, Japan VAM & POVAL, one of the mandatory respondents who has not responded to the Department's questionnaire, requested that the Department revise the scope to exclude certain PVA products with specific physical characteristics and/or specific end-uses. These products include: D-copolymers (i.e., certain copolymers of PVA and diacetoneacrylamide) for use in a paper application.

Additionally, on January 27, 2003, Nippon Gohsei requested that the remaining scope exclusions agreed to by the petitioners but not addressed in Kuraray's January 9, 2003, submission specify a minimum percentage of the non-PVA monomers (i.e., sulfonic acid, acetoacetylate, polyethylene oxide, or quaternary amine) instead of specifying exact levels of hydrolysis, viscosity, volatiles, and ash content as noted in the petitioners' December 23, 2002, submission.

On February 4, 2003, the petitioners agreed to all of the revisions requested by Nippon Gohsei. In addition, the petitioners also agreed to revise the scope to exclude certain copolymers covalently bonded with silan uniformly present on all polymer chains in a concentration equal to or greater than one mole percent, certified for use in paper coating applications, pursuant to a request made by Kuraray.

As noted above, on February 5, 2003, the petitioners submitted a letter noting that they were in the process of reviewing Japan VAM & POVAL's exclusion request, and had not yet agreed to the exclusion request. Because there was insufficient time to properly consider Japan VAM & POVAL's exclusion request, we will address it in the final determination.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline, or in the form or manner requested, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.

Pursuant to section 782(e) of the Act, the Department shall not decline to consider submitted information if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The information is submitted by the established deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can be used without undue difficulties.

On October 22, 2002, the Department issued its questionnaire to Denki Kagaku, Japan VAM & POVAL, and Kuraray. Neither Denki Kagaku nor Japan VAM & POVAL responded to the Department's questionnaires. Moreover, on December 5, 2002, Kuraray informed the Department that it did not intend to participate in this investigation. Because these companies failed to supply necessary information, we have applied FA to calculate their dumping margins, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales of Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Each of the respondents was notified in the Department's questionnaires that failure to submit the requested information by the date specified might result in use of FA. As a general matter, it is reasonable for the Department to assume that Denki Kagaku, Japan VAM & POVAL, and Kuraray possessed the records necessary for this investigation and that by not supplying the information the Department requested, these companies failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. As the respondents failed to cooperate to the best of their ability, we are applying an adverse inference pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use as AFA information derived from the petition, the final determination from the LTFV investigation, a previous administrative review, or any other information placed on the record.

Section 776(c) of the Act requires the Department to corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary information used as FA. Secondary information is defined as “{i}nformation derived from the petition that gave rise to the investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the subject merchandise.” See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994) and 19 CFR 351.308(d).

The SAA clarifies that “corroborate” means that the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative value. See the SAA at 870. The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. Id.

In order to determine the probative value of the margins in the petition for use as AFA for purposes of this determination, we examined evidence supporting the calculations in the petition. We reviewed the adequacy and accuracy of the information in the petition during our pre-initiation analysis of the petition, to the extent appropriate information was available for this purpose. See the September 25, 2002, Initiation Checklist, on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099, of the Main Commerce Department building, for a discussion of the margin calculations in the petition. In accordance with section 776(c) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we examined the key elements of the export price (EP) and normal value (NV) calculations on which the margins in the petition were based.

In selecting from among the facts otherwise available and using an adverse inference, we reviewed the information provided in the petition and in the response submitted by Nippon Gohsei. The petition contained a margin calculation for each of two products sold by Kuraray. See below for a review of the methodology used by the petitioners for their calculations of EP and NV. Because these margins were higher than the margin that we calculated for Nippon Gohsei, we selected these margins for purposes of corroboration.

With respect to the margins in the petition, EP was based on POI price quotes for the sale of PVA produced by Kuraray to customers in the United States. The petitioners calculated net U.S. prices for PVA by deducting a distributor mark-up, where applicable, and certain movement charges.

We corroborated the U.S. prices from the petition by comparing them to prices of comparable products sold by Nippon Gohsei. We found that Nippon Gohsei made U.S. sales of comparable products at similar prices to the U.S. prices from the petition, thus corroborating the prices provided in the petition. For ocean freight expense, we likewise found that the petition contained the same expense for each of the two products and that sales by Nippon Gohsei with ocean freight in excess of these amounts of expenses were sufficient to corroborate the amounts provided in the petition. We were unable to corroborate the U.S. inland freight charges from the petition since no such charges were reported by Nippon Gohsei. The Department was provided with no useful information by the respondents or other interested parties and is aware of no other independent sources of information that would enable us to further corroborate the EP calculations in the petition. Specifically, we attempted to locate inland freight charges through publicly available sources, but we were unable to do so.

It is worth noting that the implementing regulation for section 776 of the Act states, “(t)he fact that corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance will not prevent the Secretary from applying an adverse inference as appropriate and using secondary information in question.” See 19 CFR 351.308(d). Additionally, the SAA specifically states that where “corroboration may not be practicable in a given circumstance, the Department need not prove that the facts available are the best alternative information.” See the SAA at 870. For further discussion, see the February 12, 2003, memorandum to the file from the team entitled “Corroboration of Data Contained in the Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates” (Corroboration Memo).

The petitioners based NV on home market price quotes from Kuraray for PVA of a comparable grade to the products exported to the United States. These price quotes were contemporaneous with the U.S. price quotes used as the basis for EP. In addition, the petitioners alleged that sales of PVA products in the home market were made at prices below the fully absorbed cost of production (COP), within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act, and requested that the Department conduct a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation. Based upon a comparison of the prices of the foreign like product in the home market to the calculated COP of the product, we found reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product were made below the COP, within the meaning of section 773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the Department initiated a country-wide cost investigation. Pursuant to section 773(b)(3) of the Act, COP consisted of the cost of manufacture (COM), selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and packing. The petitioners calculated COP based on the experience of a U.S. PVA producer during the 2001 fiscal year, adjusted for known differences between costs incurred to manufacture PVA in the United States and Japan.

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(4), 773(b) and 773(e) of the Act, the petitioners based NV for sales in Japan on constructed value (CV). The petitioners calculated CV using the same COM, SG&A and financial expense figures used to compute the COP. Consistent with section 773(e)(2) of the Act, the petitioners included in CV an amount for profit. For profit, the petitioners relied upon the amount reported in Kuraray's 2001 financial statements.

We found that Nippon Gohsei made sufficient home market sales at prices similar to the home market prices provided in the petition. One COP amount was provided in the petition for the two products sold by Kuraray. We were able to corroborate this amount, since the highest COP reported by Nippon Gohsei for a comparable product was similar to the COP provided in the petition. For further discussion, see the Corroboration Memo.

Therefore, based on our efforts, described above, to corroborate information contained in the petition, and in accordance with 776(c) of the Act, we consider the margins in the petition to be corroborated to the extent practicable for purposes of this preliminary determination.

Accordingly, in selecting AFA with respect to Denki Kagaku, Japan VAM & POVAL, and Kuraray, we have applied the margin rate of 144.16 percent, which is the highest estimated dumping margin set forth in the notice of initiation. See the Initiation Notice, 67 FR at 61593.

To determine whether sales of PVA from Japan to the United States were made at less than fair value, we compared the EP to the NV, as described in the “Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice, below. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we compared POI weighted-average EPs to weighted-average NVs.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced and sold by Nippon Gohsei in the home market during the POI that fit the description in the “Scope of Investigation” section of this notice to be foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. We compared U.S. sales to sales made in the home market, where appropriate. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics discussed below.

In October 2002, Kuraray, Marubeni, and the petitioners submitted comments on the model-matching criteria to be used by the Department. Based on these comments, we proposed to match products sold in the United States to products sold in the home market in the ordinary course of trade that were identical with respect to the following hierarchy of characteristics: molecular structure, hydrolysis, viscosity, degree of modification, particle size, tackifier, defoamer, ash, color, volatiles, and visual impurities. We invited interested parties to submit additional comments on these criteria prior to the preliminary determination.

In December 2002, the petitioners requested that the Department revise the proposed model-matching hierarchy to place hydrolysis and viscosity as the most important criteria.

Also in December 2002, Nippon Gohsei requested the Department revise the particle size field of the hierarchy to include PVA in standard, fine, pellet, and liquid forms. In addition, Nippon Gohsei requested that the Department add the field SOLH/U in order to distinguish between PVA sold in dry form versus liquid form. Finally, Nippon Gohsei requested that the Department allow respondents to report hydrolysis, viscosity, and degree of modification in ranges.

After analyzing these comments, we have reconsidered the model-matching hierarchy and revised it as follows: 1) we added as the most important criterion whether the product is a homo- or a co- polymer; 2) we placed hydrolysis and viscosity before molecular structure (i.e., the type of copolymer); 3) we accepted the proposed changes to particle size field suggested by Nippon Gohsei; and 4) we allowed the reporting of hydrolysis, viscosity, and degree of modification in ranges. All other characteristics remained the same. For further discussion, see the memorandum entitled “Concurrence Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan,” dated February 12, 2003 (the Concurrence Memorandum), on file in room B-099 of the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU).

In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we based our calculations on EP because the subject merchandise was sold by the producer or exporter directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser prior to importation. In cases where Nippon Gohsei sold pursuant to multiple-shipment sales agreements, we used the date of the sales agreement, where available, as the date of sale. Where the date of the sales agreement was not known, we used the date of shipment as the date of sale because this date preceded the date of invoice. For further discussion, see the Concurrence Memo.

We based EP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in either Japan or the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing errors. We also made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, loading expenses, international freight, and marine insurance.

In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we compared the respondent's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the respondent's aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable for the respondent.

Nippon Gohsei reported sales of the foreign like product to affiliated end-users. To test whether these sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, where possible, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, 99.5 percent or more of the price to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. Consistent with section 351.403(c) of the Department's regulations, we excluded from our analysis those sales where the price to the affiliated parties was less than 99.5 percent of the price to the unaffiliated parties.

Based on our analysis of an allegation contained in the petition, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of PVA in the home market were made at prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a country-wide sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. See the Initiation Notice, 67 FR at 61594.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus an amount for general and administrative expenses (G&A), including interest expenses. See the “Test of Home Market Sales Prices” section below for treatment of home market selling expenses. We relied on the COP data submitted by Nippon Gohsei, except as noted below:

For further discussion, see the memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled “Cost of Production and Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,” dated February 12, 2003.

On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. The prices were adjusted for billing errors and were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses. We recalculated indirect selling expenses for certain sales made through affiliated parties to capture the additional layer of indirect selling expenses incurred by the affiliate. For further discussion, see the memorandum to the File from the Team Re: Calculations Performed for The Nippon Synthetic Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. for the Preliminary Determination in the 2001-2002 Antidumping Duty Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol from Japan, dated February 12, 2003, which is available in room B-099 of the Department's CRU. In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at prices less than their COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act, whether such sales were made (1) within an extended period of time in substantial quantities, and (2) at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C), where less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the POI are at prices less than the COP, we determine that in such instances the below-cost sales represent “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determine whether such sales were made at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Nippon Gohsei's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i), to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the “chain of distribution”),1 including selling functions,2 class of customer (“customer category”), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying levels of trade for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices3 ), we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, Court Nos. 00-1058,-1060 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

When the Department is unable to find sales of the foreign like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if an NV LOT is more remote from the factory than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affected price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (Nov. 19, 1997).

We obtained information from Nippon Gohsei regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Nippon Gohsei for each channel of distribution. See page A-11 and exhibit 9 of Nippon Gohsei's November 22 section A response; see also pages 9 through 17 and exhibit 7 of Nippon Gohsei's January 13 response to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.

Nippon Gohsei reported sales through twelve channels of distribution in the home market, including: 1) sales through affiliated distributors to the unaffiliated distributors or end-users; and 2) direct sales to unaffiliated distributors and affiliated and unaffiliated end-users. Nippon Gohsei stated that it performed the following selling functions/services in the home market with respect to these channels of distribution: market research, price negotiations with customers, order processing, interactions with customers, forward inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, freight arrangements, advertising, and just-in-time delivery. In addition, Nippon Gohsei provided information indicating that its affiliated resellers perform an additional layer of selling functions to customers in the home market.

We first noted that sales by Nippon Gohsei through affiliated distributors pass through two companies before reaching the customer, whereas sales in the other chains of distribution pass directly to the customer. We then examined whether any differences existed with respect to the selling functions performed by Nippon Gohsei in making sales within each of these broad channels of distribution (i.e., through affiliates and direct to the customer). For the sales through Nippon Gohsei's affiliated distributors, we conducted our LOT analysis based on: 1) the selling activities performed by Nippon Gohsei to sell to the affiliated sellers; and 2) the selling activities performed by the affiliated reseller to sell to its unaffiliated customers. The information on the record indicates that the selling functions performed by both Nippon Gohsei and by its affiliated resellers in connection with sales through affiliated resellers are almost identical. Therefore, we find that sales through affiliated parties in the home market constitute one LOT.

Nippon Gohsei also made sales to affiliated and unaffiliated home market end-users and unaffiliated home market distributors. The information on the record also indicates that the selling functions performed in selling directly to end-users and selling to unaffiliated distributors were also substantially the same. Accordingly, we do not find the differences in selling functions so significant as to warrant finding a distinct LOT for sales through these channels. However, when these functions are compared to those for sales through affiliated resellers, we find that Nippon Goshei and its affiliates provide an additional layer of selling functions that is substantially greater than the selling functions provided for direct sales. Consequently, we preliminarily find that Nippon Gohsei made sales at two LOTs in the home market: 1) sales through affiliated parties, and 2) direct sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers.

For its sales to the United States, Nippon Gohsei reported two channels of distribution, including sales to unaffiliated trading companies and direct sales to end-users. Nippon Gohsei stated that it performed the following selling functions/services in the U.S. market: market research, price negotiations with customers, order processing, interactions with customers, forward inventory maintenance, technical advice, warranty services, freight arrangements, advertising, and just-in-time delivery. The information on the record indicates that the selling functions performed in selling directly to end-users and selling to unaffiliated distributors were also virtually identical. Like Nippon Gohsei's sales to unaffiliated parties in the home market, the differences between the claimed channels in the U.S. market are not substantial enough to warrant a finding of separate LOTs. Therefore, we preliminarily find that Nippon Gohsei made sales through one LOT in the U.S. market: sales to unaffiliated parties. We further preliminarily find that the U.S. LOT is the same as the home market LOT for sales to unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed by Nippon Gohsei are substantially the same in both markets. Consequently, we compared Nippon Gohsei's EP sales to its sales at the same LOT in the home market. Where we could not compare EP sales to home market sales of the most similar product at the same LOT, we made an LOT adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For further discussion, see the Concurrence Memo.

We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers or prices to affiliated customers that we determined to be at arm's-length. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing errors. We also made deductions, where appropriate, for movement expenses, including inland freight (plant to distribution warehouse and plant/warehouse to customer) and warehousing under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for imputed credit expenses and bank charges.

Furthermore, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

Finally, we made an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.412, where appropriate.

Section 773A(a) of the Act directs the Department to convert foreign currencies based on the U.S. dollar exchange rate in effect on the date of sale of the subject merchandise, except if it is established that a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale. When a company demonstrates that a sale on forward markets is directly linked to a particular export sale in order to minimize its exposure to exchange rate losses, the Department will use the rate of exchange in the forward currency sale agreement. Accordingly, we made currency conversions based on the official exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, except where Nippon Gohsei demonstrated that its exchange rates were established by forward exchange contracts.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify all information relied upon in making our final determination.

In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we are directing the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all imports of subject merchandise from Japan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. We will instruct the Customs Service to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds the EP, as indicated in the chart below. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have excluded from the calculation of the All Others rate margins which are zero or de minimis, or determined entirely on facts available. Because we determined the margin for the three non-participating respondents entirely on facts available, we used Nippon Gohsei's margin as the All Others rate.

The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we have notified the ITC of our determination. If our final antidumping determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry. The deadline for that ITC determination would be the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the date of our final determination.

Case briefs for this investigation must be submitted no later than seven days after the date of the final verification report issued in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs must be filed five days from the deadline date for case briefs. A list of authorities used, a table of contents, and an executive summary of issues should accompany any briefs submitted to the Department. Executive summaries should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. See 19 CFR 351.309.

Section 774 of the Act provides that the Department will hold a hearing to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on arguments raised in case briefs, provided that such a hearing is requested by any interested party. If a request for a hearing is made in this investigation, the hearing will tentatively be held two days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request within 10 days of the publication of this notice. Requests should specify the number of participants and provide a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310.

We will make our final determination no later than 75 days after the date of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

Dates: Applicants for the Precision Measurement Grants Program must submit an abbreviated proposal for preliminary screening. Based on the merit of the abbreviated proposal, applicants will be advised whether a full proposal should be submitted. The abbreviated proposals must be received at the address listed below no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on March 24, 2003. Proposals received after this deadline will be returned with no further consideration. Finalists will be selected by approximately May 9, 2003, and will be requested to submit full proposals to NIST by close of business on June 20, 2003. NIST expects to issue awards on or before September 30, 2003.

Addresses: For the Precision Measurement Grants Program, applicants are requested to direct technical questions and submit an abbreviated proposal (original and two signed copies), with a description of their proposed work of no more than five double spaced pages to: Dr. Peter J. Mohr, Manager, NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Bldg. 225, Rm. B161, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8401, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8401. Tel: (301) 975-3217. E-mail: mohr@nist.gov. Web site: http://physics.nist.gov/pmg.

Although applicants are not required to submit more than three copies of the proposal, the normal review process for the Precision Measurement Grants Program utilizes 10 copies. Applicants are encouraged to submit sufficient proposal copies for the full review process if they wish all reviewers to receive color, unusually sized (not 8.5″ × 11″), or otherwise unusual materials submitted as part of the proposal. Only three copies of the Federally required forms are needed.

Program Description and Objectives: The program description and objectives for the Precision Measurement Grants Program are as follows: as part of its research program, since 1970 NIST has awarded Precision Measurement Grants primarily to universities and colleges so that faculty may conduct significant, primarily experimental research in the field of fundamental measurement or the determination of fundamental constants. NIST sponsors these grants and cooperative agreements primarily to encourage basic, measurement-related research in universities and colleges and other research laboratories and to foster contacts between NIST scientists and those faculty members of academic institutions and other researchers who are actively engaged in such work. The Precision Measurement Grants are also intended to make it possible for researchers to pursue new, fundamental measurement ideas for which other sources of support may be difficult to find. There is some latitude in research topics that will be considered under the Precision Measurement Grants Program. The key requirement is that the proposed project support NIST's ongoing work in the field of basic measurement science, which includes:

1. Experimental and theoretical studies of fundamental physical phenomena which test the basic laws of physics or which may lead to new or improved fundamental measurement methods and standards.

2. The determination of important fundamental physical constants.

Although proposals for either experimental or theoretical research will be considered, the former will be given preference because of the more immediate applicability of experimental work to metrology. Proposals from workers at the assistant and associate professor level who have some record of accomplishment are especially encouraged in view of the comparative difficulty researchers have in obtaining funds at the early stages of their careers.

Typical projects which have been funded through the NIST Precision Measurement Grants Program include:

(1) Precision optical spectroscopy of positronium, S. Chu, Stanford University.

(2) Spectroscopy of francium: towards a precise parity nonconservation measurement in a laser trap, L. A. Orozco, State University of New York at Stony Brook.

(3) Measurement of Newton's constant G using a new method, J.H. Gundlach, University of Washington.

(4) Measurement of the polarization of the cosmic microwave background, S.T. Staggs, Princeton University.

(5) Combining the quantum Hall and AC Josephson effects for electric current metrology, E.A. Gwinn, University of California, Santa Barbara.

(6) A test of CPT symmetry using a new K-3He self-compensating magnetometer, M.V. Romalis, University of Washington.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, international organizations, State, local and Indian tribal governments and Federal agencies with appropriate legal authority.

Award Period and Funding Availability: Applicants should propose multi-year projects for up to three years at no more than $50,000 per year. NIST anticipates spending $100,000 this year for two new grants at $50,000 each for the first year of the research projects. NIST may award all, none or some of these new awards. Second and third year funding will be at the discretion of NIST, based on satisfactory performance, continuing relevance to program objectives, and the availability of funds.

Proposal Review Process: For the Precision Measurement Grants Program, to simplify the proposal writing and evaluation process, the following selection procedure will be used:

Applicants will initially submit abbreviated proposals, containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a total length of no more than five double spaced pages, to the mailing address given above in the Addresses section. These proposals will be screened to determine whether they address the requirements outlined in this notice. Proposals that do not meet those requirements will not be considered further. Eight independent, objective individuals, at least half of whom are NIST employees, and who are knowledgeable about the scientific areas that the program addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described in the Evaluation Criteria section for this program. The proposals will then be ranked based on the average of the reviewers' rankings. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but ranks will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

The Precision Measurement Grants Program manager, the selecting official, will then select approximately four to eight finalists. In selecting finalists, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers'evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described above.

Finalists will then be asked to submit full proposals containing a description of the proposed project, including sufficient information to address the evaluation criteria, with a length of no more than ten (10) double spaced pages in addition to the federally mandated forms and certifications, to the mailing address given above in the Addresses section. The same independent reviewers will then evaluate the detailed proposals based on the same evaluation criteria, and the proposals will be ranked as previously described. In selecting proposals that will be recommended for funding, the selecting official will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank, and relevance to the program objectives described in the Program Description and Objectives section for this program.

The final approval of selected applications and award of grants or cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible.

Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.

The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria to be used in evaluating the abbreviated application proposals and full proposals are:

1. The importance of the proposed research—Does it have the potential of answering some currently pressing question or of opening up a whole new area of activity?

2. The relationship of the proposed research to NIST's ongoing work—Will it support one of NIST's current efforts to develop a new or improved fundamental measurement method or physical standard, test the basic laws of physics, or provide an improved value for a fundamental constant?

3. The feasibility of the research and the potential impact of the grant—Is it likely that significant progress can be made in a three year time period with the funds and personnel available and that the funding will enable work that would otherwise not be done with existing or potential funding?

4. The qualifications of the applicant—Does the educational and employment background and the quality of the research, based on recent publications, of the applicant indicate that there is a high probability that the proposed research will be carried out successfully?

Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Matching Requirements: The Precision Measurement Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: For the Precision Measurement Grants Program, an application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications will be provided to the finalists by Ms. Bonnie Whipp, (301) 975-4750.

Dates: All SURF Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business March 24, 2003.

Addresses: For all SURF Programs, applicant institutions must submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal to: Attn.: Ms. Anita Sweigert, Administrative Coordinator, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400. Tel: (301) 975-4200. E-mail: anita.sweigert@nist.gov. Web site: http://www.surf.nist.gov/surf2.htm.

Technical questions for the programs should be directed to the following contact persons: For the EEEL SURF Program, Dr. David Newell, Tel: (301) 975-4228, E-mail: david.newell@nist.gov; for the MEL SURF Program, Ms. Lisa Jean Fronczek, Tel: (301) 975-6633, E-mail: lfronczek@nist.gov; for the CSTL SURF Program, Dr. Albert Lee, Tel: (301) 975-2857, E-mail: albert.lee@nist.gov or Jeanice Brown Thomas, Tel: (301) 975-3120, E-mail: jeanice.brownthomas@nist.gov; for the PL SURF Program, Dr. Marc Desrosiers, Tel: (301) 975-5639, E-mail: marc.desrosiers@nist.gov; for the MSEL SURF Program, Dr. Terrell A. Vanderah, Tel: (301) 975-5785, E-mail: terrell.vanderah@nist.gov; for the BFRL SURF Program, Dr. Chris White, Tel: (301) 975-6016, E-mail: cwhite@nist.gov, or Dr. Chiara Ferraris, Tel: (301) 975-6711, E-mail: chiara.ferraris@nist.gov; and for the ITL SURF Program, Dr. Larry Reeker, Tel: (301) 975-5147, E-mail: larry.reeker@nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: The objective of the SURF Programs is to build a mutually beneficial relationship between the student, the institution of higher learning, and NIST.

The program description for the SURF Programs is as follows: NIST is one of the nation's premiere research institutions for the physical and engineering sciences and, as the lead Federal agency for technology transfer, it provides a strong interface between government, industry and academia. NIST embodies a special science culture, developed from a large and well-equipped research staff that enthusiastically blends programs that address the immediate needs of industry with longer-term research that anticipates future needs. This occurs in few other places and enables the EEEL, MEL, CSTL, PL, MSEL, BFRL, and ITL to offer unique research and training opportunities for undergraduates, providing them a research-rich environment and exposure to state of the art equipment.

NIST's EEEL strives to be the world's best source of fundamental and industrial-reference measurement methods and physical standards for electrotechnology. To be a world-class resource for semiconductor measurements, data, models, and standards focused on enhancing U.S. technological competitiveness in the world market, research is conducted in semiconductor materials, processing, devices, and integrated circuits to provide, through both experimental and theoretical work, the necessary basis for understanding measurement-related requirements in semiconductor technology. To provide the world's most technically advanced and fundamentally sound basis for all electrical measurements in the United States, the EEEL's research projects include maintaining and disseminating the national electrical standards, developing the measurement methods and services needed to support electrical materials, components, instruments, and systems used for the generation, transmission, and application of conducted electrical power, and related activities in support of the electronics industry including research on video technology and electronic product data exchange.

NIST's MEL conducts theoretical and experimental research in length, mass, force, vibration, acoustics, and ultrasonics, as well as intelligent machines, precision control of machine tools, and information technology for the integration of all elements of a product's life cycle. Much of this applied research is devoted to overcoming barriers to the next technological revolution, in which manufacturing facilities are spread across the globe. MEL's research and development leads to standards, test methods and data that are crucial to industry's success in exploiting advanced manufacturing technology. Critical components of manufacturing at any level are measurement and measurement-related standards, not just of products, but increasingly of information about products and processes. Thus, MEL programs enhance both physical and information-based measurements and standards. Research projects can be theoretical or experimental, and will range in focus from intelligent machine control, characterizing a manufacturing process or improving product data exchange in manufacturing and related industries such as healthcare, to the accurate measurement of an artifact's dimensions.

NIST's CSTL strives to be a world-class research laboratory that is recognized by the nation as the primary source for the chemical, biochemical, and chemical engineering measurements, data, models, and reference standards that are required to enhance U.S. industrial competitiveness in the world market. CSTL is the primary reference laboratory for chemical measurements, entrusted with developing, maintaining, advancing, and enabling the chemical measurement system for the United States of America, thereby enhancing industry's productivity and competitiveness, establishing comparability of measurements to facilitate equity of global trade, and improving public health, safety, and environmental quality. CSTL's activities include: Transportation, Biomaterials, Biotechnology, Chemical and Allied Products, Energy Systems, Environmental Technology and Systems, Health and Medical Products and Services, Industrial and Analytical Instruments and Services, Forensics, Microelectronics, Food and Nutritional Products, International Measurement Standards, Data and Informatics, and emerging Technologies (Nanotechnology, Molecular Electronics, Microfluidics, Combinatorial Chemistry).

Attending to the long-term needs of many U.S. high-technology industries, NIST's PL conducts basic research in the areas of quantum, electron, optical, atomic, molecular, and radiation physics. To achieve these goals, PL staff develop and utilize highly specialized equipment, such as polarized electron microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, lasers, and x-ray and synchrotron radiation sources. Research projects can be theoretical or experimental and will range in focus from computer modeling of fundamental processes through trapping atoms and choreographing molecular collisions, to standards for radiation therapy.

NIST's MSEL conducts basic research in the electronic, magnetic, optical, superconducting, mechanical, thermal, chemical, and structural properties of metals, ceramics, polymers, and composites. Much of this applied research is devoted to overcoming barriers to the next technological revolution, in which individual atoms and molecules will serve as the fundamental building blocks of devices. Preparation of unique materials by atomic level tailoring of multi-layers, perfect single crystals, and nanocomposites are just some of the future technologies being developed and explored in NIST's MSEL. To achieve these goals, staff develop and utilize highly specialized equipment, such as high resolution electron microscopes, atomic force microscopes, neutron scattering instruments, x-ray diffraction sources, lasers, magnetometers, plasma furnaces, melt spinners, molecular beam epitaxy systems, and thermal spray systems. Research projects can be theoretical or experimental and will range in focus from the structural, chemical, and morphological characterization of advanced materials made in the NIST laboratories to the accurate measurement of the unique properties possessed by these special materials.

NIST's BFRL provides technical leadership and participates in developing the measurement and standards infrastructure related to materials critical to U.S. industry, academia, government, and the public. Building and Fire Research programs at NIST cover a full range of materials issues from design to processing to performance. Separate research initiatives address concrete, coating, earthquake resistance of structures, fire science and engineering, the theory and modeling of materials, and materials reliability. Through laboratory-organized consortia and one-on-one collaborations, BFRL's scientists and engineers work closely with industrial researchers, manufacturers of high-technology products, and the major users of advanced materials.

NIST's ITL responds to industry and user needs for objective, neutral tests for information technology. These are enabling tools that help companies produce the next generation of products and services, and that help industries and individuals use these complex products and services. ITL works with industry, research and government organizations to develop and demonstrate tests, test methods, reference data, proof of concept implementations and other infrastructural technologies. Program activities include: high performance computing and communications systems; emerging network technologies; access to, exchange, and retrieval of complex information; computational and statistical methods; information security; and testing tools and methods to improve the quality of software.

SURF students will have the opportunity to work one-on-one with our nation's top scientists and engineers. It is anticipated that successful SURF students will move from a position of reliance on guidance from their research advisors to one of research independence during the twelve-week period. One goal of this partnership is to provide opportunities for our nation's next generation of scientists and engineers to engage in world-class scientific research at NIST, especially in ground-breaking areas of emerging technologies. This carries with it the hope of motivating individuals to pursue a Ph.D. in physics, chemistry, materials science, engineering, mathematics, or computer science, and to consider research careers. The SURF Programs will help to forge partnerships with NSF and with post-secondary institutions that demonstrate strong, hands-on undergraduate science curricula, especially those with a demonstrated commitment to the education of women, minorities, and students with disabilities.

Eligibility: The EEEL, MEL, CSTL, PL, MSEL, BFRL, and ITL, SURF Programs are open to colleges and universities in the United States and its territories with degree granting programs in materials science, chemistry, engineering, computer science, mathematics, or physics. Participating students must be U.S. citizens or permanent U.S. residents.

Funding Availability: Funds budgeted for payment to students under these programs are stipends, not salary. The SURF Programs will not authorize funds for indirect costs or fringe benefits.

For the EEEL SURF Program, the NIST EEEL anticipates receiving funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $73,000 per year. It is anticipated that the funding for the EEEL SURF Program will provide for the costs of stipends, travel and lodging, and the conference attendance for approximately eleven students.

For the MEL SURF Program, the NIST MEL anticipates receiving funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $52,000 per year. For the CSTL SURF Program, the NIST CSTL will pursue funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $40,000 per year and may contribute additional NIST CSTL funds to support additional students. For the BFRL SURF Program, the NIST BFRL anticipates receiving funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $50,000 per year. For the ITL SURF Program, the NIST ITL anticipates receiving funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $50,000 per year. It is anticipated that the funding for the MEL, CSTL, BFRL and ITL SURF Programs will provide for the costs of stipends, travel and lodging, and the conference attendance of eight students for each program.

For the PL SURF Program, the NIST PL will commit approximately $50,000 to support these cooperative agreements. The NIST PL's REU Program is anticipating renewal of funding by the NSF at the level of $85,000 per year. The anticipated direct costs for stipends, travel, lodging, and conference attendance for 22 students is about $135,000.

For the MSEL SURF Program, the NIST MSEL anticipates receiving funding as a NSF REU Program at the level of $70,000 per year. It is anticipated that this funding will provide for the costs of stipends, travel and lodging, and the conference attendance of 10 students.

The actual number of awards made under this announcement will depend on the actual costs. For all SURF Programs described in this notice, it is expected that individual awards to institutions will range from approximately $3,000 to $70,000. NIST is in the process of determining whether NIST will contract directly with apartment complexes for student housing, or whether funding for student housing will be included in cooperative agreements awarded as a result of this notice. Selected applicants will be informed prior to award whether housing will be provided via the cooperative agreement or provided separately by NIST.

Proposal Review Process: All SURF Program proposals are submitted to the Administrative Coordinator. Each proposal is examined for completeness and responsiveness. Substantially incomplete or non-responsive proposals will not be considered for funding, and the applicant will be notified. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. Proposals should include the following:

(A) Student Information:

(1) Student application information cover sheet;

(2) Academic transcript for each student nominated for participation (students must have a recommended G.P.A. of 3.0 or better, out of a possible 4.0);

(3) A personal statement from each student and statement of commitment to participate in the 2003 SURF program, including a description of the student's prioritized research interests;

(4) A resume for each student;

(5) Two letters of recommendation for each student;

(6) Verification of U.S. citizenship or permanent legal resident status for each student; and

(7) Verification of health coverage for each student.

(B) Information About the Applicant Institution:

(1) Description of the institution's education and research programs; and

(2) A summary list of the student(s) being nominated.

Institution proposals will be separated into student/institution packets. Each student/institution packet will be comprised of the required application forms, including a complete copy of the student information and a complete copy of the institution information. The student/institution packets will be directed to the SURF Program designated by the student as his/her first choice. Each SURF Program will have three independent, objective NIST employees who are knowledgeable in the scientific areas that the program addresses conduct a technical review of each student/institution packet based on the Evaluation Criteria for the SURF Programs described in this notice. Each technical reviewer will recommend that each student/institution packet be placed into one of three categories: Priority funding; fund if possible; and do not fund. Each student/institution packet will then be placed into one of the three categories by the Program's Director, who will take into consideration the reviewers' recommendations, the relevance of the student's course of study to the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which that SURF Program resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the priority funding category will be selected for funding in that SURF Program. Student/institution packets placed in the do not fund category will not be considered for funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the Fund if Possible Category will be considered for funding by the SURF Program designated by the student as his/her second choice. In making selections for funding, the Director of the student's second choice SURF Program will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews for the student's first choice SURF Program, the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which the student's second choice SURF Program resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance of the student's statement of commitment to the goals of the SURF Program, and the availability of funding.

Students not selected for funding by their first or second choice SURF Program, and students who did not designate a second choice, will then be considered for funding from all SURF Programs that still have slots available. In making selections for funding, the SURF Program Directors will take into consideration the recommendations of the reviewers who conducted the technical reviews for the student's first choice SURF Program, the program objectives of the NIST laboratory in which their SURF Program resides as described in the Program Description and Objectives section of this notice, the relevance to the goals of the SURF Program, and the availability of funding.

Student/institution packets placed in the fund if possible category, but not selected through the process described above, will not be funded.

The final approval of selected applications and award of cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

Evaluation Criteria: For the SURF Programs, the evaluation criteria are:

Evaluation of student's academic ability and commitment to program goals: includes evaluation of the following: completed course work; expressed research interest; compatibility of the expressed research interest with SURF Program research areas; research skills; grade point average in courses relevant to the SURF Program; career goals; honors and activities.

Evaluation of applicant institution's commitment to program goals: includes evaluation of the following: the institution's academic department(s) relevant to the discipline(s) of the student(s).

Each of these factors is given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Award Period: The SURF Programs are anticipated to run from May 27 through August 15, 2003; adjustments may be made to accommodate specific academic schedules (e.g., a limited number of 9-week cooperative agreements).

Matching Requirements: The SURF Programs do not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: For the EEEL, MEL, CSTL, PL, MSEL, BFRL, and ITL SURF Programs, an application kit, containing all required forms and certifications, may be obtained by contacting Ms. Anita Sweigert, (301) 975-4200; websites for each program's application kit may be accessed through the following Web site: http://www.surf.nist.gov/surf2.htm.

Dates: The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.

Addresses: For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal package to: Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, Attn.: Sheilda Bryner, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8100. Tel.:(301) 975-2220. Fax: (301) 975-4091.

Program Description and Objectives: The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program solicits proposals in support of the broad program objectives identified below.

The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program supports the formal mission of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory, which is to strengthen the U.S. economy and improve the quality of life by providing measurement science and technology, and by advancing standards, primarily for the electronics and electrical industries.

More specifically, the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program solicits proposals to support specific programs in the areas of metrology for semiconductors (including mainstream silicon, power devices, and compound semiconductors), superconductors (including cryoelectronics and bulk superconductors), electronic instrumentation, optoelectronics, magnetics (including bulk magnetic materials and magnetic data storage), video (including flat-panel displays), electronic commerce as applied to electronic products and devices, the transmission and distribution of electrical power, national electrical standards (fundamental, generally quantum-based physical standards), and law enforcement (clothing, communication systems, emergency equipment, investigative aids, protective equipment, security systems, vehicles, speed-measuring equipment, weapons, and analytical techniques and standard reference materials used by the public safety community).

For details on these various activities, please see the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Web site at http://www.eeel.nist.gov. Note that documents describing the current programs for the five participating technical divisions and two offices are available through the home page.

Technical contacts for these areas are:

Semiconductor Electronics Division—Division Chief: Dr. David G. Seiler; (301) 975-2054; david.seiler@nist.gov.

Office of Microelectronics Programs—Director: Dr. Stephen Knight; (301) 975-4400; stephen.knight@nist.gov.

Magnetic Technology Division—Division Chief: Dr. Alan F. Clark; (303) 497-5477; aclark@boulder.nist.gov.

Electromagnetic Technology Division—Division Chief: Dr. Richard E. Harris; (303) 497-3678; richard.harris@boulder.nist.gov.

Electricity Division—Division Chief: Dr. James K. Olthoff; (301) 975-2400; james.olthoff@nist.gov.

Optoelectronics Division; Office of Optoelectronics Programs—Division Chief and Office Director: Dr. Gordon W. Day; (303) 497-5432; gwday@boulder.nist.gov.

Office of Law Enforcement Standards—Director: Dr. Kathleen Higgins; (301) 975-2757; kathleen.higgins@nist.gov.

Eligibility: The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: Over the past three years, the Electronics and Electrical Engineering laboratory funded a total of approximately $1,500,000 in grants and cooperative agreements. The amount available each year fluctuates considerably based on programmatic needs. Individual awards are expected to range between $5,000 and $150,000.

Proposal Review Process: For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be distributed to the appropriate Division Chief or Office Director or designee based on technical area by one or more technical professionals familiar with the programs of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory. The proposals will be reviewed in a two-step process. First, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the Program Description and Objectives section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below.

Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, and all proposals received during the quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. Second, the Division Chief or Office Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Office Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with the program objectives of the particular division or office that the proposal addresses, the availability of funding, and relevance to the objectives of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, as described above. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time.

Evaluation Criteria: For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria and weights to be used by the technical reviewers in evaluating the proposals are as follows:

Proposal addresses specific program objectives as described in this notice (25%);

Proposal provides evidence of applicant's expertise in relevant technical area (20%);

Proposal offers innovative approach (20%);

Proposal provides realistic schedule with defined milestones (20%);

Proposal provides adequate rationale for budget (15%).

Award Period: For the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: An application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available on the web at http://www.eeel.nist.gov/eeel grants/ or by contacting: Sheilda Bryner, (301) 975-2220, sheilda.bryner@nist.gov.

Dates: The MEL Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. Each applicant must submit one signed original and two copies of each proposal along with a Grant Application (Standard Form 424 REV. 7/97 and other required forms).

Addresses: For the MEL Grants Program, submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal, clearly marked to identify the field of research, to: Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory, Attn: Mrs. Barbara Horner, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8200, Building 220, Room B322, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8200. Tel: (301) 975-4345. E-mail: barbara.horner@nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: All proposals submitted must be in accordance with the program objectives listed below. The appropriate Program Manager for each field of research may be contacted for clarification of the program objectives.

I. Precision Engineering Division, 821—The primary objective is to support laboratory programs in the areas of Engineering Metrology, Large-Scale Metrology, Nanometer-Scale Metrology, and Surface Metrology. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Dennis Swyt, and he may be reached at (301) 975-3463; dennis.swyt@nist.gov.

II. Manufacturing Metrology Division, 822—The primary objective is to support laboratory programs in Mechanical Metrology; Advanced Optics Metrology; Predictive Process Engineering; and Smart Machine Tools. The contact person for this division is: Dr. E. Clayton Teague, and he may be reached at (301) 975-6600; clayton.teague@nist.gov.

III. Intelligent Systems Division, 823—The primary objective is to support laboratory programs in Intelligent Open Architecture Control of Manufacturing Systems, Intelligent Controls of Mobility Systems, and Intelligent Systems. The contact person for this division is: Mr. Albert Wavering, and he may be reached at (301) 975-3418; albert.wavering@nist.gov.

IV. Manufacturing Systems Integration Division, 826—The primary objective is to pursue semantics- and ontology-based systems integration technology and standards through support of laboratory programs in Manufacturing Enterprise Integration; Manufacturing Simulation and Visualization; Integrated Simulations for Homeland Defense and Emergency Response; Product Engineering; Healthcare Informatics; and Meso-Micro-Nano-Manufacturing. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Steven R. Ray, and he may be reached at (301) 975-3508; steven.ray@nist.gov.

Eligibility: The MEL Grants Program is be open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: In fiscal year 2003, the MEL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $750,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $25,000 to $300,000.

Proposal Review Process: Responsive proposals will be reviewed in a two-step process. First, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of proposals, based on the evaluation criteria described below. Reviews will be conducted no less than once per quarter, and all proposals since the last review session will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but ranks will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Second, the Division Chief or Laboratory Director will make application selections.

In making application selections, the Division Chief or Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with the program objectives of the particular division that the proposal addresses, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the MEL Grants Program. These objectives are described above in the Program Objectives. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

Evaluation Criteria: For the MEL Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows:

1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.

2. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of manufacturing engineering and metrology research.

3. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.

4. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary NIST or other facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.

Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Award Period: For the MEL Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the MEL program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The MEL Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: An application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by electronic mail to: Mrs. Barbara Horner, barbara.horner@nist.gov. Alternatively, Mrs. Horner can be contacted at (301) 975-4345.

Dates: The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.

Addresses: For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grant Program applicants are requested to submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal clearly marked to identify the field of research to: Attn: Dr. William F. Koch, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8300, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8300. Tel (301) 975-8301. E-Mail: william.koch@nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: All proposals submitted to the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program must be in accordance with the program objectives and programs listed below. Proposals submitted to the CSTL Grants Program must address a specific measurement issue relevant to one of the stated CSTL Programs, and must be directed to a specific Division. The appropriate Division Chief for each field of research may be contacted for clarification of the program objectives. Additional information about the Divisions and CSTL Programs may be obtained at the following Web site: http://www.cstl.nist.gov/.

CSTL is the United States' primary reference laboratory for chemical measurements, entrusted with developing, maintaining, advancing, and enabling the Nation's chemical measurement system, thereby enhancing industry's productivity and competitiveness, establishing comparability of measurements to facilitate equity of global trade, and improving public health, safety, and environmental quality. CSTL focuses its activities in measurement science research on reference methods, reference materials and reference data, and directs these efforts in support of the following specific Program areas aligned with industrial segments and National priorities:

1. Automotive and Aerospace;

2. Biomaterials;

3. Pharmaceuticals and Biomanufacturing;

4. Chemical and Allied Products;

5. Energy Systems;

6. Environmental Technologies and Services;

7. Food and Nutritional Products;

8. Forensics and Homeland Security;

9. Health and Medical Products and Services;

10. Industrial and Analytical Instruments and Services;

11. Microelectronics.

These Programs are structured to support CSTL's three objectives:

• Provide the national traceability and international comparability structure for measurements in chemistry, chemical engineering, and biotechnology.

• Assure that U.S. industry has access to accurate and reliable data and predictive models to determine the chemical and physical properties of materials and processes.

• Anticipate and address next-generation measurement needs of the Nation. CSTL conducts its research and is organized along disciplinary lines:

Biotechnology Division: DNA chemistry, sequencing; Protein structure, properties, and modeling; Biomaterials; Biocatalysis and bioprocessing measurements. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Vincent L. Vilker, and he may be reached at (301) 975-2629.

Process Measurements Division: Research, calibration services and provision of primary standards for temperature, pressure, vacuum, humidity, fluid flow, air speed, liquid density and volume, and gaseous leak-rate measurements; Sensor research. The contact person for this division is: Dr. James R. Whetstone, and he may be reached at (301) 975-2609.

Surface and Microanalysis Science Division: Nanoscale chemical characterization; Particle characterization and standards; Electronic and advanced materials characterization; Surface and interface chemistry; Advanced isotope metrology. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Richard R. Cavanagh, and he may be reached at (301) 975-2368.

Physical and Chemical Properties Division: Basic reference data; Data for process and product design; Properties of energy-related fluids; Fundamental studies of fluids; Cryogenic technologies; Computational chemistry. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Mickey Haynes, and he may be reached at (303) 497-3247.

Analytical Chemistry Division: Chemical measurements research and services in: Analytical sensing technologies; Classical analytical methods; Gas metrology; Laboratory automation technology; Nuclear analytical methods; Organic analytical methods; and Spectrochemical measurement methods. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Willie E. May, and he may be reached at (301) 975-3108.

Eligibility: The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: In fiscal year 2003, the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory anticipates funding of approximately $1,000,000. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $5,000 to $100,000.

No funds have been set aside specifically for support of the CSTL Grants Program. The availability of funds depends upon actual authorization of funds and other costs expected to be incurred by individual divisions within the laboratory. Where funds are identified as available for grants, those funds will be awarded to highly ranked proposals as determined by the process described in this notice.

Proposal Review Process: For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, proposals will be reviewed in a three-step process. First, the Deputy Director of CSTL, or appropriate CSTL Division Chief, will determine the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with CSTL Program Areas, the alignment of the measurement issue that the proposal addresses with division activities, and the relevance to the objectives of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program. These objectives are described in the “Program Objectives” section. If it is determined that the proposal is incomplete or non-responsive to the scope of the stated objectives, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. If it is determined that all funds available for the CSTL Grants Program for the given year have been exhausted, the proposal will not be reviewed for technical merit. If a proposal is determined to be incomplete or non-responsive, or if it is determined that all available funds have been exhausted, the CSTL Grants Program will retain one copy of the proposal for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Second, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular measurement science area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. Reviews will be conducted on a quarterly basis, and all responsive, complete proposals received and reviewed since the last quarter will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but ranks will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

Third, the Division Chief will make application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the availability of funds, and the relevance of the proposal to the programmatic priorities of the Division described in the Program Description and Objectives section above.

The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decisions of the Grants Officer are final.

Evaluation Criteria: For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows:

1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.

2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.

3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.

4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of measurement science, especially as it pertains to reference methods, reference materials and reference data in Chemical Science and Technology.

Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Award Period: For the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grant Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e. the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Contact: For information on the Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory Grants Program, please contact Dr. William Koch, (301) 975-8301.

Application Kit: For the CSTL Grants Program, an application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by contacting Mr. Neil Alderoty, (301) 975-8303.

Dates: The Physics Laboratory Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.

Addresses: For the Physics Laboratory Grant Program applicants are requested to submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal clearly marked to identify the field of research to: Attn. Ms. Anita Sweigert, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8400, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8400. Tel (301) 975-4200. E-Mail: anita.sweigert@nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: All proposals submitted to the Physics Laboratory Grants Program must be in accordance with the program objectives listed below. The appropriate Program Manager for each field of research may be contacted for clarification of the program objectives.

I. Electron and Optical Physics Division, 841—The objective is to supplement division activities in characterization of nanometer-scale electronic and magnetic structures, characterization of EUV optical components to support semiconductor lithography and ultraviolet radiometric metrology, and to support ongoing activities in Bose-Einstein condensation and quantum information. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Charles W. Clark and he may be reached at (301) 975-3709.

II. Atomic Physics Division, 842—The primary objective is to support division programs aimed at determining basic atomic properties and developing new metrology techniques in atomic spectroscopy, quantum processes, plasma radiation, laser cooling and trapping, and quantum metrology. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Wolfgang L. Wiese and he may be reached at (301) 975-3200.

III. Optical Technology Division, 844—The primary objective is to develop, improve and maintain national standards for radiation thermometry, spectroradiometry, photometry, and spectrophotometry as well as conduct basic theoretical and experimental research on the photophysical and photochemical properties of materials, in radiometric and spectroscopic techniques and instrumentation, and in the application of optical technologies. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Albert C. Parr and he may be reached at (301) 975-2316.

IV. Ionizing Radiation Division, 846—The primary objective is to provide primary standards, measurement methods, and technology to support the Division's work in meeting national needs in radiation interactions and dosimetry, neutron interactions and dosimetry, and radioactivity including both theoretical/experimental and applied research programs in Homeland Security and Health Care. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Bert M. Coursey and he may be reached at (301) 975-5584.

V. Time and Frequency Division, 847—The primary objective is to supplement division basic and applied research programs in the areas of phase noise measurements, network synchronization, ion storage, atomic standards and optical frequency measurements in support of future standards, dissemination services, and measurement methods. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Donald B. Sullivan and he may be reached at (303) 497-3772.

Eligibility: The Physics Laboratory Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; state, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: In fiscal year 2003, the Physics Laboratory anticipates funding of approximately $2,000,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Funding availability will be apportioned by quarter. Individual awards are expected to range from approximately $5,000 to $300,000.

Proposal Review Process: For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, responsive proposals will be considered as follows: first, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. Reviews will be conducted on a monthly basis, and all proposals received during the month will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores. If non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus.

Next, the Division Chief will make final application selections, taking into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, including rank; the compilation of a slate that, when taken as a whole, is likely to best further the program goals described above; and the availability of funds.

The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible.

Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award.

The decisions of the Grants Officer are final.

Evaluation Criteria: For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows:

1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.

2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.

3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary NIST or other facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.

4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of physics.

Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Award Period: For the Physics Laboratory Grant Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year project is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Physics Laboratory program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The Physics Laboratory Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: For the Physics Laboratory Grants Program, an application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by contacting Ms. Anita Sweigert, (301) 975-4201.

Dates: The MSEL Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds. Each applicant must submit one signed original and two copies of each proposal along with a Grant Application, (Standard Form 424 REV. 7/97 and other required forms).

Addresses: For the MSEL Grants Program, submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal, clearly marked to identify the field of research, to: Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, Attn.: Ms. Marlene Taylor, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8501, Building 223, Room A305, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8501. Tel: (301) 975-5653. E-mail: marlene.taylor@nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: All proposals submitted to the MSEL Grants Program must be in accordance with the program objectives listed below. The appropriate Program Manager for each field of research may be contacted for clarification of the program objectives.

I. Laboratory Office, 850—The primary objective is to supplement Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory activities of importance to materials science generally, including portions of Federal research and development programs performed in concert with other Federal agencies; and theoretical and computational materials science. The contact person for the Laboratory Office is: Dr. Stephen W. Freiman and he may be reached at (301) 975-5658 or by e-mail at stephen.freiman@nist.gov.

II. Ceramics Division, 852—The primary objective is to supplement division activities in the area of combinatorial tools, nanotribology, nano- and micro-electronic materials, dielectric ceramics, interfacial chemistry, and microstructural analysis. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Ronald Munro and he may be reached at (301) 975-6127 or by e-mail at ronald.munro@nist.gov.

III. Materials Reliability Division, 853—The primary objective is to supplement division activities in the area of micro- and nano-scale property measurement. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Thomas Siewert and he may be reached at (303) 497-3523 or by e-mail at siewert@boulder.nist.gov.

IV. Polymers Division, 854—The primary objective is to support division programs in electronics materials, biomaterials, combinatorial methods, nano-structured materials and processing characterization through participation in research on metrology, synthesis, processing and characterization of structure, mechanical, thermal and electrical properties. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Bruno Fanconi and he may be reached at (301) 975-6769 or by e-mail at bruno.fanconi@nist.gov.

V. Metallurgy Division, 855—The primary objective is to develop techniques to predict, measure and control transformations, phases, microstructure and kinetic processes as well as mechanical, physical and chemical properties in metals and their alloys. The contact person for this division is: Dr. Frank W. Gayle and he may be reached at (301) 975-6161 or by e-mail at frank.gayle@nist.gov.

VI. NIST Center for Neutron Research, 856—The primary objective is to develop high resolution cold and thermal neutron scattering research approaches and related physics, chemistry, macromolecular and materials applications. Awards to universities for participation by university students in the NIST/NSF Center for High Resolution Scattering are also funded under this program. The contact person for this division is: Dr. John J. Rush and he may be reached at (301) 975-6231 or by e-mail at john.rush@nist.gov.

Eligibility: The MSEL Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: In fiscal year 2003, the MSEL Grants Program anticipates funding of approximately $6,000,000, including new awards and continuing projects. Most grants and cooperative agreements are expected to be in the $25,000 to $100,000 per year range.

Proposal Review Process: For the MSEL Grants Program proposals will be reviewed in a two-step process. First, at least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described in the section above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of proposals, as they are received on a rolling basis, based on the evaluation criteria. If non-Federal reviewers are used, the reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but ranks will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Second, the Division Chief or Center Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Center Director will take into consideration the results of the reviewers' evaluations, the compatibility of the applicant's proposal with the program objectives of the particular division or center that the proposal addresses, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the MSEL Grants Program. These objectives are described above in the “Program Objectives” section. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.

Evaluation Criteria: For the MSEL Grants Program, the evaluation criteria the technical reviewers will use in evaluating the proposals are as follows:

1. Rationality. Reviewers will consider the coherence of the applicant's approach and the extent to which the proposal effectively addresses scientific and technical issues.

2. Qualifications of Technical Personnel. Reviewers will consider the professional accomplishments, skills, and training of the proposed personnel to perform the work in the project.

3. Resources Availability. Reviewers will consider the extent to which the proposer has access to the necessary NIST or other facilities and overall support to accomplish project objectives.

4. Technical Merit of Contribution. Reviewers will consider the potential technical effectiveness of the proposal and the value it would contribute to the field of materials science and engineering and neutron research.

Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.

Award Period: For the MSEL Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the MSEL program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The MSEL Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: For the MSEL Grants Program, an application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by contacting Ms. Marlene Taylor, (301) 975-5653.

Dates: The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after June 30, 2003 will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.

Addresses: For the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal package to: Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Attn.: Karen Perry, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8602, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8602. Tel.: (301) 975-5910. Fax: (301) 975-4032.

Program Description and Objectives: The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program supports the formal mission of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, which is to meet the measurement and standards needs of the Building and Fire communities. All proposals submitted must be in accordance with the program objectives listed below. The appropriate Program Manager for each field of research may be contacted for clarification of the program objectives.

1. Materials and Construction Research Division, 861—The primary objective is to support laboratory programs in the areas of Structures, Construction Metrology and Automation, Inorganic Materials, and Polymeric Materials (including safety, security, and sustainability of building and physical infrastructure, service-life performance of building materials, and construction cycle time). The contact person for this division is: Dr. Shyam Sunder, and he may be reached at (301) 975-6713.

2. Building Environment Division, 863—The primary objective is to support laboratory programs in the areas of Thermal Machinery, Mechanical Systems and Controls, Heat Transfer and Alternative Energy Systems, Computer Integrated Construction and Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation (including cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection of building management and control systems, and life-cycle information management in buildings). The contact person for this division is: Dr. George E. Kelly, and he may be reached at (301) 975-5850.

For details on these various activities, please see the Building and Fire Research Laboratory website at http://www.bfrl.nist.gov. Note that documents describing the current programs for the two technical divisions are available through the homepage.

Eligibility: The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: Over the past three years, the building divisions of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory funded a total of approximately $1,000,000 in grants and cooperative agreements. The amount available each year fluctuates considerably based on programmatic needs. Individual awards are expected to range between $5,000 and $150,000.

Proposal Review Process: All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for recordkeeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Responsive proposals will be forwarded to the appropriate Division Chief, who will assign them to appropriate reviewers. At least three independent, objective individuals knowledgeable about the particular scientific area described above that the proposal addresses will conduct a technical review of each proposal, based on the evaluation criteria described below. When non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Reviews will be conducted no less than once per quarter, and all proposals since the last review session will be ranked based on the reviewers' scores.

Next, the Division Chief or Laboratory Director will make application selections. In making application selections, the Division Chief or Laboratory Director will take into consideration the results of the evaluations, the scores of the reviewers, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the Building Systems Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, as described in the Program Description and Objectives section for this program.

The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time. The Program will retain one copy of each application that is not funded for three years for recordkeeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Evaluation Criteria: The Divisions will score proposals based on the following criteria and weights:

1. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal and the fit to NIST's in-house building research programs. (0-35 points)

2. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to our in-house programs and the building industry. (0-25 points)

3. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points)

4. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points)

Award Period: For the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will generally be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, NIST has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award. Continuation of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent upon satisfactory progress, continued relevance to the mission of the Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program, and the availability of funds. The multi-year awards must have scopes of work that can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that represent solid accomplishments if prospective funding is not made available to the applicant, (i.e., the scopes of work for each funding period must produce identifiable and meaningful results in and of themselves).

Matching Requirements: The Building Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: An application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by contacting: Karen Perry, (301) 975-5910.

Dates: The Fire Research Grants Program proposals must be received no later than the close of business September 30, 2003. Proposals received after April 30, 2003, will continue to be processed and considered for funding but may be funded in the next fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.

Addresses: For the Fire Research Grants Program submit one signed original and two copies of the proposal to: Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL), Attn.: Ms. Wanda Duffin, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8660, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8660. Tel: (301) 975-6863. E-mail: wanda.duffin@nist.gov. Web site:http://www.bfrl.nist.gov.

Program Description and Objectives: The program description and objectives for the Fire Research Grants Program are as follows:

A. Analysis and Prediction: The objectives are to develop understanding and predictive methods for dynamic fire phenomena to advance fire science and engineering practice and to perform research to understand the heat and mass transfer processes occurring in fires in order to improve predictions of the growth, spread, suppression, and emissions transport from fires of all scales. Experiments and metrology are developed and used to develop, support, and verify advanced computer simulations of fire phenomena, fire hazards, fire protection, and fire fighting. The contact person for this group is: Dr. Anthony Hamins, and he may be reached at (301) 975-6598.

B. Fire Metrology: The objective is to apply measurement science in the development and quantification of new and existing measurement methods for studying fire growth, fire-induced flows, flame radiation, smoke formation and dynamics, species production, heat transfer, fire suppression, and fire detection. The contact person for this group is: Dr. George Mulholland, and he may be reached at (301) 975-6695.

C. Fire Fighting Technology: The objectives are to conduct research that enables advances in fire fighter safety, fire ground operations, and effectiveness of the fire service; develop and apply measurements, modeling, and technology, and improve the understanding of the behavior, prevention and control of fires to enhance: fire fighting operations and equipment, fire suppression, fire investigations, and disaster response; and provide input, including experimental data, fire modeling and test protocols, to advance the effectiveness of fire safety standards and codes. The contact person for this group is Mr. Nelson Bryner, and he may be reached at (301) 975-6868.

D. Integrated Performance Assessment: The objective is to produce tools utilizing enhanced data and prediction methods to quantify fire events for fire hazard and risk assessment; for fire fighting operations and training; for fire investigations; and for performance evaluations of fire protection systems in buildings, transportation systems, and vehicles in response to fire. Stakeholders include architects and design engineers; manufacturers of building materials, products, and furnishings; code developers, enforcers, and regulatory authorities; and those exposed to direct risk such as building owners, occupants, the fire service, and the general public. The contact person for this group is: Dr. Kathy Notarianni, and she can be reached at (301) 975-6883.

E. Materials and Products: The objective is to perform research enabling the confident development by industry of new, less-flammable materials and products. This capability is based on understanding fundamentally the mechanisms that control the ignition, flame spread and burning rate of materials, as well as and the chemical and physical characteristics that affect these aspects of flammability. This includes: Developing methods of measuring the response of a material to fire conditions that enable assured prediction of the full-scale performance of the final product; developing computational molecular dynamics and other mechanistic approaches to understand flame retardant mechanisms and the effects of polymer chemical structure on flammability; characterizing the burning rates of charring and non-charring polymers and composites; and delineating and modeling the enthalpy and mass transfer mechanisms of materials combustion. The contact person for this group is Dr. Jeffrey Gilman, and he can be reached at (301) 975-6573.

Eligibility: The Fire Research Grants Program is open to institutions of higher education; hospitals; non-profit organizations; commercial organizations; State, local, and Indian tribal governments; foreign governments; organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments; and international organizations.

Funding Availability: For the Fire Research Grants Program, the annual budget is approximately $1.3 million. Because of commitments for the support of multi-year projects and because proposals may have been deferred from the previous year's competition, only a portion of the budget is available to fund applications received in response to this notice. Most grants and cooperative agreements are in the $10,000 to $100,000 per year range, with a maximum requested duration of three years.

Proposal Review Process: Prospective proposers are encouraged to contact the above researchers to determine the extent of interest prior to preparation of a detailed proposal. Responsive proposals will be assigned, as received on a rolling basis, to the appropriate group leader of the five programs listed above in the program description and objectives. Proposals are evaluated for technical merit based on the evaluation criteria described below by at least three reviewers chosen from NIST professionals, technical experts from other interested government agencies, and experts from the fire research community at large. When non-Federal reviewers are used, reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Group leaders will make funding recommendations to the Division Chief based on the technical evaluation score and the relationship of the work proposed to the objectives of the program.

In making application selections, the Division Chief will take into consideration the results of the evaluations, the scores of the reviewers, the group leader's recommendation, the availability of funds, and relevance to the objectives of the Fire Research Grants Program, as described in the Program Description and Objectives section for this program. The final approval of selected applications and award of financial assistance will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with application requirements as published in this notice, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, compliance with Federal policies that best further the objectives of the Department of Commerce, and whether the recommended applicants appear to be responsible. Applicants may be asked to modify objectives, work plans, or budgets and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. The award decision of the Grants Officer is final. Applicants should allow up to 90 days processing time.

Evaluation Criteria: For the Fire Research Grants Program, the technical evaluation criteria are as follows:

a. Technical quality of the research. Reviewers will assess the rationality, innovation and imagination of the proposal and the fit to NIST's in-house fire research program. (0-35 points).

b. Potential impact of the results. Reviewers will assess the potential impact and the technical application of the results to our in-house programs and the fire safety community. (0-25 points)

c. Staff and institution capability to do the work. Reviewers will evaluate the quality of the facilities and experience of the staff to assess the likelihood of achieving the objective of the proposal. (0-20 points)

d. Match of budget to proposed work. Reviewers will assess the budget against the proposed work to ascertain the reasonableness of the request. (0-20 points)

Award Period: For the Fire Research Grants Program, proposals will be considered for research projects from one to three years. When a proposal for a multi-year project is approved, funding will initially be provided for only the first year of the program. If an application is selected for funding, DoC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Funding for each subsequent year of a multi-year proposal will be contingent on satisfactory progress, continuing relevance to the mission of the NIST Fire Research Program, and the availability of funds.

Matching Requirements: The Fire Research Grants Program does not require any matching funds.

Application Kit: For the Fire Research Grants Program, an application kit, containing all required application forms and certifications is available by contacting Ms. Wanda Duffin, (301) 975-6863, Web site: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov.

Additional Information: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this solicitation. In addition, the following information is applicable to all programs described above.

Collaborations with NIST Employees: All applications should include a description of any work proposed to be performed by an entity other than the applicant, and the cost of such work should ordinarily be included in the budget.

If an applicant proposes collaboration with NIST, the statement of work should include a statement of this intention, a description of the collaboration, and prominently identify the NIST employee(s) involved, if known. Any collaboration by a NIST employee must be approved by appropriate NIST management and is at the sole discretion of NIST. Prior to beginning the merit review process, NIST will verify the approval of the proposed collaboration. Any unapproved collaboration will be stricken from the proposal prior to the merit review.

Use of NIST Intellectual Property: If the applicant anticipates using any NIST-owned intellectual property, to carry out the work proposed, the applicant should identify such intellectual property. This information will be used to ensure that no NIST employee involved in the development of the intellectual property will participate in the review process for that competition. In addition, if the applicant intends to use NIST-owned intellectual property, the applicant must comply with all statutes and regulations governing the licensing of Federal government patents and inventions, described at 35 U.S.C. sec. 200-212, 37 CFR part 401, 15 CFR 14.36, and in section 20 of the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements, 66 FR 49917 (2001), as amended by the Federal Register notice published on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109). Questions about these requirements may be directed to the Counsel for NIST, 301-975-2803.

Any use of NIST-owned intellectual property by a proposer is at the sole discretion of NIST and will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis if a project is deemed meritorious. The applicant should indicate within the statement of work whether it already has a license to use such intellectual property or whether it intends to seek one.

If any inventions made in whole or in part by a NIST employee arise in the course of an award made pursuant to this notice, the United States government may retain its ownership rights in any such invention. Licensing or other disposition of NIST's rights in such inventions will be determined solely by NIST, and include the possibility of NIST putting the intellectual property into the public domain.

Funding Availability: For all Financial Assistance programs listed above, awards are contingent on the availability of funds.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number: Measurement and Engineering Research and Standards—11.609.

For Further Information Contact: All grants related administration questions concerning these programs should be directed to the NIST Grants and Agreements Manangement Division at (301) 975-6328.

Where websites are referenced within this notice, those without internet access may contact the appropriate Program official to obtain information.

Initial Screening of all Applications: All applications received in response to this announcement will be reviewed to determine whether or not they are complete and responsive to the scope of the stated objectives for each program. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be reviewed for technical merit. The Program will retain one copy of each non-responsive application for three years for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed.

Fees and/or Profit: It is not the intent of NIST to pay fee or profit for any of the financial assistance awards that may be issued pursuant to this announcement.

Automated Standardized Application for Payment System (ASAP): During FY 2002 and becoming mandatory in FY 2003, the Department of Commerce will begin using the Department of Treasury's ASAP. NIST began using the ASAP system in July 2001 and continues to establish new accounts in ASAP. Awards made pursuant to this announcement may contain the ASAP payment clause. In order to receive payments for services under these awards, recipients will be required to register with the Department of Treasury and indicate whether or not they will use the on-line or voice response method of withdrawing funds from their ASAP established accounts. More information regarding ASAP can be found on-line at http://www.fms.treas.gov/asap/index.html.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001.

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

Research Projects Involving Human Subjects, Human Tissue, Data or Recordings Involving Human Subjects: Any proposal that includes research involving human subjects, human tissue, data or recordings involving human subjects must meet the requirements of the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects, codified for the Department of Commerce at 15 CFR part 27. In addition, any proposal that includes research on these topics must be in compliance with any statutory requirements imposed upon the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and other federal agencies regarding these topics, all regulatory policies and guidance adopted by DHHS, FDA, and other Federal agencies on these topics, and all Presidential statements of policy on these topics.

On December 3, 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) introduced a new Federalwide Assurance of Protection of Human Subjects (FWA). The FWA covers all of an institution's Federally-supported human subjects research, and eliminates the need for other types of Assurance documents. The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) has suspended processing of multiple project assurance (MPA) renewals. All existing MPAs will remain in force until further notice. For information about FWAs, please see the OHRP Web site at http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/irbasur.htm.

In accordance with the DHHS change, NIST will continue to accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) possessing a current, valid MPA from DHHS. NIST also will accept the submission of human subjects protocols that have been approved by IRBs possessing a current, valid FWA from DHHS. NIST will not issue a single project assurance (SPA) for any IRB reviewing any human subjects protocol proposed to NIST.

On August 9, 2001, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being. NIST will follow guidance issued by the National Institutes of Health at http://escr.nih.gov/ for funding such research.

Research Projects Involving Vertebrate Animals: Any proposal that includes research involving vertebrate animals must be in compliance with the National Research Council's “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” which can be obtained from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20055. In addition, such proposals must meet the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3, and if appropriate, 21 CFR part 58. These regulations do not apply to proposed research using pre-existing images of animals or to research plans that do not include live animals that are being cared for, euthanased, or used by the project participants to accomplish research goals, teaching, or testing. These regulations also do not apply to obtaining animal materials from commercial processors of animal products or to animal cell lines or tissues from tissue banks.

Matching Funds: Although many of the programs described in this notice do not require cost share, if it is determined that your proposal falls within the authority of 19 U.S.C. 2543-45 cost share will be required as follows:

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2543-45, financial assistance shall not exceed 75 percent of such program or activity, when the primary purpose of such program or activity is—

(1) To increase the awareness of proposed and adopted standards-related activities;

(2) To facilitate international trade through the appropriate international and domestic standards-related activities;

(3) To provide adequate United States representation in international standards-related activities; and

(4) To encourage United States exports through increased awareness of foreign standards-related activities that may affect United States exports.

Type of Funding Instrument: The funding instrument will be a grant or cooperative agreement, depending on the nature of the proposed work. A grant will be used unless NIST is “substantially involved” in the project, in which case a cooperative agreement will be used. A common example of substantial involvement is collaboration between NIST scientists and recipient scientists or technicians. Please see the DoC Grants and Cooperative Agreements Interim Manual which may be found on the Internet at http://www.osec.doc.gov/oebam/GCA_manual.htm. NIST will make decisions regarding the use of a cooperative agreement on a case-by-case basis. Funding for contractual arrangements for services and products for delivery to NIST is not available under this announcement.

If a proposal submitted under this Notice is not properly funded by a grant or cooperative agreement, NIST will consider whether the proposal may be appropriately funded through procurement, interagency agreement, or another mechanism that does not involve a grant or cooperative agreement. NIST's review and consideration of that proposal will be consistent with the requirements applicable to that funding mechanism.

Indirect Costs: For the EEEL, MEL, CSTL, Physics, MSEL, BFRL, and ITL SURF Programs, no Federal funds will be authorized for Indirect Costs (IDC) nor fringe benefits; however, an applicant may provide for IDC and/or fringe benefits under his/her portion of Cost Sharing.

Classification: This funding notice was determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Applications under these programs are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

Members of the public who respond on the Interactive Customer Evaluation system are authorized customers and have been provided a service through DoD customer service organizations. They have the opportunity to give automated feedback to the service provider on the quality of their experience and their satisfaction level. They also have the opportunity to provide any comments that might be beneficial in improving the process and in turn the service to the customer. This is a management tool for improving customer services.

The Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is the nine-digit identification number assigned by Dun and Bradstreet Information Services to an establishment. The Government uses the DUNS number to identify contractors in reporting to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). The FPDS provides a comprehensive mechanism for assembling, organizing, and presenting contract placement data for the Federal Government. Federal agencies report data on all contracts in excess of $25,000.00 to the Federal Procurement Data Center which collects, processes, and disseminates official statistical data on Federal contracting. Contracting officers insert the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provision 52.204-6, Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Number in solicitations they expect will result in contracts in excess of $25,000.00. This provision requires offerors to submit their DUNS number with their offer. If the offeror does not have a DUNS number, the provision provides instructions on obtaining one.

Respondents: 35,694.

Responses Per Respondent: 4.00.

Annual Responses: 142,776.

Hours Per Response: .0200. (Averaged).

Total Burden Hours: 2,852.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0145, Use of Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) as Primary Contractor Identification, in all correspondence.

FAR clause 52.243-6, Change Order Accounting, requires that, whenever the estimated cost of a change or series of related changes exceed $100,000, the contracting officer may require the contractor to maintain separate accounts for each change or series of related changes. The account shall record all incurred segregable, direct costs (less allocable credits) of work, both changed and unchanged, allocable to the change. These accounts are to be maintained until the parties agree to an equitable adjustment for the changes or until the matter is conclusively disposed of under the Disputes clause. This requirement is necessary in order to be able to account properly for costs associated with changes in supply and research and development contracts that are technically complex and incur numerous changes.

Respondents: 8,750.

Responses Per Respondent: 18.

Annual Responses: 157,500.

Hours Per Response: .084.

Total Burden Hours: 13,230.

Recordkeepers: 8,750.

Hours Per Recordkeeper: 1.5.

Total Recordkeeping Burden Hours: 13,125.

Total Burden Hours: 26,355.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0026, Change Order Accounting, in all correspondence.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act, unless specifically exempted by statute or regulation, agencies are required to evaluate offers over a certain dollar limitation to supply an eligible product without regard to the restrictions of the Buy American Act or the Balance of Payments program. Offerors identify excluded end products and NAFTA end products on this certificate.

The contracting officer uses the information to identify the offered items which are domestic and NAFTA country end products so as to give these products a preference during the evaluation of offers. Items having components of unknown origin are considered to have been mined, produced, or manufactured outside the United States.

Respondents: 1,140.

Responses Per Respondent: 5.

Annual Responses: 5,700.

Hours Per Response: .167.

Total Burden Hours: 952.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0130, Buy American Act—North American Free Trade Agreement—Israeli Trade Act Certificate, in all correspondence.

Public comment presentations will be limited to two minutes each and must be provided in writing prior to the meeting. Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction will meet from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on March 20, 2003 and from 8:30 a.m. until 3 p.m. on March 21, 2003. Time will be allocated for public comments by individuals or organizations at the end of the meeting on March 21.

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The Working Group C meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. This opto-electronic device area includes such programs as imaging device, infrared detectors and lasers. The review will include details of classified defense programs throughout.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of Pub. L. No. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. § 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

The complete inventory of Defense Finance and Accounting Service records system notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 27, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The Defense Information Systems Agency systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on January 27, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

None.

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.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

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.

Under title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (title I), each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was required to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do. Each State also was required to develop or adopt performance standards, aligned with its content standards, which describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards. Finally, by the 2000-2001 school year, each State was required to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards.

The Alabama Department of Education (ALDE) submitted, and the Department approved, evidence that it has content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics. In October 2000, ALDE submitted evidence of its final assessment system. The Department submitted that evidence to a panel of three assessment experts for peer review and following that review the Acting Assistant Secretary determined that Alabama must enter a compliance agreement with the Department. The ALDE submitted additional information and this evidence was peer reviewed in August 2001. Following that review, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education concluded that ALDE's proposed final assessment system and performance standards did not meet a number of the Title I requirements.

Section 454 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, sets out the remedies available to the Department when it determines that a recipient “is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law” applicable to Federal program funds the Department administers. Specifically, the Department is authorized to—

(1) Withhold funds;

(2) Obtain compliance through a cease and desist order;

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with the recipient; or

(4) Take any other action authorized by law. 20 U.S.C. 1234c(a)(1) through (a)(4).

In a letter dated November 19, 2001, to Dr. Edward R. Richardson, Superintendent of Schools for the Alabama Department of Education, the Assistant Secretary notified ALDE that, in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds, it must enter into a compliance agreement with the Department. The purpose of a compliance agreement is “to bring the recipient into full compliance with the applicable requirements of law as soon as feasible and not to excuse or remedy past violations of such requirements.” 20 U.S.C. 1234f(a). In order to enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient, the Department must determine, in written findings, that the recipient cannot comply until a future date with the applicable program requirements, and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance.

On April 8, 2002, the Assistant Secretary issued written findings, holding that compliance by ALDE with the title I standards and assessment requirements is genuinely not feasible until a future date. Having first submitted its assessment system for peer review in October 2000, ALDE was not able to make the significant changes to its system that the Department's peer review required in time to meet the spring 2001 statutory deadline to have approved assessments in place. As a result, ALDE administered its unapproved assessment system in 2001. The Assistant Secretary also determined that a compliance agreement represents a viable means of bringing about compliance because of the steps ALDE has already taken to comply, its commitment of resources, and the plan it has developed for further action. The agreement sets out the action plan that ALDE must meet to come into compliance with the title I requirements. This plan, coupled with specific reporting requirements, will allow the Assistant Secretary to monitor closely ALDE's progress in meeting the terms of the compliance agreement. Both the Superintendent of ALDE, Dr. Edward R. Richardson, and the Assistant Secretary signed the agreement on March 27, 2002.

As required by section 457(b)(2) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2), the text of the Assistant Secretary's written findings is set forth as appendix A and the compliance agreement is set forth as appendix B of this notice.

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

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

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has determined, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1234c and 1234f, that the Alabama Department of Education (ALDE) has failed to comply substantially with certain requirements of title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (title I), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., and that it is not feasible for ALDE to achieve full compliance immediately. Specifically, the Assistant Secretary has determined that ALDE failed to meet a number of the title I requirements concerning the development of performance standards and an aligned assessment system within the statutory timeframe.

For the following reasons, the Assistant Secretary has concluded that it would be appropriate to enter into a compliance agreement with ALDE to bring it into full compliance as soon as feasible. During the effective period of the compliance agreement, which ends three years from the date of these findings, ALDE will be eligible to receive title I funds as long as it complies with the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the provisions of title I, part A and other applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.

Title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (title I), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., provides financial assistance, through State educational agencies, to local educational agencies to provide services in high-poverty schools to students who are failing or at risk of failing to meet the State's student performance standards. Under title I, each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was required to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do and performance standards, aligned with those content standards, that describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards.

By the 2000-2001 school year, title I required each State to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools and school districts in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards. These assessments must meet the following requirements:

• The assessments must be aligned to a State's content and performance standards.

• They must be administered annually to students in at least one grade in each of three grade ranges: grades 3 through 5, grades 6 through 9, and grades 10 through 12.

• They must be valid and reliable for the purpose for which they are used and of high technical quality.

• They must involve multiple measures, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills.

• They must provide for the inclusion of all students in the grades assessed, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.

• They must provide individual reports on the students tested.

• Results from the assessments must be disaggregated and reported by major racial and ethnic groups and other categories.

• 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3).1

The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provides a number of options when the Assistant Secretary determines a recipient of Department funds is “failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law applicable to such funds.” 20 U.S.C. 1234c. In such case, the Assistant Secretary is authorized to—

(1) Withhold funds;

(2) Obtain compliance through a cease and desist order;

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with the recipient; or

(4) Take any other action authorized by law. 20 U.S.C. 1234c(a)(1) through (a)(4).

Under section 457 of GEPA, the Assistant Secretary may enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient that is failing to comply substantially with specific program requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1234f. The purpose of a compliance agreement is “to bring the recipient into full compliance with the applicable requirements of the law as soon as feasible and not to excuse or remedy past violations of such requirements.” 20 U.S.C. 1234f(a). Before entering into a compliance agreement with a recipient, the Assistant Secretary must hold a hearing at which the recipient, affected students and parents or their representatives, and other interested parties are invited to participate. At that hearing, the recipient has the burden of persuading the Assistant Secretary that full compliance with the applicable requirements of law is not feasible until a future date and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(1). If, on the basis of all the available evidence, the Assistant Secretary determines that compliance until a future date is genuinely not feasible and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance, the Assistant Secretary must make written findings to that effect and publish those findings, together with the substance of any compliance agreement, in the Federal Register. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2).

A compliance agreement must set forth an expiration date, not later than three years from the date of these written findings, by which time the recipient must be in full compliance with all program requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(1). In addition, a compliance agreement must contain the terms and conditions with which the recipient must comply during the period that agreement is in effect. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(2). If the recipient fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the compliance agreement, the Assistant Secretary may consider the agreement no longer in effect and may take any of the compliance actions described previously. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(d).

In deciding whether a compliance agreement between the Assistant Secretary and ALDE is appropriate, the Assistant Secretary must first determine whether compliance by ALDE with the title I standards and assessment requirements is genuinely not feasible until a future date. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b). The second issue that the Assistant Secretary must resolve is whether ALDE will be able, within a period of up to three years, to come into compliance with the title I requirements. Not only must ALDE come into full compliance by the end of the effective period of the compliance agreement, it must also make steady and measurable progress toward that objective while the compliance agreement is in effect. If such an outcome is not possible, then a compliance agreement between the Assistant Secretary and ALDE would not be appropriate.

In October 2000, ALDE submitted evidence of its final assessment system. The Assistant Secretary submitted that evidence to a panel of three assessment experts for peer review. Alabama submitted additional information and this evidence was peer reviewed in August 2001. Following that review, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education concluded that ALDE's proposed final assessment system did not meet a number of the title I requirements. Specifically, the Assistant Secretary determined that ALDE must do the following:

• Develop or select an academic assessment system that represents the full range of the ALDE's academic content standards and academic achievement standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics and is consistent with the title I requirements for use of multiple measures of student achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking and understanding. Document the alignment of the assessment system with ALDE's academic content and student achievement standards.

• Provide evidence that the State assessment shall be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards for such assessments.

• Provide evidence supporting the proposed Alabama Student Assessment Program that includes information on the financial capacity of Alabama to complete this system so that it meets the requirements of title I, including performance standards, alignment, technical quality, inclusion of all students, reporting, and use in the State's accountability system.

• Provide evidence of performance standards having three performance levels, with cut scores for all components of the assessment system, and the process to be used to determine that these performance standards are aligned with content standards and performance descriptors for all components of the assessment system incorporated into the State's accountability system.

• Provide evidence of participation rates for each grade assessed, each subject (reading and math), and, for students with disabilities (SWD) and limited English proficiency (LEP) populations, the total enrollment, number assessed, and number exempted. The number assessed should be broken down by types of assessment accommodation (regular, standard accommodations, non-standard accommodations, and alternate) for all components of the State assessment system that are included in the accountability system.

• Provide evidence of an approved comprehensive policy on assessment guidelines and accommodations for LEP students, clear guidance to LEAs and schools related to the use of language proficiency tests for the LEP team decisions on accommodations for assessments, and a plan for implementing the new LEP inclusion policies and for monitoring LEA compliance with those policies.

• Provide evidence on the process used to incorporate data for SWD and LEP students into the assessment and accountability systems.

• Provide evidence regarding the extent to which all components of the Alabama assessment program contribute to the alignment of the content and performance standards; a description of the State's approach for ensuring alignment; and information on the cognitive complexity of all of the Alabama assessments.

• Provide evidence of a technical manual for the writing component and technical information on all the proposed components when they are available.

• Provide evidence to show how Alabama will disaggregate its performance data in grade spans 3-5 and 6-9 by economically disadvantaged students versus non-economically disadvantaged, race/ethnicity, and LEP status at the State, LEA, and school levels and on how Alabama will disaggregate its performance data by all the required categories at the high school level.

• Provide evidence on how ALDE will provide individual student reports and State, LEA, and school profiles by student performance standards and how it will report and disseminate student performance information to the necessary stakeholders at the LEA and school levels.

Under the title I statute, ALDE was required to implement its final assessment system no later than the 2000-2001 school year. 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(6). ALDE submitted evidence of its assessment system in October 2000 and August 2001 but the Assistant Secretary determined, on the basis of that evidence, that ALDE's system did not fully meet the title I requirements. Due to the enormity and complexity of developing a new assessment system that addressed the Assistant Secretary's concerns, ALDE was not able to complete that task between the time it first submitted its system for review and the spring 2001 assessment window. Thus, in spring 2001, ALDE administered the assessment that the Assistant Secretary had determined did not meet the title I requirements. As a result, the Assistant Secretary finds that it is not genuinely feasible for ALDE to come into compliance until a future date.

At the public hearing, ALDE presented evidence of its commitment and capability to come into compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements within three years. For example, Alabama successfully amended a law in 2000 that required the State Board of Education to implement a nationally normed test to assist in the assessment of student achievement in grades three through 11. Since that time, the State has been busy designing a new accountability system and adopting a new assessment plan for its schools, one that maintains high standards and comports with Federal law.

Finally, ALDE has developed a comprehensive action plan, incorporated into the compliance agreement, that sets out a very specific schedule that ALDE has agreed to meet during the next three years for attaining compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements. As a result, ALDE is committed not only to coming into full compliance within three years, but to meeting a stringent, but reasonable, schedule for doing so. The action plan also demonstrates that ALDE will be well on its way to meeting the new standards and assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The compliance agreement also sets out documentation and reporting procedures that ALDE must follow. These provisions will allow the Assistant Secretary to ascertain promptly whether ALDE is meeting each of its commitments under the compliance agreement and is on schedule to achieve full compliance within the effective period of the agreement.

The task of developing an assessment system that meets the title I requirements is not a quick or easy one. However, the Assistant Secretary has determined that, given the commitment of ALDE to comply with the terms and conditions of the compliance agreement, it is possible for ALDE to come into full compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements within three years.

For the foregoing reasons, the Assistant Secretary finds the following: (1) That full compliance by ALDE with the standards and assessment requirements of title I is not feasible until a future date; and (2) that ALDE can meet the terms and conditions of the attached compliance agreement and come into full compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements within three years of the date of these findings. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a compliance agreement with ALDE. Under the terms of 20 U.S.C. 1234f, that compliance agreement becomes effective on the date of these findings.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (title I) required each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do. Title I also required each State to develop or adopt performance standards, aligned with those content standards, that describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards. By the 2000-2001 school year, title I required each State to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools and school districts in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards.

The Alabama Department of Education (ALDE) was not able to meet these requirements by the statutory deadlines. In order to be eligible to continue to receive title I funds while working to comply with the statutory requirements, Dr. Edward R. Richardson, Superintendent of ALDE, indicated ALDE's interest in entering into a compliance agreement with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) of the United States Department of Education. On January 31, 2002, OESE conducted a public hearing regarding ALDE's ability to come into compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements within three years. Based on testimony at that hearing, Dr. Joseph Morton, Deputy State Superintendent, determined that “Alabama was one of the states that did not meet the deadline for title I compliance with all rules and regulations.” The Deputy State Superintendent stated, “I am here today to testify that it can be done within a three-year span from the date of initiation of a signed compliance agreement.” The Deputy State Superintendent's written findings are attached to, and incorporated by reference into, this Agreement.

Pursuant to this Compliance Agreement under 20 U.S.C. 1234f, ALDE must be in full compliance with the requirements of title I no later than three years from the date of the Assistant Secretary's written findings, a copy of which is attached to, and incorporated by reference into, this Agreement. Specifically, ALDE must meet, and document that it has met, the following requirements:

1. Develop or select an academic assessment system that represents the full range of ALDE's academic content standards and academic achievement standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics and is consistent with the title I requirements for use of multiple measures of student achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking and understanding. Document the alignment of the assessment system with ALDE's academic content and student achievement standards.

2. Provide evidence that the State assessment shall be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards for such assessments.

3. Provide evidence supporting the proposed Alabama Student Assessment Program that includes information on the financial capacity of Alabama to complete this system so that it meets the requirements of title I, including performance standards, alignment, technical quality, inclusion of all students, reporting, and use in the State's accountability system.

4. Provide evidence of performance standards having three performance levels, with cut scores for all components of the assessment system, and the process to be used to determine that these performance standards are aligned with content standards and performance descriptors for all components of the assessment system incorporated into your State's accountability system.

5. Provide evidence of participation rates for each grade assessed, each subject (reading and math), and, for SWD and LEP populations, the total enrollment, number assessed, and number exempted. The number assessed should be broken down by types of assessment accommodation (regular, standard accommodations, non-standard accommodations, and alternate) for all components of the State assessment system that you included in the accountability system.

6. Provide evidence of an approved comprehensive policy on assessment guidelines and accommodations for LEP students, clear guidance to LEAs and schools related to the use of language proficiency tests for the LEP team decisions on accommodations for assessments, and a plan for implementing the new LEP inclusion policies and for monitoring LEA compliance with those policies.

7. Provide evidence on the process used to incorporate data for SWD and LEP students into the assessment and accountability systems.

8. Provide evidence regarding the extent to which all components of the Alabama assessment program contribute to the alignment of the content and performance standards, a description of your State's approach for ensuring alignment; and information on the cognitive complexity of all of the Alabama assessments.

9. Provide evidence of a technical manual for the writing component and technical information on all the proposed components when they are available.

10. Provide evidence to show how Alabama will disaggregate its performance data in grade spans 3-5 and 6-9 by economically disadvantaged students versus non-economically disadvantaged, race/ethnicity, and LEP status at the State, LEA, and school levels and on how Alabama will disaggregate its performance data by all the required categories at the high school level.

11. Provide evidence on how your agency will provide individual student reports and State, LEA, and school profiles by student performance standards and how it will report and disseminate student performance information to the necessary stakeholders at the LEA and school levels.

During the period that this Compliance Agreement is in effect, ALDE is eligible to receive title I, part A funds if it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as well as the provisions of title I, part A and other applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Compliance Agreement sets forth action steps ALDE must meet to come into compliance with the title I standards and assessment requirements. ALDE must submit documentation concerning its compliance with these action steps.

The action steps incorporated into this Compliance Agreement may be amended by joint agreement of the parties, provided full compliance can still be accomplished by the expiration date of the Agreement.

In addition to all of the terms and conditions set forth above, ALDE agrees that its continued eligibility to receive title I, part A funds is predicated upon compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements of that program that have not been addressed by this Agreement, including the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

If ALDE fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Compliance Agreement, including the action steps, the Department may consider the Agreement no longer in effect and may take any action authorized by law, including the withholding of funds or the issuance of a cease and desist order. 20 U.S.C. § 1234f(d).

Date this compliance agreement becomes effective: April 8, 2002.

Expiration date of this agreement: April 8, 2005.

Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I), each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was required to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do. Each State also was required to develop or adopt performance standards, aligned with its content standards, which describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards. Finally, by the 2000-2001 school year, each State was required to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards.

ISDE submitted, and the Department approved, evidence that it has content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics. In October 2000, ISDE submitted evidence of its final assessment system. The Department submitted that evidence to a panel of three assessment experts for peer review. Following that review, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Tom Corwin concluded that ISDE's proposed final assessment system did not meet a number of the Title I requirements.

Section 454 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, sets out the remedies available to the Department when it determines that a recipient “is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law” applicable to Federal program funds the Department administers. Specifically, the Department is authorized to—

(1) Withhold funds;

(2) Obtain compliance through a cease and desist order;

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with the recipient; or

(4) Take any other action authorized by law.

In a letter dated October 16, 2001 to Dr. Marilyn L. Howard, State Superintendent of Public Instruction for Idaho, the Assistant Secretary Dr. Susan B. Neuman notified the ISDE that, in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds, it must enter into a compliance agreement with the Department. The purpose of a compliance agreement is “to bring the recipient into full compliance with the applicable requirements of law as soon as feasible and not to excuse or remedy past violations of such requirements.” 20 U.S.C. 1234f(a). In order to enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient, the Department must determine, in written findings, that the recipient cannot comply until a future date with the applicable program requirements, and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance.

On March 29, 2002, the Assistant Secretary issued written findings, holding that compliance by ISDE with the Title I standards and assessment requirements is genuinely not feasible until a future date. Having submitted its assessment system for peer review in October 2000, ISDE was not able to make the significant changes to its system that the Department's review required in time to meet the spring 2001 statutory deadline to have approved assessments in place. As a result, ISDE administered its unapproved assessment system in 2001. The Assistant Secretary also determined that a compliance agreement represents a viable means of bringing about compliance because of the steps the ISDE has already taken to comply, its commitment of resources, and the plan it has developed for further action. The agreement sets out the action plan that ISDE must meet to come into compliance with the Title I requirements. This plan, coupled with specific reporting requirements, will allow the Assistant Secretary to monitor closely the ISDE's progress in meeting the terms of the compliance agreement. The Idaho State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Marilyn L. Howard, signed the agreement on March 22, 2002 and the Assistant Secretary signed it on March 29, 2002.

As required by section 457(b)(2) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2), the text of the Assistant Secretary's written findings is set forth as appendix A and the compliance agreement is set forth as appendix B of this notice.

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 Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) of the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has determined, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1234c and 1234f, that the Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE) has failed to comply substantially with certain requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., and that it is not feasible for the ISDE to achieve full compliance immediately. Specifically, the Assistant Secretary has determined that ISDE failed to meet a number of the Title I requirements concerning the development of performance standards and an aligned assessment system within the statutory timeframe.

For the following reasons, the Assistant Secretary has concluded that it would be appropriate to enter into a compliance agreement with the ISDE to bring it into full compliance as soon as feasible. During the effective period of the compliance agreement, which ends three years from the date of these findings, the ISDE will be eligible to receive Title I funds as long as it complies with the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the provisions of Title I, Part A and other applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.

Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I), 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq., provides financial assistance, through State educational agencies, to local educational agencies to provide services in high-poverty schools to students who are failing or at risk of failing to meet the State's student performance standards. Under Title I, each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was required to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do and performance standards, aligned with those content standards, that describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards.

By the 2000-2001 school year, Title I required each State to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools and school districts in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards. These assessments must meet the following requirements:

• The assessments must be aligned to a State's content and performance standards.

• They must be administered annually to students in at least one grade in each of three grade ranges: Grades 3 through 5, grades 6 through 9, and grades 10 through 12.

• They must be valid and reliable for the purpose for which they are used and of high technical quality.

• They must involve multiple measures, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills.

• They must provide for the inclusion of all students in the grades assessed, including students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.

• They must provide individual reports.

• Results from the assessments must be disaggregated and reported by major racial and ethnic groups and other categories.

The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) provides a number of options when the Assistant Secretary determines a recipient of Department funds is “failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law applicable to such funds.” 20 U.S.C. 1234c. In such case, the Assistant Secretary is authorized to—

(1) Withhold funds;

(2) Obtain compliance through a cease and desist order;

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with the recipient; or

(4) Take any other action authorized by law. 20 U.S.C. 1234c(a)(1) through (a)(4).

Under section 457 of GEPA, the Assistant Secretary may enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient that is failing to comply substantially with specific program requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1234f. The purpose of a compliance agreement is “to bring the recipient into full compliance with the applicable requirements of the law as soon as feasible and not to excuse or remedy past violations of such requirements.” 20 U.S.C. 1234f(a). Before entering into a compliance agreement with a recipient, the Assistant Secretary must hold a hearing at which the recipient, affected students and parents or their representatives, and other interested parties are invited to participate. At that hearing, the recipient has the burden of persuading the Assistant Secretary that full compliance with the applicable requirements of law is not feasible until a future date and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(1). If, on the basis of all the available evidence, the Assistant Secretary determines that compliance until a future date is genuinely not feasible and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance, the Assistant Secretary must make written findings to that effect and publish those findings, together with the substance of any compliance agreement, in the Federal Register. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2).

A compliance agreement must set forth an expiration date, not later than three years from the date of these written findings, by which time the recipient must be in full compliance with all program requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(1). In addition, a compliance agreement must contain the terms and conditions with which the recipient must comply during the period that agreement is in effect. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(2). If the recipient fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the compliance agreement, the Assistant Secretary may consider the agreement no longer in effect and may take any of the compliance actions described previously. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(d).

In deciding whether a compliance agreement between the Assistant Secretary and the ISDE is appropriate, the Assistant Secretary must first determine whether compliance by the ISDE with the Title I standards and assessment requirements is genuinely not feasible until a future date. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b). The second issue that the Assistant Secretary must resolve is whether the ISDE will be able, within a period of up to three years, to come into compliance with the Title I requirements. Not only must the ISDE come into full compliance by the end of the effective period of the compliance agreement, it must also make steady and measurable progress toward that objective while the compliance agreement is in effect. If such an outcome is not possible, then a compliance agreement between the Assistant Secretary and the ISED would not be appropriate.

In October 2000, the ISDE submitted evidence of its final assessment system. The Assistant Secretary submitted that evidence to a panel of three assessment experts for peer review. Following that review, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Thomas Corwin concluded that ISDE's proposed final assessment system did not meet a number of the Title I requirements. Specifically, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary determined that the ISDE must do the following:

• Provide information on Idaho's proposed standards based assessment system.

• Provide evidence that its accountability system will allow the results of the Idaho final assessment system, including local assessments where applicable, to be the primary indicators of adequate yearly progress.

• Provide evidence that performance standards have been developed and implemented and that they are aligned with Idaho's content standards and the Idaho assessment system that is being developed.

• Provide clear and concise information on the enrollment of limited English proficient students and students with disabilities in the State at the assessed grade levels and provide information on the number of limited English proficient students and students with disabilities who take the standard form of the Idaho assessments and the Idaho assessments with accommodations, and the number of those students exempted or excluded from the Idaho assessment program.

• Provide a copy of its inclusion policy for limited English proficient students and provide documentation that the State Board of Education has approved it. Included in that policy should be information on accommodations for limited English proficient students. A plan for implementing the new inclusion policies and for monitoring LEA compliance with the new inclusion policies when they are approved should also be provided.

• Submit information on the technical quality of the Idaho alternate assessment for students with disabilities as well as information that indicates the extent to which accommodations associated with the norm-referenced tests and State-developed assessments yield valid results for students with disabilities, as well as information regarding any accommodations that are planned for the Direct Mathematics and Writing assessments and the technical quality of those accommodated assessments.

• Document how it will incorporate performance data for all Idaho students into its reporting of results for assessment and accountability purposes.

• Provide evidence regarding the extent to which the components of the Idaho Assessment Program are aligned with Idaho standards.

• Provide technical information on each of the components of the Idaho Assessment Program and information on how Idaho ensures the fairness of its assessments for all students.

• Provide evidence on how the multiple measures that have been incorporated in the Idaho Assessment Program affect the validity, reliability, and fairness of those assessments.

• Disaggregate student performance by gender, race/ethnicity, migrant status, disability (versus non-disability), economic disadvantage (versus non-disadvantaged), and limited English proficiency status at the LEA and school levels. In addition, Idaho must add economic disadvantage to the categories that are currently being disaggregated at the State level.

• Define for LEAs which students are to be included in determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) for schools and LEAs.

• Provide a plan for evaluating the AYP of its small schools and K-3 schools.

Under the Title I statute, ISDE was required to implement its final assessment system no later than the 2000-2001 school year. 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(6). ISDE submitted evidence of its assessment system in October 2000, but the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary determined, on the basis of that evidence, that ISDE's system did not fully meet the Title I requirements. Due to the enormity and complexity of developing a new assessment system that addressed the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary's concerns, the ISDE was not able to complete that task between the time it submitted its system for review and the Idaho 2001 assessment window. Thus, in 2001, the ISDE administered assessments that the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary had determined did not meet the Title I requirements. As a result, the Assistant Secretary finds that it is not genuinely feasible for ISDE to come into compliance until a future date.

At the public hearing, the ISDE presented evidence of its commitment and capability to come into compliance with the Title I standards and assessment requirements within three years. For example, Idaho entered into a contract to develop reading and mathematics assessments within one year at grades 4, 8 and 10. Idaho has established a process for developing performance descriptors and to define performance levels for its assessment system with broad based involvement of Idaho citizens and has established a timeline for approving the performance descriptors and performance levels. Idaho has also received approval from the Department for its academic content standards.

Finally, the ISDE has developed a comprehensive action plan, incorporated into the compliance agreement, that sets out a very specific schedule that the ISDE has agreed to meet during the next three years for attaining compliance with the Title I standards and assessment requirements. As a result, the ISDE is committed not only to coming into full compliance within three years, but to meeting a stringent, but reasonable, schedule for doing so. The action plan also demonstrates that the ISDE will be well on its way to meeting the new standards and assessment requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The compliance agreement also sets out documentation and reporting procedures that the ISDE must follow. These provisions will allow the Assistant Secretary to ascertain promptly whether the ISDE is meeting each of its commitments under the compliance agreement and is on schedule to achieve full compliance within the effective period of the agreement.

The task of developing an assessment system that meets the Title I requirements is not a quick or easy one. However, the Assistant Secretary has determined that, given the commitment of the ISDE to comply with the terms and conditions of the compliance agreement, it is possible for the ISDE to come into full compliance with the Title I standards and assessment requirements within three years.

For the foregoing reasons, the Assistant Secretary finds the following: (1) That full compliance by the ISDE with the standards and assessment requirements of Title I is not feasible until a future date; and (2) that the ISDE can meet the terms and conditions of the attached compliance agreement and come into full compliance with the Title I standards and assessment requirements within three years of the date of these findings. Therefore, the Assistant Secretary has determined that it is appropriate to enter into a compliance agreement with the ISDE. Under the terms of 20 U.S.C. 1234f, that compliance agreement becomes effective on the date of these findings.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I) required each State, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do. Title I also required each State to develop or adopt performance standards, aligned with its content standards, that describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards. Finally, by the 2000-2001 school year, Title I required each State to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards.

The Idaho State Department of Education (SDE) was not able to meet these requirements by the statutory deadlines. In order to be eligible to continue to receive Title I funds while working to comply with the statutory requirements, Dr. Marilyn Howard, Idaho's Superintendent of Public Instruction, indicated the Idaho SDE's interest in entering into a compliance agreement with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) of the United States Department of Education. On December 13, 2001, OESE conducted a public hearing regarding Idaho SDE's ability to come into compliance with the Title I standards and assessment requirements within three years. Based on testimony at that hearing, the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) determined that compliance by Idaho SDE with the Title I standards and assessment requirements was genuinely not feasible until a future date because of the “magnitude and complexity of meeting those requirements.” The Assistant Secretary also determined that a compliance agreement represents a viable means of bringing about compliance because of the steps Idaho SDE has already taken to address its noncompliance, its commitment of resources, and the plans it has developed for further action. These plans are summarized in the Commitments and Timetable below.

Pursuant to this Compliance Agreement under 20 V.S.C. sec. 1234f, Idaho SDE must be in full compliance with the requirements of Title I no later than three years from the date of the Assistant Secretary's written findings, a copy of which is attached to, and incorporated by reference into, this Agreement. Specifically, Idaho SDE must ensure and document that it will have met the following requirements:

1. Provide information on Idaho's proposed standards based assessment system. Provide a copy of the development contract for the new assessment system.

2. Provide evidence that performance standards have been developed and implemented and that they are aligned with Idaho's content standards.

3. Provide a copy of the Limited English Proficient student (LEP) inclusion policy and documentation of State approval. Include in the LEP policy information on accommodations for LEP students. Provide a plan for implementing the new LEP inclusion policies and for monitoring LEA compliance with the new inclusion policies when they are approved. Provide clear and concise information on the enrollment of LEP students and students with disabilities (SWD) in the state at the assessed grade levels and provide information on the number of LEP students and SWDs who take the standard form of the Idaho assessments and the Idaho assessments with accommodations, and the number of those students excluded from the Idaho assessment program.

4. Provide evidence that the components of the Idaho Assessment Program are aligned with Idaho standards. Provide evidence that Idaho assessments are cognitively complex. Identify gaps and weaknesses of the assessment system. Provide evidence on how the multiple measures incorporated in the Idaho Assessment Program affect the validity, reliability, and fairness of those assessments.

5. Provide technical information on each of the components of the Idaho Assessment Program. Provide information on how Idaho will ensure the fairness of its assessments for all students. Submit information on the technical quality of the Idaho alternate assessment for SWD as well as information that indicates the extent to which accommodations yield valid results for SWD.

6. Provide evidence that student performance will be disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, migrant status, disability (versus non-disability), economic disadvantage (versus non-disadvantaged), and limited English proficiency status at the school, district, and state levels.

7. Demonstrate that the Idaho SDE has developed or adopted a set of high-quality, yearly student assessments that will be used as the primary means of determining the yearly performance of each local educational agency and school served under Title I, Part A. Provide evidence that the accountability system will allow the results of the Idaho final assessment system to be the primary indicators of adequate yearly progress. Document the incorporation of performance data for SWD and LEP students into the reporting of results for assessment and accountability purposes.

8. Provide a plan for evaluating the adequate yearly progress of small schools and K-2 schools.

9. Describe plans to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act of 200 I assessment and accountability requirements.

During the period that this Compliance Agreement is in effect, Idaho SDE is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds if it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, as well as the provisions of Title I, Part A and other applicable federal statutory and regulatory requirements. Specifically, the Compliance Agreement sets forth below action steps Idaho SDE must meet to come into compliance with its Title I obligations.

The action steps incorporated into this Compliance Agreement may be amended by joint agreement of the parties, provided full compliance can still be accomplished by the expiration date of the Agreement.

In addition to all of the terms and conditions set forth above, Idaho agrees that its continued eligibility to receive Title I, Part A funds is predicated upon compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements of that program that have not been addressed by this Agreement, including the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

If the Idaho SDE fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Compliance Agreement, including the action steps below, the U.S. Department of Education may consider the Agreement no longer in effect and may take any action authorized by law, including the withholding of funds or the issuance of a cease and desist order.

The most recent list of completed public health assessments was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2002 (67 FR 72216). This announcement is the responsibility of ATSDR under the regulation, Public Health Assessments and Health Effects Studies of Hazardous Substances Releases and Facilities (42 CFR part 90). This rule sets forth ATSDR's procedures for the conduct of public health assessments under section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) (42 U.S.C. 9604(i)).

The completed public health assessments and addenda are available for public inspection at the Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Building 1825, Century Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia (not a mailing address), between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except legal holidays. The completed public health assessments are also available by mail through the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161, or by telephone at (703) 605-6000. NTIS charges for copies of public health assessments and addenda. The NTIS order numbers are listed in parentheses following the site names.

Between September 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002, public health assessments were issued for the sites listed below:

Mountain Pine Pressure Treating (PB2003-100516).

Naval Air Station Cecil Field (a/k/a USN Air Station Cecil Field) (PB2003-101531).

Lisle Residential Wells I (a/k/a Lockformer Company) (PB2003-100143).

Central Wood Preserving Company (PB2003-100517) Ruston Foundry (PB2003-100079).

Gardner-Roussell Park and Dr. Norman W. Crisp Elementary School (a/k/a Dr. Crisp School/Gardner Roussell Park) (PB2003-100503).

Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center/McGuire Missile (PB2003-100508).

McGuire Air Force Base #1 (PB2003-100509)

Huntington Landfill (a/k/a Huntington Town Landfill) (PB2003-100504).

Peter Cooper-Markham (a/k/a Peter Cooper Corporation (MARKHAMS)) (PB2003-100154).

Smithtown Groundwater Contamination (a/k/a Smithtown Ground Water Contamination) (PB2003-100147).

Naval Air Warfare Center (a/k/a Naval Air Development Center (8 Waste Areas)) (PB2003-100510).

None

In the Federal Register of October 18, 2002 (67 FR 64397), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0501. The approval expires on June 30, 2004. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Fee or Roster Designation, HUD Conditions and Appraisal Report.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0538.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information is gathered from real estate appraisers seeking HUD acceptance. The information collection provides for a more thorough and complete appraisal of prospective HUD-insured single-family properties ensuring that mortgages are acceptable for FHA insurance and thereby protecting the interest of HUD and the taxpayers in the FHA insurance fund.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-92563, HUD-92564-VC, HUD-92564-HS, HUD-92564-CN, and Fannie Mae Forms 1004 and 1004B.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 576,720; the number of respondents is 16,440 generating 3,601,440 annual responses; the frequency per response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the responses varies from 5 minutes to 30 minutes.

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

This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, a proposed revision to the currently approved information collection for selecting applicants for the Fair Housing Initiatives (FHIP) Program grants.

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Fair Housing Initiatives Program Application.

Description of Information Collection: This is a revision to the currently approved information collection for selecting applicants for the Fair Housing Initiatives (FHIP) Program grants which will be part of the 2003 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). These grants are to fund fair housing enforcement and/or education and outreach activities under the following initiatives: Administrative Enforcement; Private Enforcement; Education and Outreach; and Fair Housing Organizations. Proposed revisions to the currently approved collections would include a certification requirement that FHIP funds will not be used to settle a claim, satisfy a judgment, or fulfill a court order in any defensive litigation or that key project personnel have no prior felony convictions or convicted of crimes involving fraud or perjury; descriptions of how program activities will support HUD goals, identify performance measures/outcomes in support of these goals, and identify baseline conditions and target levels of the performance measures that each applicant plans to achieve in reports submitted to HUD. It would also require the submission of two budgets: at 80 percent funding level and at 100 percent funding level.

OMB Control Number: 2529-0033.

Agency Form Numbers: HUD forms 40076-FHIP, 424, 424B, 424C, 424CB, 424CBW, 2880, 2990, 2991, 2993, 2994, and OMB SF LLL.

Members of Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government, Business or other for-profit.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of responses, and hours of response: An estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 28,220, number of respondents is 400 frequency response is 4 per annum, and the total hours per respondent is 100.5.

Section 202(c)(5) of the National Housing Act (added by section 142 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235, approved December 15, 1989), requires that HUD “publish a description of and the cause for administrative action against a HUD-approved mortgagee” by HUD's Mortgagee Review Board. In accordance with the requirements of section 202(c)(5), notice is given of administrative actions that have been taken by the Mortgagee Review Board from January 1, 2002, through March 31, 2002.

Action: In a letter dated December 13, 2000, the Board withdrew HUD's approval, specifically, the approval of the Federal Housing Administration (HUD/FHA), of Allied Financial Services, Inc.'s (AFS) approval for three years. The Board also voted to impose a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: AFS failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1997-1999, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; AFS used false documentation to originate a HUD/FHA loan; AFS failed to ensure that only AFS employees process HUD/FHA loans; AFS employed a loan officer who was not an exclusive employee; and AFS failed to provide complete loan origination files and/or documents for review.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed January 11, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Custom Mortgage Corporation (CMC) agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: CMC failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements; CMC accepted eleven loans originated by personnel not employed by CMC; and CMC paid fees and compensation to unauthorized individuals in connection with nine loans.

Action: In a letter dated February 12, 2002, the Board withdrew the HUD/FHA approval of Fidelity Mortgage & Funding Co. (Fidelity) approval for five years. In addition, the Board voted to impose a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took these actions based on the following findings of violations of HUD/FHA requirements: In 106 loans, Fidelity allowed non-employees to participate in the origination of loans to be insured by HUD/FHA; and Fidelity failed to develop, maintain, and implement a Quality Control Plan that meets HUD guidelines.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed January 30, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, First Mortgage of Indiana, Inc. (FMI) agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: FMI failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD/FHA requirements; and FMI charged certain fees which were not allowed; and FMI used a rubber stamp to sign the Lender's Certification on page four of HUD Form 92900-A prior to closing.

Action: Settlement Agreement was signed March 26, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Golden Empire Mortgage, Inc. (GEM) agreed to pay a civil money penalty. In addition, GEM agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on 12 loans.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: GEM failed to notify HUD of violations which were discovered by GEM's own quality control review; GEM failed to notify HUD that certain fraudulent documents were discovered during GEM's quality control review; GEM permitted straw buyers to qualify for HUD/FHA insured mortgages; GEM failed to require that all borrowers meet their required investment; GEM failed to correctly calculate the borrower's income in certain loans; and GEM failed to require that all repairs and/or valuation conditions were satisfied.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed February 7, 2002. The Board withdrew the HUD/FHA approval of JJAI for a period of five years. Without admitting fault or liability, Jack Johnson and Associates, Inc. (JJAI), doing business as (d/b/a) Home Equity Mortgage agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: JJAI failed to file annual loan origination reports for 1992-1999, which supplements the requirements of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; JJAI failed to maintain and implement a quality control plan in compliance with HUD requirements; JJAI permitted an investor to circumvent the restrictions on FHA insured loans to investors; JJAI permitted false information to be used in originating loans and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance; and JJAI allowed non-employees to take loan applications for three FHA-insured loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed January 11, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Pac West Financial Corporation (PWF) agreed to pay a civil money penalty. In addition, PWF agreed to indemnify HUD for any losses incurred on eight loans.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: PWF failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements; PWF failed to file annual reports regarding loan activity; PWF used falsified documentation and/or conflicting information in originating 8 loans and obtaining HUD/FHA mortgage insurance; PWF allowed mortgagors to sign loan documents in blank form in two cases; and PWF failed to ensure that gift letters met HUD requirements in 18 loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement signed March 7, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Ron Simpson & Associates, d/b/a Rockwell Mortgage Company (RMC), agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: RMC employed loan officers who were not exclusive employees; RMC failed to implement and maintain a Quality Control Plan in complete conformity with HUD/FHA requirements; RMC failed to maintain complete origination files and; RMC charged borrowers fees not permitted by HUD.

Action: In a letter dated May 8, 2002, the Board withdrew the HUD/FHA approval of Southern Mortgage Investment Corporation (SMIC) approval for three years. In addition, they agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: SMIC failed to establish and maintain a Quality Control Plan for the origination of HUD/FHA insured mortgages; SMIC allowed the handling of loan documents by an interested third party; and SMIC failed to maintain complete loan files.

Action: Settlement Agreement was signed on March 20, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Underline, Inc.(UI) d/b/a/ Advantage Mortgage Services agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD requirements: UI allowed non-employees to originate HUD/FHA insured loans, and UI failed to implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements by allowing non-employees to originate HUD/FHA insured loans.

Action: Settlement Agreement letter was signed February 9, 2002. Without admitting fault or liability, Utah Mortgage Loan Corporation (UMLC) agreed to pay a civil money penalty.

Cause: The Board took this action based on the following violations of HUD/FHA requirements: UMLC failed to maintain and implement a Quality Control Plan in compliance with HUD requirements; UMLC permitted non-UMLC employees to originate FHA loan applications; UMLC failed to pay the operating expenses of an employee; UMLC paid unallowable fees/compensation in connection with HUD/FHA insured mortgages to non-employees; UMLC paid origination commissions to UMLC Direct Endorsement Underwriter who also performed the Quality Control Audits on HUD/FHA loans; and UMLC leased office space to another entity that was not physically separate and apart from UMLC.

By Federal Law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. The CCP guides management decisions and identifies refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes.

The CCP planning process will consider many elements, including wildlife and habitat management, habitat protection and acquisition, wilderness preservation, public recreational activities, industrial use, and cultural resource preservation. Public input into this planning process is essential.

The CCP will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the Refuge and how the Service will implement management strategies.

The Service will prepare in Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with procedures for implementing NEPA found in the Departmental Manual 516 DM 6, Appendix 1.

The Service will contract for a cultural resources overview study in support of the comprehensive conservation plan. The professional study will identify known sites on the refuge. We are also asking the public to identify any cultural sites that are important to them.

Review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal laws and regulations, and Service policies and procedures for compliance with those regulations.

We estimate that the draft environmental documents will be available in late 2003.

The five Federal coal tracts being considered for leasing are adjacent to four mines located south and east of Wright, Wyoming. The operators of these mines applied to lease the tracts as maintenance tracts to extend the life of their existing mining operations under the provisions of the Leasing on Application regulations at 43 CFR 3425. The following paragraphs provide descriptions of the tracts as they were applied for.

On March 13, 2000, Powder River Coal Company filed a coal lease application for the following lands in two tracts adjacent to the North Antelope/Rochelle Mine Complex in Campbell County, Wyoming:

The tracts as applied for include an estimated 564 million tons of recoverable coal. According to the application filed for the NARO North and NARO South LBA Tracts, mining the coal included in these maintenance tracts would extend the life of the North Antelope/Rochelle Mine Complex.

On March 23, 2000, Ark Land Company filed a coal lease application for lands adjacent to the Black Thunder Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming. The following lands are included in the tract as currently filed:

The tract includes an estimated 440 million tons of in-place coal. According to the application, the coal is needed to maintain existing mining operations at the Black Thunder Mine and would be used for electric power generation.

On July 28, 2000, Triton Coal Company, LLC filed a coal lease application for the following lands adjacent to the North Rochelle Mine in Campbell County, Wyoming:

The tract includes an estimated 173.2 million tons of in-place coal.

On September 12, 2000, Antelope Coal Company filed a coal lease application for lands adjacent to the Antelope Mine in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming. The following lands are included in the tract as currently filed:

The West Antelope tract includes an estimated 293.9 million tons of in-place coal. According to the application, mining this coal would extend the life of the existing mine and the coal would be mined for sale to electrical power generating plants. Each of the mines adjacent to the LBA tracts described above (the North Antelope/Rochelle, Black Thunder, North Rochelle, and Antelope mines, respectively) has an approved mining and reclamation plan from the Land Quality Division of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and an approved air quality permit from the Air Quality Division of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Each of these mines has previously acquired one or more maintenance coal leases using the LBA process.

The DEIS analyzes leasing each of the five tracts (described above) as a separate Proposed Action. As part of the coal leasing process, BLM has identified and is evaluating other tract configurations for these tracts which add or subtract Federal coal to avoid bypassing coal or to increase estimated fair market value of the unleased Federal coal in this area. The tract configurations that BLM has identified for each tract are described and analyzed as alternatives in the DEIS. The DEIS also analyzes the alternative of rejecting each application to lease Federal coal as the No Action Alternative for each tract.

The agency-preferred alternative will vary for each tract, depending on which tract configuration is determined to best advance the public interest in avoiding bypassing Federal coal and obtaining the fair market value of the Federal coal.

The Proposed Actions and Alternatives being considered in the DEIS are in conformance with the “Approved Resource Management Plan for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Buffalo Field Office” (April 2001), the USDA Forest Service “Final EIS for the Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision” (May 2001) and the BLM “Platte River Resource Area Resource Management Plan” (1985)

The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the DEIS. The surface of some of the land included for consideration for leasing in three of the tracts (NARO North, Little Thunder, and West Roundup) is National Forest System land administered by the Forest Service as part of the Thunder Basin National Grasslands.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the DEIS. If the tracts are leased as maintenance tracts, each new lease must be incorporated into the existing mining and reclamation plan for the adjacent mine and the Secretary of the Interior must approve each revision to the MLA (Mineral Leasing Act) mining plan for each mine before the Federal coal in each tract can be mined. OSM is the Federal agency that would be responsible for recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the revised MLA mining plans to the office of the Secretary of the Interior if any or all of these tracts are leased.

The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting, agenda topics will include council comments on proposed changes to BLM's grazing regulations, proposals for wind energy development, and discussion about the voting protocol established in the RAC charter. The council will also hear status reports from the managers of the BLM's Arcata, Ukiah and Redding field offices.

All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

The National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division, offered the first Executive Training for Women program in 1994. The program was designed to address both the personal and professional aspects of correctional leadership and has continued to build upon the success of that beginning effort. Through a three part series focusing on executive, strategic and organizational leadership, NIC has sought to “close the gap” for women executives in their knowledge, self and observer perception, and recognition of their value to the organization. the ultimate goal of the program is to assist the leader with the final integration of her professional awareness and its value to the agency “team” in problem-solving and policy planning.

Developed in 1993, the first program was conducted in 1994. The program concept dates back to the late 1980's and early 1990's, as the National Institute of Corrections recognized the continued under-representation of women executives in corrections throughout the country. While women have made significant achievements in correctional employment over the last few decades, promotion to the Executive level has been slow. At no time in the history of state departments of corrections in the United States have women held even 20% of all of the Department Director positions. While the entry door into the corrections field swings open wider, it is less so for the promotional door toward advancement. Since entry can no longer be legally prohibited. There are more and more women employed in the field, expecting to be regarded with professional equality and upward mobility opportunities.

NIC's response to the dilemma of women being under-represented in executive level positions in the field of corrections was to establish an Executive Leadership Training for Women Program. With the addition of this third phase, the program is designed to enhance the ability of women to achieve and to function effectively in executive-level positions in state departments of corrections. Phase 1 and 2 have recently (2002) been updated to include the latest research on leadership theories and women's leadership.

A five-day program focused on leadership development. A number of assessments are combined with experiential activities and simulations to focus behavior (self-mastery), leadership competency, clarify current and future personal and professional goals, and accelerate promotional achievement.

This three-day follow up program was developed in 1995 based on needs assessments from Phase 1 participants. As an expansion of the first program, key elements included strategic competency, the leader's role in the organization, and the moving the organization forward.

The outcome of this cooperative agreement will be a three-day (24 hour) pilot program to build organizational competency by focusing on the group dynamics of the organization and the relationships necessary to succeed. Special attention should be given to the use of innovative problem-solving, and the role of “executive teaming” with recognition of the unique strengths and weaknesses of each team member.

Expand agency leadership capacity by addressing partnerships and relationship skills necessary to create a climate for understanding, growth and support of its key personnel;

Incorporate strategies for the organization's success (mission) by the promotion of effective leadership communication for problem solving discussions and policy planning;

Overcoming barriers to team performance by recognition of individual attributes and talents;

Create an atmosphere that encourages “coaching” as an agency benefit.

Purpose: The National Institute of Corrections is seeking applications for a cooperative agreement that will design and deliver a 3-day interactive pilot program, focused on agency team development. The program design must provide the opportunity for the executives to comfortably and effectively work to approach problems and policy planning. Recognizing and valuing the woman's leadership style, the emphasis of this third training program is to successfully integrate the individual styles into creative teams. This is accomplished by bringing the woman leader to the training program together with the next upper-level supervisor that is most supportive of her career efforts and her organizational value. The pilot program will be modified, if necessary, based on the participant and faculty evaluation.

1. Design and implement a program based on current leadership and gender research which identifies the competencies necessary for a group of people to work as a highly productive and cohesive team. Expected components include, but are not limited to: Communicating Effectively in Teams, Problem Solving & Resolving Team Conflicts, Interrelationship Dynamics and Consensus Building.

2. Awardee must become acquainted with the current Executive Leadership Training for Women Program (Phase 1 and Phase 2) via written materials, participant manual and discussion with the current contractor. Additionally, attendance by one team member is required at the September 2003 Executive program in Maryland.

3. Identify in the proposal specific strategies for assuring a collaborative effort between their project team and NIC. This will include the curriculum review and pre-approval, program planning session, manual materials, and the selection and training of faculty for the program.

4. Conduct a program planning session, prepare program agenda, participant manual, and train staff/faculty for program delivery. All associated overhead slides, presentations, participant manual and any other audio-visual materials, with copyright permission, are to be provided to NIC. (Use CD-Rom.)

5. “Pilot” the Executive Training for Women-Team Development program in FY04 to an audience of 24 to 30 correctional practitioners;

6. Develop an evaluation tool, disseminate to participants and compile a basic analysis of the program, with results to the NIC Project Monitor within 30 days of the 2004 program completion.

7. Applicants are encouraged to include one or more graduates of the NIC Executive Leadership Training Program for Women in their project, i.e. planning meeting, project team. Specific names are not required, but positions must be identified in the budget with respective faculty roles identified.

1. Based on research of the existing leadership theories and realizing that those who had studied women executives discovered that the learning process needed to be complimented by a supportive environment. Applicants should consider “The Setting” as well as the style and methods of the program presentation. The location for the training will be recommended by the awardee with the final decision remaining with NIC.

The setting and learning environment incorporated in, and critical to, leadership training suggests the following consideration when attempting to locate a suitable site:

A. private outdoor space, preferably a grassed area to accommodate two groups of ten (10) to twelve (12) to execute team building activities;

B. secluded indoor and outdoor space conducive to individual and team problem solving, and personal reflection time;

C. classroom space that will accommodate 30 adults plus podium, LCD set-up, display table, and refreshment table;

D. dining area (separate from the public and classroom area) that will accommodate up to 30 people,

2. The applicant must demonstrate that the project team is comprised of at least one person with expertise in women's leadership education; one with expertise in executive team building and at least one with correctional administration/management experience at no less than the Warden/Superintendent level. This experience should be clearly identified in the accompanying resumes. Each individual must submit signed letters stating their willingness to work on this project.

3. The person designated as project director is required to be the person who will be on-site and coordinate the 3-day program presentation and who has full decision-making authority to work with the NIC project manager. This person must have experience at the level of a Warden and have enough time dedicated to the project to assure availability for detailed collaboration with the NIC project manager.

4. Participants for the pilot program will be sought from women leaders who have participated in the two previous offerings, advising them of a special opportunity to explore additional leadership training, accompanied by a supportive, senior administrator. Since the size of the program will be limited, the applicant for this cooperative agreement is being asked to propose creative and relevant criteria for the admission of the Executive Woman (+1) to the Phase 3 training.

5. The applicant should provide a clear design of what the 3 day program will look like including, but not limited to, a sessions by topic and time frames, activities/exercises by type and learning objective, and debriefing/processing time frames.

6. Interactive activities should be targeted to increased learning and understanding of team dynamics, strengths, etc. No activities should require a level of physical fitness greater than an average 50 year old person could perform. The majority of the activities should assure that the executive women and the senior administrator from the state interact during the course of the exercises.

7. All proposed interactive team activities should have a specific learning objective. The technique for processing the exercise or activity to achieve the learning objective should be clearly explained.

8. The applicant is to include a variety of interactive team activities, which, after concluding, will be throughly debriefed to achieve the learning objective. Although there is no prohibition from using outdoor, physical activities, such team activities are not to predominate.

9. The awardee must follow all of NIC's procedures and time frames for the provision of training and this must be stated in the proposal;

10. Dates for the training program will be determined by NIC in consultation with the awardee;

11. NIC will receive applications and select participants for the program.

12. Applicants should identify in the proposal specific strategies for assuring a collaborative effort between the project team and the NIC project manager. This will include the planning session, manual materials, and the selection of faculty for the program.

Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted using OMB Standard Form 424, Federal Assistance and attachments. Copies can be downloaded from the NIC Web page at http://www.nicic.org/services/coop/default.htm. The applications should be concisely written, typed double spaced and refer to the project by the “NIC Application Number” and Title in this announcement.

Submit an original and two copies. The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial accounts. The narrative portion of this cooperative agreement application should include, at a minimum:

1. A brief paragraph indicating the applicant's understanding of the purpose of this cooperative agreement;

2. One or more paragraphs detailing the applicants understanding of women leadership;

3. A brief paragraph that summarizes the project goals and objectives;

4. A clear description of the methodology that will be used to complete the project and achieve its goals;

5. A clearly developed Project Plan which demonstrates how the various goals and objectives of the project will be achieved through its various activities to produce the required results;

6. Chart of measurable project milestones and time lines for the completion of each milestone;

7. A description of the qualifications of the applicant organization and each project staff;

8. A description of the staffing plan for the project, including the role of each project staff, the time commitment for each, the relationship among the staff (who reports to whom), and a statement from individual staff that they will be available to work on this project;

9. A budget detailing all costs for the project, shows consideration for all contingencies for this project, and notes a commitment to work within the budget proposed (budget should be divided into object class categories as shown on application Standard Form 424A). A budget narrative must be included which explains how all costs were determined.

Funds Available: The award will be limited to a maximum of $100,000 (direct and indirect costs). Participant travel will be arranged for and paid by NIC. All other costs must be outlined in the proposal's budget. Funds may only be used for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. No funds are transferred to state or local governments. Based upon satisfactory performance of the awardee and the availability of funding in future years, a supplemental award could be made available for continued program delivery.

This project will be a collaborative venture with the NIC Prisons Division.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to obligate the parties to any expenditure or obligation of funds in excess or in advance of appropriation in accordance with the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341

Eligibility of Applicants: An eligible applicant is any state or general unit of local government, private agency, educational institution, organization, individuals or team with expertise in the requested areas.

Review Considerations: Applications received under this announcement will be subjected to a 3 to 5 member Peer Review Process.

Number of Awards: One (1).

NIC Application Number: 03P22. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter and also in box 11 of Standard Form 424 and on the outside of the envelope in which the application is sent.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number is: 16.601, Title: Training and Staff Development.

Executive Order 12362: This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372.

Background: The National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division, began its work defining critical issues that impact women offenders in 1996. Based on surveys, workshops and state-driven inquiries for assistance and information, NIC began addressing gender-specific needs and services.

The program goal is to provide assistance to state departments of correction around the specific issues and concerns dealing with women offenders.

The “Operational Practices for Women Offenders” program was developed with the practitioner in mind, to help correctional managers increase their understanding of women offenders and enhance their skills for effectively working with them.

The role of the correctional institution has changed a great deal over the past 200 years. The almshouses and dungeons of the early days gave way to custodial institutions and then to reformatories. Today, correctional facilities are making new strides in providing improved conditions, diversity and quality in programming, and availability of educational, vocational, treatment and medical services.

Both theorists and popular viewpoint have played a role in the structure of corrections for the women offender. The current trend is to dispel traditional stereotypes and myths surrounding the woman offender, to develop a realistic picture of the variety of women in the penal system today, and to address the individual and group needs of these women.

As a number of women entering the Criminal Justice system grew, (at a faster rate than men) practitioners felt the impact based on the growing number of operational issues. These included concerns about searches, contraband, privacy, etc. NIC became involved in responding to these requests for assistance to “do it the right way and the appropriate way.”

Differences in women's pathways into the criminal justice system and women's behavior while in custody have important implications for the practices in women's prisons. There is significant evidence that the response of women to incarceration, treatment, and rehabilitation differs from that of men.

Gender responsiveness has been defined by Bloom and Covington as “creating an environment that reflects an understanding of the reality of women's lives and addresses the issues of women.” As the criminal justice system becomes more responsive to the issues of managing women offenders, it will be more effective in targeting the pathways to offending that propel women into, and return them to, the criminal justice system.

Taken from Gender Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders, NIC 2002)

Purpose: The National Institute of Corrections is seeking applications for a cooperative agreement that will take over management of an existing program, develop and produce a curriculum with a corresponding participant and trainer's manual. In addition, the awardee will deliver subsequent offerings of the 5 day interactive program. The product should be “user-friendly” so that will be effective and useful to state departments of corrections. The pilot program will be modified, if necessary, based on the final program review and evaluation.

Scope of Work: 1. Review the current NIC training program; design a curriculum that incorporates the most up-to-date research on women offenders with the objective to prepare correctional managers to work effectively with women offenders; describe the methodology for identifying any recommended or significant change.

2. Produce a program curriculum, participant manual and trainer's guide that is user-friendly and designed for interactive, adult learning. All overheads slides, presentations and other audio-visual materials, with copyright permission, are to be included.

3. Conduct a program planning session and train staff/trainers for program delivery;

4. “Pilot” “Operational Practices for Women Offenders” staining program in May 2004 to an audience of 25 to 30 correctional practitioners;

5. Develop, disseminate, and compile results of participant program evaluation, with results to the NIC Project Monitor, within 30 days of the May 2004 program completion.

6. Design and pilot test an impact evaluation instrument to be completed by participants 9-12 months after attending the training.

Specific Requirements: 1. Significant changes to the existing curriculum must be justified with research-based documentation.

2. Attendance of at least one primary team member is required for the duration of the May 2003 program. There must be included in the proposal a statement that this primary team member will attend the training program May 19-23, 2003, with the costs reflected in the budget narrative.

3. The applicant must demonstrate that the project team is comprised of persons with expertise in correctional administration/management with women offenders as well as project staff who specifically have experience in correctional management and gender-specific responsive programming.

4. All identified trainers for the training program must have recent (within five years) experience in working with women offenders, as either staff or consultant. This experiences should be clearly identified in the resume or narrative.

5. The person designated as project director is required to be the person who will manage the 5 day on-site program presentation (2004) and who has full decision-making authority to work with the NIC project manager. This person must have sufficient time dedicated to the project to assure availability for collaboration with the NIC project manager.

6. Applicants should identify in the proposal specific strategies for assuring a collaborative effort between their project team and NIC. This will include the planning session, manual materials, and the selection of trainers for the program. The applicant should demonstrate ability to work collaboratively with NIC from previous work, if applicable.

7. The awardee must follow all of NIC's procedures and time frames for the provision of training and this must be stated in the proposal. Dates for the training program will determined by NIC in consultation with the awardee.

8. Location for the training program will be recommended by the awardee but the final decision for a site will remain with NIC.

Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted using OMB Standard Form 424, Federal Assistance, and attachments. (Copies can be downloaded from the NIC web page at www.nicic.org/service/coop/default.htm.) The applications should be concisely written, typed double-spaced and refer to the project by the “NIC Application Number” and Title is this announcement.

Submit an original and two copies. The original should have the applicant's signature in blue ink. A cover letter must identify the responsible audit agency for the applicant's financial accounts.

The narrative portion of this cooperative agreement application should include, at a minimum:

1. A brief paragraph indicating the applicant's understanding of this cooperative agreement;

2. One or more paragraphs detailing the applicants understanding of the historical and current views of working with women offenders, and the response for effectively working with women offenders;

3. A brief paragraph summarizing the project goals and objectives;

4. A clear description of the methodology for project completion and achievement of its goals;

5. A clearly developed Project Plan which demonstrates how and when the various goals and objectives of the project will be achieved through its various activities so as to produce the required results;

6. A chart of measurable project milestones and time lines for the completion of each milestone;

7. A description of the qualifications of the applicant organization and each project staff;

8. A description of the staffing plan for the project, including the role of each project staff, the percentage of the time commitment for each (in days), the relationship among the staff (who reports to whom), and a statement from individual staff that they will be available to work on this project and meet the required level of experience.

9. A budget detailing all costs for the project, costs for trainer services and travel, shows consideration for all contingencies for this project, and notes a commitment to work within the budget proposed. Budget should be divided into object class categories as shown on application Standard Form 424A. A budget narrative must be included which explains how all costs were determined.

Funds Available: The award will be limited to a maximum of $120,000 (direct and indirect costs). Participant travel for the program delivery will be paid by NIC and is not included in the funding for this project. Funds may only be used for the activities that are linked to the desired outcome of the project. No funds are transferred to State or local governments. This project will be a collaborative venture with the NIC Prisons Division. NIC retains the right to select the applicants for participation. $20,000 will be allocated for fiscal year 2003, and $100,000 will be allocated for fiscal year 2004.

Nothing contained herein shall be construed to obligate the parties to any expenditure or obligation of funds in excess or in advance of appropriation in accordance with the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341.

Eligibility Applicants: An eligible applicant is any State or general unit of local government, private agency, educational institution, organization, individuals or team with expertise in the requested areas in order to successfully meet the objectives of this project.

Review Considerations: Applications received under this announcement will be subjected to a 3- to 5-member Peer Review Process.

Number of Awards: One (1).

NIC Application Number: 03P21. This number should appear as a reference line in the cover letter and also in box 11 of Standard Form 424, and on the outside of the envelope in which the application is sent.

Executive Order 12372: This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372.

The Advisory Board is established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Title II of Pub. L. 105-220, Sec. 242, the National Institute for Literacy. The Advisory Board consists of ten individuals appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Advisory Board is established to advise and make recommendations to the Interagency Group, composed of the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, which administers the National Institute for Literacy (Institute). The Interagency Group considers the Advisory Board 's recommendations in planning the goals of the Institute and in the implementation of any programs to achieve the goals of the Institute. Specifically, the Advisory Board performs the following functions: (a) Makes recommendations concerning the appointment of the Director and the staff of the Institute; (b) provides independent advice on operation of the Institute; and (c) receives reports from the Interagency Group and Director of the Institute. In addition, the Institute consults with the Advisory Board on the award of fellowships. The National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board meeting on March 4-5, 2003, will focus on future and current NIFL program activities, the upcoming reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, and other relevant literacy activities and issues. Records are kept of all Advisory Board proceedings and are available for public inspection at the National Institute for Literacy, 1775 I Street, NW, Suite 730, Washington, DC 20006, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

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

The agenda tentatively includes the following:

(1) Status Report of the Crew Alertness Working Group;

(2) Status Report of the Towing Vessel Regulatory Review Working Group;

(3) Status Report of the Maritime Security Working Group and Consideration of any Recommendations to the Coast Guard Regarding Potential Rules;

(4) Status Report of the Study Group on Adequacy of Navigation Lights for Inland River Barge Tows; and

(5) Consideration of a draft Task Statement regarding the issue of travel, or “deadhead,” time.

All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may close early if all business is finished. Members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation at a meeting, please notify the Assistant Executive Director no later than February 28, 2003. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than February 28, 2003. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee or working groups in advance of a meeting, please submit 17 copies to the Assistant Executive Director no later than February 28, 2003. You may also submit this material electronically to the e-mail address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, no later than February 28, 2003.

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

Background

MMDs both serve as identity cards for merchant mariners and provide information about the mariners' professional qualifications. MMDs, in the previously issued form (CG-2838 [Rev. 7-94]), serve the second of these purposes well enough; however, they no longer serve the first with sufficient confidence. The Coast Guard is replacing them using a new form (CG-2838 [Rev 09/02]) that will be issued through a more secure process. The Coast Guard will make every effort to effect a smooth and easy transition from the previously issued form to the new form. The Coast Guard will begin issuing MMDs in the new form to new applicants as soon as possible.

The Coast Guard also is considering whether to allow mariners to replace their previously issued MMDs with new MMDs on an accelerated basis, i.e.,' at an earlier date than current expiration date. To ensure that only eligible mariners receive MMDs, the Coast Guard will conduct a criminal-record review of mariners seeking renewal or re-issuance of a previously issued MMD, or issuance of an original MMD. The review may include verification of identities; criminal histories; and sobriety (as gauged from, among other sources, the National Drivers' Register). This review will be consistent with applicable law and Coast Guard regulations set forth in Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (46 CFR 12.02-4). Because of the importance of establishing positive proof of identity to facilitate the background investigation, it will be necessary for holders of, and applicants for, an MMD to be present at a Regional Examination Center (REC) to be fingerprinted.

Mariners may encounter delays incident to the new processes' going into practice and the delays may persist for some weeks. Holders and new applicants seeking re-issuance, renewal, and original issuance of their MMDs should inquire at their nearest REC, a list of which appears at 46 CFR 12.01-7, or contact Mr. Donald Kerlin at the National Maritime Center, 4200 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 630, Arlington, VA 22203-1804, (202) 493-1006.

46 U.S.C. 7301, 7302, 7303, 7304, 7305, 7503, 7505, and 49 CFR 1.46.

The Federal Aviation Administration and the Joint Aviation Authorities will convene meetings to accept input from the public on the Harmonization Work Program. On March 3, there will be an authorities only meeting that addresses various certification, operations, maintenance, and harmonization issues. The March 4 public meeting will begin at 10:30 a.m. and the agenda will include:

• Debrief on Items from Authorities only meeting of the Harmonization Management Team (HMT).

• Debrief on Operations/Maintenance/Licensing Harmonization Group specific items.

• Debrief on Certification Codes Harmonization Group specific items.

• FAA/JAA 20th International Conference, May 29-June 3, 2002.

• Review/Approval of Minutes of November 18-19 HMT meeting.

• Update on Airworthiness Rulemaking Prioritization Activities.

• Any Other Business.

Individuals wishing to attend and participate in the meetings must submit name, address, telephone/fax/email, and citizenship information to the person listed under the title FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT not later than February 24, 2003. The list of attendees must be submitted to the Joint Aviation Authorities before the meeting for security reasons and to prepare name badges that must be worn while in the building.

Lodging Arrangements: There are multiple hotels located near the meeting location. For further information about lodging, please contact the person listed under the title FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The FAA should receive requests from persons who wish to present oral statements at the public meetings by February 24, 2003. Such requests should be sent to Florence Hamn as listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and should include a written summary of oral remarks to be presented, and an estimate of time needed for the presentation. Requests received after the date specified above will be scheduled if time is available; however, the name of those individuals may not appear on the written agenda.

The FAA will prepare a final agenda of speakers, which will be available at the meeting. Every effort will be made to accommodate as many speakers as possible. In addition, the time allocated to each speaker may be less than the amount of time requested.

The following procedures are established to facilitate the meetings:

(1) There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or to participate in the meeting. The meetings will be open to all persons who have requested in advance to present statements or who register on the day of the meeting subject to availability of space in the meeting room.

(2) There will be morning and afternoon breaks and lunch breaks.

(3) The meetings may adjourn early if scheduled speakers complete their statements in less time than currently is scheduled.

(4) An individual, whether speaking in a personal or a representative capacity for an organization, may be limited to a 10-minute statement. If possible, we will notify the speaker if more time is available.

(5) The FAA will try to accommodate all speakers. If the available time does not permit this, speakers generally will be scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. However, the FAA reserves the right to exclude some speakers if necessary to present a balance of viewpoints and issues.

(6) Representatives of the FAA and JAA will preside over the meetings.

(7) The FAA and JAA will review and consider all material presented by participants at the meetings. Position papers or material presenting views or information related to proposed harmonization initiatives may be accepted at the discretion of the FAA and JAA presiding officers. The FAA requests that persons participating in the meetings provide five (5) copies of all materials to be presented for distribution to the panel members; other copies may be provided to the audience at the discretion of the participant.

(8) Statements made by members of the meeting panel are intended to facilitate discussion of the issues or to clarify issues. Any statement made during the meeting by a member of the panel is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a position of the FAA or JAA.

(9) The meetings are designed to solicit public views and more complete information on proposed harmonization initiatives. Therefore, the meetings will be conducted in an informal and nonadversarial manner. No individual will be subject to cross-examination by any other participant; however, panel members may ask questions to clarify a statement and to ensure a complete and accurate record.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal to improve safety and traffic flow at the Bruckner Expressway (I-278) at its interchange with the Arthur V. Sheridan Expressway (I-895) as well as to improve access in and out of the Hunts Points Peninsula from the Expressway System.

The objectives of the project are:

• Effectively move people and goods in faster, safer and easier ways by improving the existing roadways, bridges, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. This will include improvements to the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange and local arterials for a better access into and from the Hunts Point Peninsula.

• Reduce the number of accidents in the project area and increase pedestrian safety at busy intersections, such as at Bruckner Boulevard and Hunts Points Ave.

• Support economic development by providing easier access to and from the Hunts Point Peninsula, while eliminating the bottlenecks at the Bruckner Expressway.

• Enhance the quality of life for the residential community by reducing the volume of commercial vehicles on residential streets and easing congestion for motorists traveling through the project area.

• Support environmental enhancements in coordination with City, State and Federal Agencies.

Alternatives: Various alternatives have already been identified through past studies. The findings of the past studies will be used as a starting point and will be included with new alternatives that will be developed through an extensive public scoping process. The list of alternatives and solutions will be refined throughout the scoping process as the public's comments and suggestions are taken into consideration.

Alternatives identified to date include:

No Action—An analysis of the current infrastructure and the likely state of the area's infrastructure, levels of congestion, etc. in the future without any improvements.

Transportation Systems Management—This would provide a strategy to make the most of the current transportation network with minimal capital investment. Emphasis will be placed on operating improvements and strategic upgrades such as the installation of various traffic control devices (e.g., Directional Signs) throughout the corridor.

Build—These includes the long-term alternatives and are more detailed and complex:

• Reconstruction of the Bruckner-Sheridan Interchange to improve highway geometrics in the area adjacent to the Bronx River by creating flyover structures above the Bronx River. This alternative was identified in the Expanded Project Proposal and will be further investigated during the EIS Process.

• Improve Access into and out the Hunts Point Peninsula via Edgewater Road, by reconstructing the southern terminus of the Sheridan Expressway. This alternative was identified in the Expanded Project Proposal and will be further investigated during the EIS Process.

• Construction of Ramps from the Bruckner Expressway at Leggett Avenue at the Bruckner Expressway is also aimed at improved access to the Hunts Point Peninsula. This alternative was identified during past public involvement and will be expanded upon during this process.

• Construction of a road/rail improvement to Hunts Point from Port Morris along the water and rail lines to improve access in and out the Hunts Point Peninsula.

• Deconstruction of the Sheridan Expressway will be investigated as a potential element of some alternatives.

Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to Federal, State and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed interest in this proposal. In addition to scoping discussion with these interested parties, the general public will have the opportunity to make scoping comments both in writing and in person at Public Information/Scoping Meetings that will be held at the Hunts Point Branch Regional Library, 877 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10459, on March 18, 2003, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., and at the Bronx Borough Board Briefing Room, 198 East 161st Street, 2nd Floor, Bronx, NY 10451, on March 20, 2003, from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. After the DEIS is prepared, it will be available for public and agency review and comment. This will be followed by a public hearing. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing.

To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action area addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action should be directed to the NYSDOT and FHWA at the addresses provided above.