The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Title II matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session will be provided and individuals who made written requests by March 11 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at the session.

On December 4, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the preliminary determination for the antidumping duty investigation of Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of October 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from the People's Republic of China (Preliminary Determination), 67 FR 72141 (December 4, 2002). The notice failed to reflect the fact that on June 24, 2002, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) found that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from the PRC of U-shaped or hat-shaped lawn and garden fence posts made of steel and/or any other metal, weighing one pound or less per foot. However, the ITC also ruled that there was not a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States was materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports from the PRC of other fence posts made of steel and/or other metal including “tee”, farm, and sign posts weighing one pound or less per foot. See Lawn and Garden Steel Fence Posts from China, 67 FR 42581 (June 24, 2002). Therefore, the correct scope should exclude all “tee” posts, farm posts, and sign posts, regardless of weight. No other changes have been made to the Preliminary Determination.

The correct scope reads as follows:

For purposes of this investigation, the products covered consist of all “U” shaped or “hat” shaped lawn and garden fence posts made of steel and/or any other metal, weighing 1 pound or less per foot, and produced in the PRC. The fence posts included within the scope of this investigation weigh up to 1 pound per foot and are made of steel and/or any other metal. Imports of these products are classified under the following categories: fence posts, studded with corrugations, knobs, studs, notches or similar protrusions with or without anchor posts and exclude round or square tubing or pipes.

These posts are normally made in two different classes, light and heavy duty. Light duty lawn and garden fence posts are normally made of 14 gauge steel (0.068 inches - 0.082 inches thick), 1.75 inches wide, in 3, 4, 5, or 6 foot lengths. These posts normally weigh approximately 0.45 pounds per foot and are packaged in mini-bundles of 10 posts and master bundles of 400 posts. Heavy duty lawn and garden steel fence posts are normally made of 13 gauge steel (0.082 inches - 0.095 inches thick), 3 inches wide, in 5, 6, 7, and 8 foot lengths. Heavy duty posts normally weigh approximately 0.90 pounds per foot and are packaged in mini-bundles of 5 and master bundles of 200. Both light duty and heavy duty posts are included within the scope of the investigation.

Imports of these products are classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 7326.90.85.35. Fence posts classified under subheading 7308.90 are also included within the scope of the investigation if the fence posts are made of steel and/or metal.

Specifically excluded from the scope are other posts made of steel and/or other metal including “tee” posts, farm posts, and sign posts, regardless of weight. 1 Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs Service (Customs) purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the Federal Register identifying the applicant and summarizing its proposed export conduct.

Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether a Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 1104H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 03-00002.” A summary of the application follows.

Applicant: EXIM Services of North America, Inc., 530 Bellwood Park Road, Asbury, New Jersey 08802.

Contact: Robert J. Loftin, President.

Telephone: (908) 479-6670.

Application No.: 03-00002.

Date Deemed Submitted: February 7, 2003.

Members (in addition to applicant): None.

EXIM Services of North America, Inc. seeks a Certificate to cover the following specific Export Trade, Export Markets, and Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operations.

All products.

All services.

Technology Rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets that relate to Products and Services.

Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to, professional services and assistance relating to: government relations; state and federal export programs; foreign trade and business protocol; consulting; market research and analysis; collection of information on trade opportunities; marketing; negotiations; joint ventures; shipping and export management; export licensing; advertising; documentation and services related to compliance with customs requirements; insurance and financing; trade show exhibitions; organizational development; management and labor strategies; transfer of technology; transportation services; and the formation of shippers' associations.

The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

With respect to the sale of Products and Services, licensing of Technology Rights and provisions of Export Trade Facilitation Services, EXIM Services of North America, Inc. may:

1. Provide and/or arrange for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services;

2. Engage in promotional and marketing activities and collect information on trade opportunities in the Export Market and distribute such information to clients;

3. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive licensing and/or sales agreements with Suppliers for the export of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights in Export Markets;

4. Enter into exclusive and/or non-exclusive agreements with distributors and/or sales representatives in Export Markets;

5. Allocate export sales or divide Export Markets among Suppliers for the sale and/or licensing of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights;

6. Allocate export orders among Suppliers;

7. Establish the price of Products, Services, and/or Technology Rights for sale and/or licensing in Export Markets;

8. Negotiate, enter into, and/or manage licensing agreements for the export of Technology Rights;

9. Enter into contracts for shipping; and

10. Exchange information on a one-on-one basis with individual Suppliers regarding inventories and near-term production schedules for the purpose of determining the availability of products for export and coordinating export with distributors.

1. “Supplier” means a person who produces, provides, or sells a Product and/or Service.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. sections 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2003).

The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register. Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

Export Trade Certificate of Review No. 97-00003 was issued to AARQ on January 21, 1998 (63 FR 4220, January 28, 1998) and previously amended on June 4, 1998 (63 FR 31738, June 10, 1998); September 25, 1998 (63 FR 53013, October 2, 1998); June 1, 2000 (65 FR 36410, June 8, 2000); April 5, 2001 (66 FR 21368, April 30, 2001); and February 5, 2002 (67 FR 7357, February 19, 2002).

AARQ's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of section 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l) (2003)): JIT Products, Inc., Davis, California; Nidera, Inc., Stamford, Connecticut (a subsidiary of Nidera Handelscompagnie BV (Netherlands)); and Sunshine Rice, Inc., Stockton, California (a subsidiary of Sunshine Business Enterprises, Inc.).

2. Delete the following companies as Members of the Certificate: Glencore Ltd., Stamford, Connecticut (a subsidiary of Glencore International AG), for the activities of Glencore Grain Division; and Liberty Rice Mill, Inc., Kaplan, Louisiana.

3. Change the listing of the following Members: “CAL PAC Investments, LLC dba California Pacific Rice Milling, Woodland, California” to read “Gold River Mills, LLC dba California Pacific Rice Milling, Woodland, California;” “Incomar Texas Ltd., and its subsidiary, Gulf Rice Arkansas, LLC, Houston, Texas” to read “Gulf Rice Arkansas, LLC (subsidiary of Ansera Marketing, Inc.), Houston, Texas;” “PS International, Ltd., Durham, North Carolina” to read “PS International, Ltd., Chapel Hill, North Carolina;” “Texana Rice, Inc., Houston, Texas” to read “Texana Rice Inc., Louise, Texas;” “The Connell Company, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey” to read “The Connell Company for the activities of itself and its two divisions, Connell Rice & Sugar Co. and Connell International Company, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey;” and “Uncle Ben's, Inc., Houston, Texas” to read “Uncle Ben's Inc., Greenville, Missisippi.”

The effective date of the amended certificate is November 19, 2002. A copy of the amended certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4102, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:

A.Call to Order

1.Opening Remarks, Introductions,

2.Roll Call

3. Executive Director's Report

4.Approve Agenda

5.Approve June, September and November 2002 Meeting Minutes

B.Salmon Management

1.National Marine Fisheries Service Report

2.Final Scientific and Statistical Committee Methodology Review Recommendations on the Chinook and Coho Fishery Regulation and Assessment Models (FRAM) for 2003 Salmon Management

3.Review of 2002 Fisheries and Summary of 2003 Stock Abundance Estimates

4.Inseason Management Recommendations for Openings Prior to May 1 North of Cape Falcon

5.Identification of Management Objectives and Preliminary Definition of 2003 Salmon Management Options

6.Status of Model Evaluation Workgroup

7.Status of Marking Programs for Selective Fisheries

8.Conservation Objectives for Central Valley Winter and Spring Chinook

9.Council Recommendations for 2003 Management Option Analysis

10.Council Direction for 2003 Management Options (if Necessary)

11.Salmon Hearings Officers

12.Adoption of 2003 Management Options for Public Review

C.Habitat Issues: Essential Fish Habitat Issues

D.Marine Reserves

1.Considerations for Integrating Marine Reserves with Effective Fishery Management

2.Update on Marine Reserves Activities

3.Planning for Federal Waters Portion of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary

E.Groundfish Management: National Marine Fisheries Service Report

F.Pacific Halibut Management

1.National Marine Fisheries Service Report

2.Report on International Pacific Halibut Commission Annual Meeting

3.Public Review Options for the 2003 Incidental Catch Regulations in the Salmon Troll and Fixed Gear Sablefish Fisheries

G.Highly Migratory Species Management

1.National Marine Fisheries Service Report

2.Status of the Pacific Council Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

H.Administrative and Other Matters

1.Improvements in Meeting National Environmental Policy Act Requirements for Council Action

2.Planning Session on Improving Council Meeting Efficiency

3.Legislative Matters

4.Appointments to Advisory Bodies, Standing Committees, and Other Forums

5.Financial Matters

6.Council Staff Work Load Priorities and Results of Strategic Goals Workshop

7.April 2003 Council Meeting Agenda

I.Coastal Pelagic Species Management

1.National Marine Fisheries Service Report

2.Draft Regulatory Amendment and Analysis for Changes to Sardine Allocation

3.Update on Sardine Stock Assessment Review Process

1 p.m.

Sierra B Room

2 p.m.

Sierra A Room

8 a.m.

California Room

8 a.m.

Sierra B Room

8 a.m.

Comstock 2 Room

8 a.m.

Comstock 3 Room

10 a.m.

Klamath Room

10 a.m.

Tahoe Room 514

1 p.m.

Tahoe Room 514

As necessary

Comstock 1 Room

As necessary

Sierra A Room

As necessary

Almanor Room 303

As necessary

Shasta Room 305

7 a.m.

California Room

7 a.m.

Tahoe Room 514

7 a.m.

The regulations that govern exempted fishing, at 50 CFR 600.745(b) and 697.22, allow the Regional Administrator to authorize for limited testing, public display, data collection, exploration, health and safety, environmental clean-up and/or hazardous removal purposes, and the targeting or incidental harvest of managed species that would otherwise be prohibited. An EFP to authorize such activity may be issued, provided that adequate opportunity is given for the public to comment on the EFP application; the conservation goals and objectives of Federal management of the American lobster resource are not compromised; and the issuance of the EFP is beneficial to the management of the species.

Royal red shrimp can be found in the deep water habitats along the continental shelf and have been commercially harvested in a relatively limited capacity. Royal red shrimp are not a federally managed species. Therefore, no regulatory exemptions pertaining to their capture or retention are necessary.

The American lobster fishery is the most valuable fishery in the northeastern United States. In 2001, approximately 74 million pounds (33,439 metric tons) of American lobster were landed with an ex-vessel value of approximately 255 million dollars. The American lobster resource is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster. Regulations pertaining to the management of the resource in the Federal waters of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are codified at 50 CFR part 697.

The EFP for this activity relates to the experimental trap gear (no more than six experimental traps) and would waive the vessel from the trap limits as codified in 50 CFR 697.19(b)(2) and trap tagging requirements in 50 CFR 697.19(c) of the Federal lobster regulations. In addition, exemptions to the trap identification and trap tagging requirements in 50 CFR 697.21(a)(2), the escape vent requirement in 50 CFR 697.21(c), the ghost panel requirement in 50 CFR 697.21(d), and the maximum trap size restriction in 50 CFR 697.21(e)(2)(i) and (ii) are also necessary to allow the applicant to carry out the proposed experimental fishing. These exemptions are required because the vessel may exceed the current trap limit by fishing up to an additional six traps; the size of the experimental traps is slightly larger than currently allowed under the Federal regulations (33,800 cu. (553,883 cu. cm.) vs. 30,100 cu. in.(493,251 cu. cm.)); the experimental trap design does not provide for either an escape vent or a ghost panel; and no practical mechanism exists by which additional trap tags may be obtained by the vessel owner to affix to the experimental traps. The waiver of these requirements would apply to the experimental trap gear only. The vessel's commercial trap gear would still be held to all the requirements of the Federal regulations.

The EFP request was submitted by the University of Connecticut. Researchers from this institution will collaborate with the owner/operator of an identified vessel to obtain 300 to 600 live adult royal red shrimp. The vessel, when conducting routine commercial trap fishing for American lobster and red crab, would deploy up to six modified traps in addition to the vessel's maximum trap allocation of 1,800 lobster traps. The modified traps will be added to the multi-trap trawls fished by the vessel and will not result in additional vertical lines in the water column. The operator of the vessel will be responsible for transporting, deploying, and hauling back the modified gear over the requested period until such time that a suitable number (300-600 individual live adult royal red shrimp) are successfully acquired or until the EFP expires (not to extend beyond one year in duration). Any bycatch will be discarded, and any live adult royal red shrimp will be retained, kept alive, and transported to researchers at the University of Connecticut.

The proposed experimental traps will be of a modified lobster or red crab design, with approximate dimensions as follows: 50” X 26” X 26” (approximately 33,800 cu. in.; 553,883 cu. cm.). Mesh size throughout the body of the trap will be 1/4 in. (0.635 cm.) and each trap will be wrapped entirely in burlap cloth in such a manner to allow entry of the shrimp but prevent escapement. Fishing depth of the traps is expected to be between 190 and 300 fathoms, and the experimental fishing is proposed for lobster conservation management area 3 in the vicinity of Munson Canyon east to the Hague Line. The University of Connecticut's proposal estimates approximately 100-150 lb (45.5 - 68.2 kg.) of bycatch in the experimental traps during the course of the project, including small monkfish, other finfish and shrimp species, small crabs, and lobsters. These bycatch estimates were provided by the applicant and are based on the results of otter trawl experiments conducted by NOAA funded research projects that targeted royal red shrimp at similar depths and provided detailed data on observed bycatch.

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA) has determined that House of Perfection, d.b.a. Stepping Stones (House of Perfection) has violated the requirements for participation in the Special Access Program and has suspended House of Perfection from participation in the Program for the period from March 1, 2003 until December 31, 2004.

Through the letter to the Commissioner of Customs published below, CITA directs the Commissioner to prohibit entry of products under the Special Access Program by, or on behalf of, House of Perfection during the period from March 1, 2003 until December 31, 2004.

Requirements for participation in the Special Access Program are available in Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, published on April 3, 1998.

None.

The DEIS for the PBH Lake Worth Access Channel Expansion, Section 107 Small Navigation Project was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1968.

The purpose of the study is to consider modifying the Federal navigation project of PBH to provide navigation access for larger and deeper-draft vessels to interior berthing, testing, and repair facilities located adjacent to PBH in Lake Worth. Existing depths in the proposed Lake Worth main access channel area are presently limited to the 10-foot deep Federal IWW channel that runs north and south from the Port. The need for this deepening project comes from the recent growth in larger/deeper-draft vessels requiring deeper water depths to safely navigate the interior area.

The study involves an analysis of available information from sources within the project area and records at the Jacksonville District. The without project deepening condition is for continuing maintenance of the existing 10-foot depth (Intracoastal Waterway) IWW channel, with maintenance to maintain the channels for both projects. A deepened access channel was analyzed from the existing ten-foot depth, in one-foot increments to a 16-foot depth. Each alternative depth considered includes a one-foot required and one-foot allowable over-depth. All alternative depth main access channels have a bottom width of 125 feet for about 0.7 miles 2 north and 4.5 miles south of the PBH project limit. Adding an appropriate depth access channel would enable larger vessels access to commercial repair and berthing facilities in the vicinity of PBH and improve operational efficiencies at other commercial and educational training facilities along Lake Worth.

The existing 1.6-mile Federal PBH navigation channel provides a 35 foot deep project through the ocean inlet, 33 feet through the inner channel and within the main turning basin, and 25 feet in a second turning basin, to berthing slips and wharves at PPBH, in West Palm Beach, Florida. PBH serves a variety of dry bulk, liquid bulk, and general cargo vessels calling at the Harbor in addition to smaller commercial and recreational boating interests. The present Section 107 study addresses and is focused on an extension of the harbor footprint to the north and south via the addition of main and interior access channels and berthing areas. The Jacksonville to Miami IWW, part of which is co-located with the Harbor and continues north and south from the Port, traverses the study area. This report's primary study area is a 5.2 mile reach of Lake Worth in Palm Beach County in the vicinity of PBH.

Several Federal navigation, beach erosion control, environmental restoration, and food control projects exist in the study area. The first navigation project is the PBH project. The second navigation project is the IWW from Jacksonville to Miami. Two beach erosion control projects exist along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline adjacent to PBH. Also, a section 1135 study was initiated during 1996 to examine environmental restoration of a portion of Peanut Island, the upland dredged material disposal site used in the PBH and IWW projects. The final project is the West Palm Beach Canal (C-51) that currently serves as a flood control structure, although initially constructed for navigation purposes.

Alternatives: Two basic sets of alternatives were considered for providing an access channel for navigation in the Lake Worth study area. One is to do no further improvements to the project (no action plan). The second set of alternatives involve structural changes to (extension of) the existing PBH project. The alternative evaluations involved an assessment of the optimum channel depth to provide the greatest return on the investment (net benefits), the dredging equipment for performing the construction and maintenance work, and dredged material disposal options. The identification of these alternatives and options are discussed in the subsequent sections.

Issues: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will consider impacts on seagrasses, protected species, health and safety, water quality, aesthetics and recreation, fish and wildlife resources, cultural resources, energy conservation, socio-economic resources, and other impacts identified through scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination.

Scoping: A scoping letter was sent to interested parties on September 13, 2000 for the original Environmental Assessment of the project. Due to comments received, an EIS was judged needed and a new scoping letter will be sent out the first week of February 2003. In addition, all parties are invited to participate in the scoping process by identifying any additional concerns on issues, studies needed, alternatives, procedures, and other matters related to the scoping process. At this time, there are no plans for a public scoping meeting.

Public Involvement: We invite the participation of affected Federal, state and local agencies, affected Indian tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties.

Coordination: The proposed action is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, with the FWS under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

Other Environmental Review and Consultation: The proposed action would involve evaluation for compliance with guidelines pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act; application (to the State of Florida) for Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; certification of state lands, easements, and rights of way; Essential Fish Habitat with National Marine Fisheries Service; and determination of Coastal Zone Management Act consistency.

Agency Role: As cooperating agency, non-Federal sponsor, and leading local expert; Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources will provide extensive information and assistance on the resources to be impacted, mitigation measures, and alternatives.

DEIS Preparation: It is estimated that the DEIS will be available to the public on or about August 15, 2003.

None.

The Commander, U.S. Atlantic Fleet prepares Carrier Battlegroups (CVBGs) for deployment using a training process known as the “Inter-deployment Training Cycle (IDTC).” The IDTC prepares Navy personnel to function as a part of a coordinated fleet or joint fighting force with the capacity to accomplish multiple missions in a hostile environment. The IDTC is highly structured and features a three-phased building-block approach including basic, intermediate, and advanced phases. Mission activities conducted during the IDTC include integrated strike, close air support, combat search-and-rescue, unit level bombing, helicopter unit level terrain flight, and helicopter unit level air-to-ground training.

The Navy must deploy combat ready forces and considers training with live ordnance to be indispensable to achieving and maintaining combat readiness. The handling of live ordnance and the decision-making in the use of this ordnance provides Fleet sailors and airmen the greatest degree of combat training realism. Exposure to live ordnance is known to rivet the attention of those who manage, handle, and employ it with a combination of fear and respect that non-explosive ordnance cannot impart. Moreover, employment of explosive ordnance onboard an aircraft carrier involves the hazardous end-to-end weapons regime; to include breakout, build-up, and loading; to weapons release, impact, aircraft return and recovery, both day and night. On the ground, redundancy in the availability of disparate explosive targets helps reduce the likelihood of fratricide and collateral damage by ensuring a rigorous, combat-like training regimen prior to overseas deployment. In the end, tactical pilots and flight officers must have full confidence in their support personnel, their equipment and weapons systems, and in their ability to safely and effectively prosecute difficult target sets.

Explosive ordnance-capable ranges are limited to the Navy's Pinecastle Range and the Air Force's Eglin Air Force Base (Air Armament Center) on the East Coast of the United States. At these ranges, limitations exist with regard to range dimensions, run-in lines, the number of explosive ordnance target sets, fire index restrictions, and scheduling lead times, changes, and priorities. Consequently, explosive ordnance range capabilities must be expanded to a location proximate to planned Carrier Battlegroup Training in the Southeastern U.S. (Jacksonville and Gulf of Mexico Operational Areas) to reduce the potential for a single point of failure should the existing ranges be unavailable or unsuitable for a particular exercise. This location must have sufficient range area and suitably sized special use airspace to accommodate safe aircraft operations and ordnance delivery across the full spectrum of IDTC training.

The purpose of the proposed action, therefore, is to provide flexibility across the full spectrum of the IDTC for U.S. Atlantic Fleet aircrews. Navy use of APAFR as a location for explosive air-to-ground training would provide redundancy for explosive ordnance capabilities; increase combat realism, scheduling flexibility, and aimpoint variety; reduce undue operational impacts at any one location; and promote the benefits of multiple DOD, Navy, and community partnerships. Navy will consider possible alternatives using a combination of ordinance target locations within the APAFR.

The EIS will evaluate the environmental effects associated with: Airspace; noise; range safety; earth resources; water resources; air quality; biological resources, including threatened and endangered species; land use; socioeconomic resources; infrastructure; and cultural resources. The analysis will include an evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. No decision will be made to implement any alternative until the NEPA process is completed.

The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues that will be addressed in the EIS. Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern that should be addressed in the EIS. Written comments must be postmarked by April 15, 2003, and should be mailed to: Avon Park Air-to-Ground Training EIS, c/o Commanding Officer, Southern Div., Naval Facilities Engineering Command, PO Box 190010, North Charleston, SC 29419-9010, Attn: Code ES12/WS (Will Sloger), telephone (843) 820-5797, facsimile (843) 820-7472.

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

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (KI).

Frequency: Other: one time.

Affected Public: Individuals or household (primary), State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 10800; Burden Hours: 28125.

Abstract: The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a new system of international assessments that focus on 15-year-olds' capabilities in reading literacy, mathematics literacy, and science literacy. PISA 2000 was the first cycle of PISA, which will be conducted every three years, with a primary focus on one area for each cycle. PISA 2000 focused on reading literacy; mathematics literacy will be the focus in 2003, and science literacy in 2006. In addition to assessment data, PISA provides background information on school context and student demographics to benchmark performance and inform policy.

Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or directed to her e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Beginning with the release of fiscal year (FY) 2001 draft cohort default rates in February 2003, we will electronically transmit draft and official cohort default rate notification packages to domestic institutions using our Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG). The electronic delivery of cohort default rate information to domestic institutions will replace the current process, which involves delivery of hardcopy documents. Foreign schools (i.e., schools eligible to participate in the Federal Family Education Loan Program under section 102(a)(1)(C) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended) are not subject to participation in this electronic process. Foreign schools will continue to receive their cohort default rate notification documents in hardcopy rather than electronically. Foreign schools' rights to appeal, make challenges and seek adjustments will continue to run from the date of receipt of the hardcopy, as they have in the past.

For each electronic distribution of default rate notifications (draft and official) to domestic institutions, we will announce on our Information for Financial Aid Professionals (IFAP) Web site (http://www.ifap.ed.gov) the date of the electronic transmission of cohort default rate information to the destination points designated by each domestic institution. Except as described in the following paragraph, the time periods for making appeals and challenges and seeking adjustments under 34 CFR part 668, subpart M will begin with the sixth business day after the date the default rate notification packages were transmitted to the SAIG destination points, as noted in the IFAP announcement.

If an institution believes that a technical problem that was caused by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) resulted in the institution not being able to access its electronic cohort default rate information, it must notify us no later than five business days after the transmission date announced on IFAP. By doing so and if we agree that the problem was caused by the Department, we will extend the challenge, appeal, and adjustment deadlines and timeframes to account for a re-transmission of the information after the technical problem is resolved. Reports of technical problems must be made via e-mail and addressed to our Default Management sharepost at: fsa.schools.default.management@­ed.gov.

Each institution is responsible for updating its SAIG enrollment whenever a change is needed to its cohort default rate notification package destination point. Failure of an institution to enroll in or update SAIG for the eCDR process does not constitute a valid, timely technical problem that would extend timeframes or deadlines for appeals, challenges, and adjustments.

To implement the electronic process, every domestic school must, no later than June 1, 2003, designate an SAIG destination point that will receive the institution's electronic cohort default rate (eCDR) notification packages. The designation of the eCDR destination point must be conducted through the SAIG enrollment process at: http://www.sfawebenroll.ed.gov.

In addition, before eCDR functionality can be provided to the designated SAIG destination point each institution must submit, by June 1, 2003, a hardcopy SAIG signature page signed by the institution's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (e.g., President, Chancellor, Owner) or the person previously designated by the CEO as the institution's SAIG signature authority.

Once SAIG enrollment is completed, the institution's designee will receive electronic school cohort default rate notification packages unless the school changes the designee by submitting a revision to its SAIG enrollment.

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 the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using the 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.

You may also view this document in PDF at the following site: ifap.ed.gov.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On June 20, 2002 (67 FR 41981), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OECA-2002-0012, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center (ECDIC) in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ECDIC is (202) 566-1514. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

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

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

Title: NESHAP: Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF) (OMB Control Number 2060-0183, EPA ICR Number 1541.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on February 28, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Any facility which manages a waste containing benzene must maintain records and submit reports to the Agency. There is a tiered threshold for burden. Facilities managing waste containing less than 1 megagram per year (Mg/yr) of benzene must certify to that effect and maintain documentation to support their finding. Facilities managing more than 1 Mg/yr and less than 10 Mg/yr of benzene-containing waste must prepare an initial certification, test annually to verify that their waste stream still falls within this range, and maintain documentation to support these findings. Facilities managing more than 10 Mg/yr of waste must submit quarterly and annual reports documenting the results of continuous monitoring. The Agency uses this information to determine compliance and to select plants or processes for inspection.

The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and serve as a record of the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The monitoring and excess emissions reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations. The information collected from record keeping and reporting requirements is used for targeting inspections, and for other uses in compliance and enforcement programs.

Responses to this information collection are deemed to be mandatory, per section 114(a) of the Clean Air Act. The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 71 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners and Operators of Benzene Waste Operations subject to Subpart FF.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 234.

Frequency of Response: Quarterly, Semi-annually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 16,626.

Estimated Total Non-labor Annual Cost: $0.

There is a decrease of 402 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens due to a decrease in the number of regulated sources.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61087), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OA-2003-0003, which is available for public viewing at the OEI Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to oei.docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

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

Title: Preaward Compliance Review Report for All Applicants Requesting Federal Financial Assistance (OMB Control No. 2090-0014, EPA ICR Number 0275.08). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on 02/28/2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: The information request and gathering is a part of the requirement of 40 CFR Part 7, “Nondiscrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency,” at 40 CFR 7.80. The Regulation implements statutes which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex and handicap. This information is also required, in part, by the Department of Justice regulation, 28 CFR 42.406 and 28 CFR 42.407. The information is collected on a short form for grant and loan applicants as part of the application process. The EPA Director of Civil Rights manages the data collection through a regional component whom also carries out the data analysis and makes the recommendation on the respondent's ability to meet the requirements of the regulation, as well as the respondent's current compliance with the regulation. The information and analysis is of sufficient value for the Director to determine whether the application is in compliance with the regulation.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1/2 hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: State, local, and tribal governments; universities, associations; and non-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,100.

Frequency of Response: Occasionally.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 6,550.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $94,451, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On October 25, 2002 (67 FR 65563), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). On November 20, 2002 (67 FR 70070), EPA extended the comment period 30 days. EPA received one comment and has addressed the comment received.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0004, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to ow-docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, and (2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

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

Title: Approval of State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (OMB Control No. 2040-0153, EPA ICR No. 1569.05). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2003. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Under the provisions of national Program Development and Approval Guidance implementing section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) which was jointly developed and published by EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 29 coastal States and 5 coastal Territories with Federally approved Coastal Zone Management Programs have developed and submitted to EPA and NOAA Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs. EPA and NOAA have approved 9 States and 3 Territories, conditionally approved 19 States and 2 Territories, and one State's initial program submission (Indiana) is currently under review. The conditional approvals will require States and Territories to submit additional information in order to obtain final program approval. Indiana will also need to submit information in order to obtain approval of its coastal nonpoint program. Administrative changes issued on October 16, 1998, and mutually agreed to by States, Territories, EPA and NOAA are expected to expedite the final approval process. CZARA section 6217 requires States and Territories to obtain final approval of their Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Programs in order to retain their full share of funding available to them under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The information collected under section 6217 and this ICR will not require States and Territories to collect any confidential information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 148 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: 20 States and 2 Territories with approved coastal zone management programs.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 22.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,250 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $113,738, includes $0 annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 375 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is the result of EPA and NOAA having fully approved 12 of the 34 programs.

EPA has submitted the following individual continuing ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On 07/26/02 (67 FR 48891), EPA sought comments on the ICRs pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for these ICRs under Docket ID Nos. OEI-2002-0012 (Monthly Progress Reports), OEI-2002-0013 (Oral and Written Purchase Orders, and OEI-2002-0014 (Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation, which are available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to oei.docket.@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

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

Title: Monthly Progress Reports (OMB Control No. 2030-0005, EPA ICR No. 1039.10). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on 02/28/03. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Agency contractors who have cost reimbursable, time and material, labor hour, or indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity fixed rate contracts will report the technical and financial progress of the contract on a monthly basis. EPA will use this information to monitor the contractor's progress under the contract. Responses to the information collection are mandatory for contractors performing under a cost reimbursement contract, and are required to receive monthly reimbursement. Information submitted is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentiality regulations, 40 CFR 2.201.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average about 36 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Contractors holding cost reimbursable contracts with EPA.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 324.

Frequency of Response: Monthly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 140,940 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $10,403,160, of which $39,000 is Operational and Maintenance.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 36,105 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This is due to a reduction in the total number of active contracts and corresponding responses than previously reported.

Title: Oral and Written Purchase Orders, (OMB Control No. 2030-0007, EPA ICR No. 1037.07). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on 02/28/03. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: When EPA has a requirement for supplies or services and the value of same is under the simplified acquisition threshold, the Agency solicits verbal or written quotes from potential vendors. Vendor responses are voluntary and generally consist of item name, unit cost, delivery terms, company name, small business status, address, phone number, and point of contact. The Agency uses the collected information to make award decisions and obtain needed supplies and services.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Contractors who seek to provide supplies and services to the EPA under simplified acquisition procedures.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 28,462.

Frequency of Response: 1 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 7,116 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $136,618.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,257 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is solely due to the drop in the number of purchase orders awarded over $25,000. In addition, the number of purchase orders awarded with a value less than $2,500 have decreased slightly due to the use of the Government-wide commercial purchase cards.

Title: Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation, (OMB Control No. 2030-0016, EPA ICR No. 0246.08). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on 02/28/03. Under the OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: At the completion of a cost reimbursement contract, contractors will report final costs, incurred, including direct labor, materials, supplies, equipment, and other direct charges, subcontracting, consultant fees, indirect costs, and fixed fee. Contractors will report this information on EPA Form 1900-10. This form will be used to reconcile the contractor's costs. Establishment of the final costs and fixed fee is necessary to close-out the contract, and is required to receive final payment. Information submitted is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR 2.201 et seq.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 minutes per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Contractors holding cost reimbursable contracts with the Agency.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 247.

Frequency of Response: Completion of contract.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 163 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,819 of which $2,470 is Operational and Maintenance.

Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 98 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. The increase is solely due to the estimated number of information collected based on a large quantity of contracts closed out during FY 2002. EPA expects to continue to close out contracts at a high volume.

Proposed agenda items include: Update on Progress of Executive Order, FY 2005 State Project Meetings, Report on Mercury Project Team Meeting, Report on Nutrient Pilot Study in Northern Gulf, Report on Pilot Nitrogen Farming Project, Gulf of Mexico Governor's Accord Workgroup Coordination, Harte Institute Proposal for Joint Symposium, The Nature Conservancy Migratory Birds Proposal.

The meeting is open to the public.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2001-0004. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket is (202) 566-0270.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified above. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

The guidance document, which is published below, was issued as a memorandum from EPA headquarters to the Regional offices. If you would like to receive a hard copy, please call the RCRA Call Center at 800-424-0346 or TDD 800-553-7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-3323. Additional information about RCRA corrective action is available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.

On October 2, 2001, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comment on a draft guidance document entitled “Recognizing Completion of Corrective Action Activities at RCRA Facilities” (see 66 FR 50195). Comments received by the Agency on that draft guidance largely supported the content, but expressed concern that the Agency needed to expand the scope of the guidance, for example, to address when and under what circumstances decisions that corrective action is complete should be made.

On February 27, 2002, the Agency published a second draft guidance in the Federal Register (see 67 FR 9174), which included most elements of the first draft, but was expanded to discuss two types of corrective action completion determinations. The Agency again solicited comment on the guidance.

Generally, commenters on the February 27 draft guidance supported the Agency's effort (and some supported all or part of the Agency's approach) to develop guidance related to completion of corrective action. However, some commenters raised concerns about aspects of the guidance, with many commenters offering suggestions for revising the guidance. The Agency modified the draft guidance in response to comments received, and the resulting final “Guidance on Completion of Corrective Action Activities at RCRA Facilities” memorandum is published below in this Federal Register notice.

In the February 27, 2002 Federal Register notice, the Agency described two types of completion of corrective action. For both types, all of the following have been satisfied: (1) A full set of corrective measures is defined; (2) the facility has completed construction and installation of all required remedial actions; (3) site-specific media cleanup objectives, which were selected based on current and reasonably expected future land use, and maximum beneficial groundwater use, have been met.

A Corrective Action Complete without Controls 1 means that these objectives have been met, and the areas subject to the determination do not require any additional action or measures to ensure the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. For Corrective Action Complete with Controls, all that remains is performance of required operation and maintenance and monitoring actions, and/or compliance with and maintenance of any institutional controls.

The Agency received many comments on those two types of completion.

While commenters generally agreed with the two types of completion, there was widespread concern among the commenters that they would not be useful for many facilities. Commenters believed that Corrective Action Complete (without controls), as described, may never be achieved by some facilities, and that Corrective Action Complete with Controls, because of the third criterion (that final remedy cleanup objectives have been met) would not be attainable by many facilities within a reasonable timeframe, particularly in the case of restoration of contaminated groundwater. Commenters expressed the need for a formal and public recognition of progress that could be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. Some requested that the Agency modify the definition of Corrective Action Complete with Controls to remove the criteria that cleanup objectives be met to provide a measure that can be achieved within a timeframe that is reasonable. Others suggested that the Agency establish a provisional type of corrective action complete designation.

The Agency recognizes that in carrying out an extensive and complex corrective action a facility can achieve several significant milestones, and recently described in detail a strategy for RCRA corrective action that includes short-term protection goals, intermediate performance goals, and final cleanup goals (see Handbook of Groundwater Protection and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Corrective Action, September, 2001, Sections 1.2-1.3, (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca), and Environmental Indicator Guidance, February, 1999, (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/eis)).

This final guidance was not designed to guide regulators in recognizing progress at facilities where short-term protection goals or intermediate performance goals have been achieved. Rather, it was designed to recommend steps that regulators might take where the site-specific media cleanup objectives, identified based on the current and reasonably anticipated use of the site, have been met.

The Agency continues to believe that it is important to distinguish between situations where significant progress has been made toward final cleanup, and situations where corrective action is actually complete. The Agency believes that a “completion” determination signals to all parties involved that corrective action activities no longer are necessary (though controls to ensure the remedy remains protective may be necessary), and thus are preferably reserved for situations where there is no further cleanup activity to conduct—regardless of how long it might take to achieve site-specific media cleanup objectives. The Agency is concerned that making “completion” determinations at facilities that have not yet achieved final cleanup goals would jeopardize the integrity of that distinction, potentially be misleading, and minimize the accomplishment of facilities that truly have completed corrective action.

At the same time, the Agency recognizes that the commenters raised a valid concern—that owners and operators often need a formal recognition of progress at a landmark that can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. Rather than encourage regulators to recognize completion prematurely, however, the Agency would prefer to address commenters' concern by formally recognizing progress at an earlier step in the corrective action process—where remedial measures are in place and operating, but cleanup objectives have not yet been met—in addition to recognizing completion of corrective action. The Superfund program makes “Construction Complete” designations at this point in its cleanups; EPA believes it is appropriate to recognize the analogous stage in RCRA corrective action as well. At that point in the cleanup process, while remedial measures continue to be implemented, final remedial decisions have been made and, at some facilities, environmental and human health risks may have been controlled such that the facility is ready for reuse. In recognition of the valid concerns raised by commenters, the Agency plans to investigate, in another forum, how it might formally and publicly recognize an earlier milestone in the corrective action process, analogous to Superfund's “construction complete.” 2

Some commenters were concerned that, because the criteria discussed in the draft guidance for “Corrective Action Complete with Controls” determinations included achievement of site-specific media cleanup objectives, which were selected based on current and reasonably expected future land use and maximum beneficial groundwater use, the guidance would be interpreted to mean that groundwater would be restored to drinking water standards in all cases. The Agency disagrees with that interpretation of the draft guidance, and believes that interpretation is inconsistent with the September, 2001 Handbook of Groundwater Protection and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Corrective Action, which is the Agency's most current guidance on groundwater issues related to RCRA corrective action. However, the Agency removed references to “maximum beneficial use of groundwater” from this final guidance for two other reasons. First, the draft guidance did not discuss cleanup standards for all media—in fact, the discussion was limited to groundwater. The Agency did not intend this guidance to address the issue of cleanup standards for the various media addressed through corrective action, and saw no reason to single out groundwater for discussion. Second, the Agency was concerned that provisions of the Groundwater Handbook when discussed in this guidance might be interpreted differently than they would within the context of the handbook itself. The September, 2001 Groundwater Handbook represents current Agency guidance on groundwater issues for the corrective action program, and EPA does not intend for this final Completion Guidance to address, or modify its guidance on, groundwater issues. The Agency is exploring a cross-program “Ground Water Working Group,” 3 as a forum to identify and discuss groundwater issues of importance to multiple EPA programs, and to develop options for addressing those issues.4

Finally, some commenters were concerned that Corrective Action Complete with Controls would be considered a stepping stone toward Corrective Action Complete without Controls, rather than a form of completion in and of itself. Commenters requested that the Agency clarify that Corrective Action Complete with Controls is a form of completion. The Agency agrees with commenters that Corrective Action Complete with Controls is a form of completion, and not a stepping stone toward Corrective Action Complete without Controls. For example, EPA recognizes that a final remedy that involves the use of institutional controls to maintain protection of human health and the environment is, nonetheless, a final remedy. EPA believes that owners and operators should be able to implement a final remedy, including one that involves institutional controls, with assurance that the Agency generally will not require additional corrective action at a later date so long as the controls, which help assure protection of human health and the environment, are effective.

It should be noted, however, that in the case of a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination, protection of human health and the environment is dependent upon the maintenance of the controls. Should the controls fail, a risk to human health and/or the environment might require additional action. That action might include different or additional controls, or it might involve additional cleanup. This does not mean that the Agency intends to revisit Corrective Action Complete with Controls determinations for the purpose of achieving Corrective Action Complete without Controls determinations. Rather, the Agency expects final remedies to be effective not just at the moment that the completion determination is made, but in the long-term as well.

In addition, the Agency anticipates that there may be circumstances where an owner or operator of a facility that has received a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination may choose in the future to conduct additional cleanup and obtain a Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination. For example, if a remedy included a restriction that the property be used only for industrial purposes, and the owner or operator were to decide to convert the property to residential use, additional cleanup would likely be necessary. Or, an owner or operator might choose to conduct additional cleanup and return the property to unrestricted use in order to end the responsibility for maintaining controls at the facility. However, under these examples, the decision to conduct additional corrective action would be that of the owner or operator.

In response to commenters' concerns described above, the Agency made two modifications to the guidance. In the February 27, 2002 Federal Register notice, the two types of completion were designated “Corrective Action Complete” and “Corrective Action Complete with Controls.” The Agency modified the terms used to refer to the two types of completion by adding “without Controls” to “Corrective Action Complete.” The Agency believes that the resulting two designations—Corrective Action Complete without Controls and Corrective Action Complete with Controls—more clearly reflect that both are forms of completion. The Agency also added language to the guidance to clarify that Corrective Action Complete with Controls is, in and of itself, a form of completion, and not a stepping stone toward Corrective Action Complete without Controls.

One additional modification to the definition of Corrective Action Complete with Controls should be noted. In the February 27, 2002 Federal Register notice, the fourth factor for a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination stated “all that remains is * * * compliance with and implementation of any institutional controls.” In this final guidance, the Agency changed “implementation” to “maintenance” in this phrase. The Agency made this change to avoid an interpretation that “implementation” includes actions related to getting institutional controls in place, such as selection or securing institutional controls. “Maintenance,” more clearly conveys that the phrase “Corrective Action Complete with Controls” means that the appropriate controls are in place.

The draft guidance published in both the October 2, 2001 and the February 27, 2002 Federal Register notices suggested procedures for making completion determinations at permitted and non-permitted facilities. Generally commenters agreed with those procedures, and they are included in this guidance. However, commenters expressed concerns about language in the guidance related to permit modifications. The draft guidance suggested that at permitted facilities, Class 3 permit modification procedures generally would be appropriate for modifying a permit to recognize a completion determination. Commenters on the October 2, 2001 Federal Register notice suggested that, in many cases, a Class 1 procedure would be appropriate. The Agency added language (in a footnote) to the draft guidance in the February 27, 2002 notice to recognize that, in some cases, Class 3 procedures might not be necessary (see 67 FR 9174 at 9177). However, commenters on the February 27, 2002 notice repeated the same concerns that the guidance suggested that Class 3 procedures were appropriate for recognizing completion and that those procedures would be unduly burdensome.

The Agency believes that when it recognizes completion of corrective action at a facility, it is taking a step that is significant not only to the facility, but to the local community as well. Thus, the Agency believes it is important that the community have an opportunity to be involved in the Agency's decision. The Agency agreed with commenters that there may be circumstances where Class 3 procedures might be burdensome and reap little benefit, and recognized those situations in the February 27, 2002 draft completion guidance. However, the Agency continues to believe that Class 3 procedures will be appropriate procedures for recognizing completion determinations at most facilities.

To address commenters concerns, the Agency has emphasized in this guidance that Class 3 procedures might not be appropriate in all situations by strengthening that discussion and moving it to the text of the guidance from the footnote.

In the February 27, 2002 draft guidance, the Agency discussed making completion determinations for a portion of a facility. There was widespread support among commenters for recognizing completion determinations for a portion of a facility, and this final guidance retains that discussion. At the same time, the Agency recognizes that the discussion in this guidance addresses only a few of the issues related to parceling of RCRA facilities. The Agency agrees with the commenter who accurately pointed out that by supporting completion determinations for portions of a facility under the circumstances described in this guidance, the Agency has taken the first step toward addressing related issues.

The February 27, 2002 draft guidance discussed and requested comment on the issue of implementation of institutional controls at facilities that receive Corrective Action Complete with Controls determinations. The draft guidance suggested that, in most cases, a permit or order should be maintained following a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination, but noted that regulators might find alternative methods for ensuring continued effectiveness of the institutional controls at a facility.

The Agency received many comments related to implementation of institutional controls. Commenters were not in agreement on the issue of whether permits and/or orders should be maintained at facilities where Corrective Action Complete with Controls determinations are made, or, more broadly, on more effective methods for implementing institutional controls.

After reviewing comments, the Agency generally believes that the approach it took in the draft guidance is appropriate, although the Agency is also interested in exploring and evaluating alternative methods for the continued effectiveness of institutional controls at a facility. The Agency recognizes that effective implementation of institutional controls is vital to continued protection of human health and the environment following a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination at RCRA facilities (and at facilities where cleanup is conducted under other programs, such as Superfund) where the remedy depends upon institutional controls, and continues to explore the complex issues related to institutional controls. However, the Agency did not attempt to address those complex issues in this guidance.

The Agency continues to focus attention on the evolving and complex issues associated with institutional controls. In the near future EPA will finalize a cross-program guidance entitled, “Institutional Controls: A Guide to Implementing, Monitoring, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups” that will serve as a companion to guidance issued in 2000 entitled “Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating, and Selecting Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups,” September 2000, OSWER Directive 9355.0-74FS-P. Additionally, the Agency is currently at work developing a national institutional control tracking system; supporting the development of a model state institutional control law; and evaluating the need for guidance on estimating institutional control costs, institutional control implementation plans, and ensuring compliance with institutional controls.

The final guidance published in this Federal Register notice describes two types of completion of corrective action, and suggests processes for recognizing completion. The comments discussed above were directly related to the issues discussed in the guidance. The Agency recognizes that completion of corrective action raises many issues for regulators and for owners and operators, including issues related to transfer of RCRA facilities (or portions of facilities), sometimes referred to as “parceling,” financial assurance, and institutional controls. In addition, completion of corrective action at some facilities, such as Federal Facilities, may present unique issues. EPA received comments on these related issues as part of the comment it received on the October 2, 2001 and February 27, 2002 draft guidances. The Agency reviewed all of those comments, but those that were not directly related to issues discussed in the draft guidance documents are not addressed in this notice.

EPA believes that, because of the multitude and complexity of the issues related to completion of corrective action, the best approach to these issues is to make continuous incremental progress in addressing them. Using this approach, the Agency has limited the scope of the discussion in this final guidance, but hopes that it has opened dialogue on, and will establish a foundation for, some of the broader issues related to completion of corrective action, to be addressed at a later time. The Agency encourages commenters to continue to provide input on these important issues as they are addressed.

Subject: Guidance on Completion of Corrective Action Activities at RCRA Facilities.

From: Robert Springer, Director, Office of Solid Waste; Susan E. Bromm, Director, Office of Site Remediation Enforcement.

To: RCRA Division Directors, Regions I-X, Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X, Regional Counsel.

This memorandum provides guidance to the Regions and authorized States on acknowledging completion of corrective action activities at RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. It describes two types of completion determinations—“Corrective Action Complete without Controls” and “Corrective Action Complete with Controls.” It provides guidance on when each type of completion determination is appropriate. It also discusses completion determinations for less than an entire facility. Finally, it provides guidance on procedures for EPA and the authorized States when making completion determinations.

This document provides guidance to EPA Regional and State corrective action authorities, as well as to facility owner or operators and the general public on how EPA intends to exercise its discretion in implementing the statutory and regulatory provisions that concern RCRA corrective action. The RCRA statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA and State decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular facility will be made based on the applicable statutes and regulations. Therefore, interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance, and the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA will consider whether or not the recommendations or interpretations in the guidance are appropriate in that situation. The Agency welcomes public comment on this document at any time, and will consider those comments in any future revision of this guidance document.

EPA recognizes the importance of an official acknowledgment that corrective action activities have been completed. An official completion determination, made through appropriate procedures, benefits the owner or operator of a facility, the regulatory agency implementing the corrective action program, and the public. Official recognition that corrective action activities are complete can, among other things, promote transfer of ownership of the property and, in some cases, can help return previously used commercial and industrial properties, such as “brownfields,” to productive use. Further, once the regulatory agency implementing corrective action makes a determination that corrective action activities are complete, it can focus agency resources on other facilities. Finally, if completion determinations are made through a process that provides adequate public involvement, the process of making a formal completion determination will assure the public an opportunity to review and comment on the cleanup activities, and to pursue available administrative and/or judicial challenges to the agency's decision.5

Under 40 CFR section 264.101, owners and operators seeking a permit for the treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste must conduct corrective action “as necessary to protect human health and the environment.” 6 The ultimate goal of corrective action is to satisfy the “protection of human health and the environment” standard. Thus, a determination by EPA (or a State authorized by EPA to implement the Corrective Action Program) that corrective action activities are complete is, in effect, an announcement that the “protection of human health and the environment” standard has been achieved.7

With experience, the Agency has discovered that the universe of facilities subject to corrective action requirements includes facilities that vary widely in complexity, extent of contamination, and level of risk presented at the facility. To address this wide variation among corrective action facilities, the Agency has developed multiple approaches to achieving “protection of human health and the environment.”

When conducting corrective action, however, one of the key distinctions among remedies is the extent to which they rely upon controls (engineering and/or institutional) 8 to ensure that they remain protective. In some cases, the Agency selects a remedy that requires treatment and/or removal of waste and all contaminated media to levels that allow the facility to be used in an unrestricted manner.9 At these facilities, no additional oversight or activity is required following cleanup. When implementation of the remedy is completed successfully, protection of human health and the environment is achieved.

In other cases, the Agency selects a remedy that allows contamination to remain on site, but imposes ongoing obligations concerning, for example, operation and maintenance of engineered controls (e.g., a landfill cap), and compliance with institutional controls (e.g., a restriction that land be used for industrial purposes only). Thus, in these situations, the goal of “protection of human health and the environment” often is achieved through use of a remedy (e.g., containment) that allows some contamination to remain in place, but requires controls (engineering and/or institutional) at the facility to prevent or to limit the risk of exposure through release of contamination that remains following cleanup. Following remedy implementation, maintenance of controls and continued corrective action related activities (such as monitoring) at such facilities are fundamental elements of meeting the standard of “protection of human health and the environment.” 10

An example of a situation where the Agency typically chooses a remedy that relies on controls is a facility for which the reasonably foreseeable use is industrial.11 At those facilities, the Agency may offer the facility the option to achieve long-term protection of human health and the environment by selecting a remedy that allows higher levels of contamination to remain at the facility, but requires the use of controls to limit the risk of unacceptable exposure. This remedy is considered the final remedy; however, protection of human health and the environment at the facility typically is dependent on maintenance of controls.

As was discussed above, a determination by EPA that corrective action activities are complete is a statement by the Agency that protection of human health and the environment has been achieved at a facility. As was also discussed above, the Agency takes different approaches to achieving protection of human health and the environment at facilities, depending on the site-specific circumstances. Completion determinations benefit the owner or operator, the community, and the regulatory agency. Therefore, EPA recommends that regulators implementing the corrective action program make completion determinations where corrective action activities have assured long-term protection of human health and the environment at a facility. EPA anticipates two types of completion determinations—Corrective Action Complete without Controls, and Corrective Action Complete with Controls. These two types of completion determinations, and recommended procedures for making them, are described below.

EPA believes that it is appropriate for it, or for an authorized State, to make a determination that Corrective Action is Complete without Controls where the facility owner or operator has satisfied all obligations under sections 3004(u) and (v).12 The Agency recommends this terminology be used to indicate that either there was no need for corrective action at the facility or, where corrective action was necessary, the remedy has been implemented successfully,13 and no further activity or controls are necessary to protect human health and the environment.

Under the approach described in this guidance, a determination that Corrective Action is Complete without Controls means that no additional remedial activity would be required on the part of the regulatory agency or the owner or operator to maintain protection of human health and the environment. No controls are necessary at the facility to maintain protection of human health and the environment. Thus, the corrective action requirements can be eliminated. It is likely that the facility will be eligible for release from financial assurance for corrective action, as no funds should be needed in the future for corrective action-related activities. In addition, when there no longer are RCRA-regulated activities at the facility, the regulatory agency will likely have no concerns associated with transfer of the property, nor any reason to want to be informed of, or take an action regarding, that transfer.

EPA generally believes it is appropriate to make a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination at a facility where: (1) A full set of corrective measures has been defined; (2) the facility has completed construction and installation of all required remedial actions; (3) site-specific media cleanup objectives have been met; and (4) all that remains is performance of required operation and maintenance and monitoring actions, and/or compliance with and maintenance of any institutional controls. A Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination provides the owner or operator with recognition that protection of human health and the environment has been achieved, and will continue as long as the necessary operation and maintenance actions are performed, and any institutional controls are maintained and complied with.

It is important to ensure that an enforceable mechanism is in place so that there is compliance with and maintenance of the controls. Regions and States have often ensured that controls are maintained through a RCRA permit or order at the facility in that continuation of the permit or order assures periodic review by the regulatory agency, compliance with any operation and maintenance requirements and institutional controls, and notification to the regulatory agency of transfers of the facility (which allows an opportunity for the agency to assure that compliance with corrective action requirements will continue).14 Permits and orders will continue to be used as enforceable mechanisms to assure compliance. However, the Agency believes that other enforceable mechanisms also may be appropriate for implementing institutional controls. For example, several States have passed legislation that creates mechanisms to enforce institutional controls, a development that EPA encourages. For facilities where long-term institutional controls are necessary to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment, the regulator may explore a variety of options including permits, orders, and other enforceable mechanisms to maintain the institutional controls. In addition, where necessary, financial assurance for corrective action should be maintained at facilities following a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination.

It should be noted that, at some point, many facilities that obtain a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination might later obtain a Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination if circumstances were to change. For example, the owner or operator at a facility cleaned up to industrial levels could decide to conduct additional cleanup because there was a desire to change land use to unrestricted use levels, and/or because they no longer wished to maintain controls. Should a facility later seek a Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination, the regulatory agency should process that determination through appropriate procedures, such as those described below. If the Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination were made, it would be appropriate to remove whatever enforceable mechanism is in place, and release the facility from financial assurance for corrective action, so long as there are no additional RCRA activities at the facility subject to permit requirements.

Regulators implementing the corrective action program often develop a number of distinct and separate remedies to address different areas of a facility or different media. This approach may be necessary because a facility may include areas and media that present a range of environmental risks. For example, an industrial facility may include areas that may never have been used for industrial purposes or have never been otherwise contaminated. Alternatively, a facility may have contaminated groundwater undergoing corrective action years after the source of contamination has been removed, and the soil cleaned up to unrestricted use levels.

To ensure that a range of appropriate cleanup and land use options are available to the facility owner or operator, EPA believes that the agency should consider, when appropriate, subdividing a particular facility for purposes of corrective action. In these situations, the Agency might, for example, select a cleanup approach based on unrestricted use at parts of the facility, while cleanup at other parts of the facility may be based on the restricted use assumptions and rely on institutional and/or engineering controls to maintain the protectiveness of the corrective action. Alternatively, the Agency may select a cleanup approach based on unrestricted use for the entire facility, with some parcels requiring a longer time period to achieve the same cleanup goals.

Under this approach, a Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination could be made for a portion of a facility when it is returned to unrestricted use. A Corrective Action Complete without Controls or a Corrective Action Complete with Controls determination, as appropriate, could be made for remaining portions of the facility when the cleanup goals are achieved, and any necessary controls then would be implemented under an appropriate mechanism.

In some situations, following a Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination for a portion of a facility, the owner will sell the portion that no longer is subject to corrective action. In these situations, the regulator making the determination should consider the long-term plan for the facility, and the effect of the Corrective Action Complete without Controls determination and sale on financial assurance for corrective action. The regulator should take steps to ensure adequate financial assurance is available to address corrective action obligations at the remainder of the facility.

Completion determinations should be made by the appropriate authority (EPA or the authorized State implementing the corrective action program), and made through appropriate procedures. By following appropriate procedures, the authorized agency can make a sound, well informed completion determination. The appropriate procedures for processing a completion determination will depend on various factors, including the status of the facility (permitted or non-permitted), and on whether the determination applies to part of the facility or to the entire facility. The following section suggests procedures that the Agency believes generally are appropriate for completion determinations.15

The regulations in 40 CFR that govern the RCRA program do not provide explicit procedures for recognizing completion of corrective action activities, so regulators have considerable flexibility in developing procedures for making completion determinations. The regulatory agency implementing the corrective action program in that State (i.e., the authorized State program or, in unauthorized States, EPA) should ensure that a completion determination has been made through appropriate procedures. It is important to provide meaningful opportunities for public participation as part of a completion determination procedure. The Agency believes that the following, generally, are appropriate procedures for making Completion of Corrective Action determinations.16

EPA believes that permit modification is an appropriate procedure to reflect the agency's determination that corrective action is complete. In cases where no other permit conditions remain, the permit could be modified not only to reflect the completion determination, but also to change the expiration date of the permit to allow earlier permit expiration (see 40 CFR 270.42 (Appendix I(A)(6)).

The current regulations in 40 CFR 270.42 provide procedural requirements for facility requested permit modifications. In most cases, completion of corrective action is likely to be a Class 3 permit modification, and the regulatory agency should follow those procedures (or authorized State equivalent), including the procedures for public involvement. It should be noted that the Agency suggests Class 3 permit modification procedures are generally appropriate for completion determinations. However, Class 3 procedures may not be appropriate in all circumstances, and the regulatory agency should evaluate each situation to determine whether a less extensive procedure would be adequate. For example, where the regulatory agency has made extensive efforts throughout the corrective action process to involve the public and has received little or no interest, and the environmental problems at the facility were limited, more tailored public participation may be appropriate.

At non-permitted facilities where facility-wide corrective action is complete, and all other RCRA obligations at the facility have been satisfied, EPA or the authorized State may acknowledge completion of corrective action by terminating interim status through final administrative disposition of the facility's permit application (see 40 CFR 270.73(a)). To do so, the permitting authority at the facility (EPA or the authorized State or both, depending on the authorization status of the State) should process a final decision following the procedures for permit denial in 40 CFR Part 124, or authorized equivalent.17

EPA recognizes that referring to this decision as a “permit denial” may be confusing to the public and problematic to the facility when the facility is in compliance, is not seeking a permit, and does not have an active permit “application.” Therefore, regulatory agencies may choose to use alternate terminology (e.g., a “no permit necessary determination” or “cleanup obligations satisfied”) to refer to this decision, though it is issued through the permit denial process or authorized equivalent. Regardless of the terminology used, the basis for the decision should be stated clearly, generally that: (1) There are no ongoing treatment, storage, or disposal activities that require a permit; (2) all closure and post-closure requirements applicable at the regulated units have been fulfilled; and (3) all corrective action obligations, including implementation of long-term monitoring procedures, have been met.

EPA or the authorized States may develop procedures for recognizing completion of corrective action at non-permitted facilities other than the permit decision process described above. For example, a regulatory agency may have procedures for issuing a notice informing the facility and the public that the facility has met its corrective action obligations, rather than issuing a final permit decision. Although these procedures would not have the effect of terminating interim status, unlike the Part 124 permit denial procedures, EPA believes they can be appropriate for making a completion determination. In general, EPA believes the alternative procedures should provide procedural protections equivalent to, although not necessarily identical to, those required by EPA's 40 CFR Part 124 requirements (or the authorized State equivalent). Owners and operators should be aware that informal communications regarding the current status of cleanup activities at the facility are not the same as the completion determinations described in this guidance.18

On January 17, 2003, we published a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on the treatment of loan syndication transactions by System banks and associations. The comment period expired on February 18, 2003. See 68 FR 2540, January 17, 2003. The Farm Credit Council requested that the FCA provide interested parties an additional 60 days to comment on this issue. In response to this request, we are reopening the comment period until April 21, 2003, so all interested parties have more time to respond to our questions. The FCA supports public involvement and participation in its regulatory and policy process and invites all interested parties to review and provide comments on our notice.

Prior to an offer of employment, job applicants to the FDIC must sign a certification that they have not been convicted of a felony or been in other circumstances that prohibit persons from becoming employed by or providing services to the FDIC.

OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr. (202) 395-4741, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC Contact: Tamara R. Manly, (202) 898-7453, Legal Division, Room MB-3109, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments: Comments on these collections of information are welcome and should be submitted on or before March 27, 2003, to both the OMB reviewer and the FDIC contact listed above.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. On December 4, 2002, the FTC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period seeking comments from the public concerning the collection of information from consumers. See 67 FR 72186. No comments were received. Pursuant to the OMB regulations that implement the PRA (5 CFR part 1320), the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to conduct the collection of information presented by the proposed survey.

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

The FTC proposes to survey approximately 3,000 consumers in order to gather specific information on the incidence of consumer fraud in the general population. This information will be collected on a voluntary basis, and the identities of the consumers will remain confidential. The FTC has contracted with a consumer research firm to identify consumers and conduct the survey. The results will: (1) Assist the FTC in determining whether the type and frequency of consumer fraud complaints collected in its Consumer Sentinel database representatively reflect the incidence of consumer fraud in the general population; and (2) inform the FTC about how best to combat consumer fraud.

The FTC will pretest the survey on approximately 100 respondents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. This pretest will take approximately 15 minutes per person and 25 hours as a whole (100 respondents × 15 minutes each). Answering the consumer survey will require approximately 15 minutes pre respondent and 750 hours as a whole (3,000 respondents × 15 minutes each). Thus, cumulative total hours attributable to the consumer research will approximate 775 hours.

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require start-up, capital, or labor expenditures by respondents.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis To Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for January 31, 2003), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/01/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

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

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Dainippon Ink and Chemicals, Incorporated (“Dainippon”), which is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from Dainippon's acquisition of Bayer Corporation's (“Bayer”) high performance pigments business. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Dainippon will be required to divest its perylene business to Ciba Specialty Chemicals Inc. and Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (collectively, “Ciba”).

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for reception of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make it final.

Pursuant to an asset purchase agreement dated February 15, 2002, Dainippon, through its wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Sun Chemical Corporation (“Sun Chemical”), agreed to acquire Bayer's high performance pigments business for approximately $57.8 million (the “Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, in the worldwide market for the research, development, manufacture, and sale of perylenes.

Dainippon is a diversified global chemicals company based in Tokyo, Japan. Primarily through Sun Chemical, Dainippon manufactures and sells a full range of organic pigments, including perylenes. Sun Chemical is the third largest supplier of perylenes in the world. Sun Chemical's perylenes are produced through two third-party, “toll” manufacturers, Lobeco Products and Forth Technologies, which are located in South Carolina and Kentucky, respectively. Sun Chemical provides these toll manufacturers the intellectual property, manufacturing know-how, and raw materials, as well as some of the equipment, to produce perylenes.

Bayer is a subsidiary of Bayer AG, a diversified, international healthcare and chemicals group based in Leverkusen, Germany. Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Bayer engages in the healthcare, life sciences, polymers, and chemicals industries. Bayer manufactures organic pigments at its facilities located in Bushy Park, South Carolina, and Lerma, Mexico. Bayer primarily participates in the high performance pigments segment and is considered a leader in the production of perylenes, which it manufactures at the Bushy Park plant. Bayer is currently the second largest supplier of perylenes in the world.

Pigments are small particles that are used to impart color to a wide variety of products, including inks, coatings (such as automotive coatings and housepaints), plastics, and fibers. Broadly speaking, there are two main categories of pigments: organic and inorganic. Organic pigments are chemically synthesized, carbon-based compounds that generate a broad spectral range of brilliant, transparent, or opaque color shades. Inorganic pigments, on the other hand, are generally based on metal oxides and tend to impart a narrower range of dull, opaque earth tones. Because of these differences, organic and inorganic pigments often are blended together to achieve a particular color shade and effect, and thus are used as complements rather than substitutes.

Organic pigments can be further categorized into two main groups: Commodity (or classical) organic pigments and “high performance” pigments. High performance pigments offer far superior durability and light-fastness compared to commodity organic pigments. Accordingly, high performance pigments are necessary to prevent color fading in products that endure prolonged exposure to sunlight and weather, such as automotive coatings. Commodity organic pigments, because of their lower quality, cannot substitute for high performance pigments in such demanding applications. High performance pigments are significantly more expensive than commodity organic pigments.

Perylenes are a class of high performance pigments that impart unique shades of red, such as maroon and violet, and offer a particularly high degree of transparency. Perylenes are primarily used to impart color to automotive coatings, and are used to a lesser degree in plastics and carpet fibers. Because no other pigment or colorant offers the same combination of unique color shades and high performance characteristics that perylenes provide, perylene customers could not achieve the same colors and performance levels in their products without perylenes. Thus, there are no substitute products that perylene customers could turn to, even if faced with a significant price increase for perylenes.

As Sun Chemical and Bayer are two of only four viable suppliers of perylenes in the world, the perylene market is already highly concentrated, as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI”). The Proposed Acquisition would significantly increase concentration in the market to an HHI level of 4,856, an increase of 680 points. The Proposed Acquisition would also eliminate the vigorous head-to-head competition between Sun Chemical and Bayer that has benefitted perylene customers in the past. By eliminating competition between Sun Chemical and Bayer in the market for perylenes, the Proposed Acquisition would allow the combined firm to unilaterally exercise market power, as well as increase the likelihood of coordinated interaction among the remaining perylene suppliers. As a result, the Proposed Acquisition would increase the likelihood that purchasers of perylenes would be forced to pay higher prices for perylenes and that innovation and service in this market would decrease.

Entry into the perylene market is not likely and would not be timely to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects that would result from the Proposed Acquisition. It would take a new entrant well over two years to complete all of the requisite steps for entry, including: Researching and developing perylene technology; building a perylene manufacturing facility; perfecting the art of manufacturing perylenes; and passing the rigorous battery of tests required for customer approval. Additionally, new entry into the perylene market is unlikely to occur because the capital investment required to become a viable perylene supplier is high relative to the limited sales opportunities available to new entrants.

The Consent Agreement requires Dainippon to divest Sun Chemical's perylene business to Ciba, a diversified specialty chemicals company that is a leading supplier of pigments (but does not manufacture or sell perylenes). This divestiture would fully remedy the Proposed Acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the perylene market for several reasons. First, Ciba is the best-positioned acquirer of Sun Chemical's perylene business. Second, under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Ciba will receive everything it needs to step into the shoes of Sun Chemical in the perylene market. Finally, the Consent Agreement includes certain measures that will help ensure an effective transition of the Sun Chemical perylene assets to Ciba.

Ciba is the best-positioned acquirer of Sun Chemical's perylene business for several reasons. First, Ciba is committed to the high performance pigments market. Ciba is already a leading supplier of other high performance pigments, such as quinacridones and diketo pyrollo pyrrols. As a result, Ciba has the ability and incentive to take over and further develop Sun Chemical's perylene business, because the divestiture will enable Ciba to offer a wide range of high performance pigments. Second, because Ciba already has a reputation for quality and consistency with the customers of high performance pigments (such as automotive coatings manufacturers), it will be relatively easy for Ciba to convince these customers that it can be a viable supplier of perylenes. Finally, customers that have expressed concern about the Proposed Acquisition's likely harmful effects on the perylene market feel that a divestiture of Sun Chemical's perylene business to Ciba would resolve their concern.

Ciba will receive all of the assets it needs to replace the competition offered by Sun Chemical in the perylene market before the Proposed Acquisition. Under the Consent Agreement, Sun Chemical will divest its entire perylene business to Ciba. The divestiture includes: All of Sun Chemical's current perylene products; all perylene research and development; manufacturing technology; scientific know-how; technical assistance and expertise; customer lists; raw material, intermediate, and finished product inventory; and perylene product names, codes, and trade dress. Because Sun Chemical manufactures perylenes through toll manufacturers, no manufacturing equipment or facilities are included in the divestiture. Instead, as required by the Consent Agreement, Ciba has entered into contracts with Sun Chemical's perylene toll manufacturers—Lobeco Products and Forth Technologies—that will become effective upon closing the divestiture.

Additionally, the Consent Agreement includes several measures to ensure an effective transition of the tangible and intangible assets related to the perylene business from Sun Chemical to Ciba. First, Ciba will have the opportunity to hire one or more Sun Chemical employees who have key responsibilities in connection with the company's perylene business. These former Sun Chemical employees will help Ciba not only to understand Sun Chemical's perylene manufacturing, research, and development process, but also to identify any missing or incomplete assets in the divestiture. Second, the Consent Agreement requires Sun Chemical to provide technical assistance to Ciba for a period of one year following the divestiture to help Ciba successfully take over Sun Chemical's perylene product line. Third, under the Consent Agreement, the Commission may appoint an interim monitor to supervise the transfer of assets and assure that Sun Chemical provides adequate technical assistance to Ciba.

Finally, in the event that the divestiture of Sun Chemical's perylene business to Ciba fails, the Consent Agreement includes certain contingent provisions to remedy the Proposed Acquisition's anticompetitive effects. If, before the Commission finalizes the Consent Order in this matter, the Commission notifies Dainippon that Ciba is not an acceptable acquirer of Sun Chemical's perylene business or that the manner in which the divestiture to Ciba was accomplished was not acceptable, the Consent Agreement requires Dainippon to rescind the transaction with Ciba and divest Sun Chemical's perylene business to an acquirer that receives the prior approval of the Commission within ninety (90) days of the rescission. Additionally, if Dainippon does not divest Sun Chemical's perylene business to either Ciba or a Commission-approved acquirer within the time required by the Consent Agreement, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest Sun Chemical's perylene business in a manner that satisfies the requirements of the Consent Agreement.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the Consent Order or to modify its terms in any way.

Sun Chemical and Bayer also manufacture quinacridones, another class of red-shade high performance organic pigments. Unlike for perylenes, however, the Proposed Acquisition would not increase the likelihood that customers would pay higher prices for quinacridones, or that service and innovation for these products would decrease. Two companies—Ciba and Clariant—are by far the largest manufacturers of quinacridones in the world, and they are the top two choices for many customers. With respect to quinacridones, Sun Chemical and Bayer are each less than half the size of Ciba or Clariant. Unlike for perylenes, where Sun Chemical and Bayer often vigorously compete head-to-head for business, the parties are less likely to face each other in head-to-head competition for quinacridone business. Many customers believe that, after the Proposed Acquisition, the combined Sun Chemical/Bayer will become a stronger quinacridone competitor, able to compete more effectively against Ciba and Clariant. In addition, several new quinacridone suppliers recently have entered the market, and those suppliers will provide increasing competition.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Comparability Protocols—Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information.” This draft guidance applies to comparability protocols that would be submitted in new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), new animal drug applications (NADAs), abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs), or supplements to these applications, except for applications for protein products. Well-characterized synthetic peptides submitted in these applications are included within the scope of this guidance. This draft guidance also applies to comparability protocols submitted in drug master files (DMFs) and veterinary master files (VMFs) that are referenced in these applications. A separate guidance will address comparability protocols for proteins as well as for peptide products outside the scope of this guidance that are submitted in these applications. This separate guidance will also address comparability protocols for products submitted in biologics license applications (BLAs).

This draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in this guidance was approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and 0910-0032.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on “Comparability Protocols; Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information”. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm, or http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/published.htm.

Sections 737 and 738 of the act (21 U.S.C. 379i and j) establish fees for certain medical device applications and supplements. When certain conditions are met, FDA may waive or reduce fees (21 U.S.C. 379j(d) and (e)).

MDUFMA establishes aggregate revenue amounts for application fee revenues each year for FY 2003 through FY 2007. Revenue amounts established for years after FY 2003 are subject to adjustment for inflation, workload, and revenue shortfalls from previous years. FDA will set and publish fees each year so that total revenues will approximate the levels established in the statute, after those amounts have been adjusted for inflation, workload, and, if required, revenue shortfalls from previous years.

Table 1 of this document provides fee rates for applications submitted on October 1, 2002, and remaining in effect through September 30, 2003, as previously published (67 FR 70228 at 70229, as amended by 68 FR 1469 and 68 FR 3033).

Premarket applications and submissions not listed in table I are not subject to a MDUFMA user fee. The following are examples of submissions that do not require a MDUFMA fee:

• Any type of investigational device exemption submission made under section 520(g) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)).

• A request made under section 513(f)(2) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)) for an evaluation of automatic class III designation (also known as a de novo or risk-based classification).

• A modification to the manufacturing procedures or method of manufacturing submitted as a 30-day notice or as a 135-day supplement if notified by FDA that such a supplement is needed.

• An “express PMA supplement” for a manufacturing facility site change.

• Annual (or other periodic) reports required for an approved PMA.

In addition to the types of submissions described above that are not subject to MDUFMA fees, certain applications are exempt from fees. Exempted applications include:

• Applications submitted under section 520(m) of the act that qualify for a humanitarian device exemption (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(B)(i)).

• Applications submitted under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act for a product licensed for further manufacturing use only (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(B)(ii)).

• Applications submitted by a State or U.S. Federal Government entity for a device that is not to be distributed commercially (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(B)(iii)).

• Premarket notification submissions reviewed by an accredited third party (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(B)(iv)).

• Applications or supplements whose sole purpose is to support conditions of use in a pediatric population (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(B)(v)).

• First time PMA/PDP/BLA submissions from small businesses as discussed in section V of this document.

If you are unsure of whether a planned submission will be subject to a MDUFMA user fee, please contact CDRH's Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance, on 1-800-638-2041 or 301-443-6597, for assistance.

For guidance on which type of fee applies to your application, please see the document entitled “Assessing User Fees: PMA Supplement Definitions, Modular PMA Fees, BLA and Efficacy Supplement Definitions, Bundling Multiple Devices in a Single Application, and Fees for Combination Products: Guidance for Industry and FDA.” You may find a link to this document on FDA's Web site at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/mdufma. At that Web site, under the heading “Guidance Documents” click on the link “Assessing User Fees—PMA Supplements, Modular PMAs, BLAs and Efficacy Supplements, Bundling, and Combination Products.” This guidance will help you determine fees for PMA supplements (panel-track, 180-day, and real-time), modular PMAs, as well as combination products. It also provides information on when bundling multiple devices in a single application would be appropriate.

Firms with annual gross sales and revenues of $30 million or less, including gross sales and revenues of all affiliates, partners, and parent firms, may qualify for a fee waiver for their first PMA, and for lower rates for subsequent PMAs, premarket reports, and supplements. Such firms may also qualify for lower rates for premarket notification submissions in FY 2004 and subsequent years.

To qualify, you are required to submit the following:

(1) Certified copies of your Federal Income Tax Return for the most recent taxable year, including certified copies of the income tax returns of your affiliates, partners, and parent firms.

(2) A certified list of all parents, partners, and affiliate firms since October 1, 2002.

You can find information for determining if an applicant qualifies for a small business first-time PMA waiver and lower rates for subsequent applications on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/mdufma. At that Web site, under the heading “Guidance Documents,” click on the link “Qualifying as a Small Business.” This Web site provides detailed instructions and the address for mailing documentation to support qualification as a small business under MDUFMA.

You must pay a fee for any medical device application subject to a fee that you submitted on or after October 1, 2002 (21 U.S.C. 379j(a)(1)(A)). (Section III of this document addresses applications exempted from fees and procedures related to them.) FDA will issue invoices to all applicants who submitted medical device applications on or after October 1, 2002, and through the date of this notice. FDA will issue those invoices during March and April 2003, and payment will be due within 30 days of issuance date. FDA will include detailed payment instructions with the invoices. Please include the invoice numbers on all payments submitted in response to these invoices.

In March 1997, FDA issued final regulations (part 11) that provided criteria for acceptance by FDA, under certain circumstances, of electronic records, electronic signatures, and handwritten signatures executed to electronic records as equivalent to paper records and handwritten signatures executed on paper (62 FR 13430, March 20, 1997). These regulations, which apply to all FDA program areas, were intended to permit the widest possible use of electronic technology, consistent with FDA's responsibility to protect the public health.

Since part 11 became effective in August 1997, significant discussions have ensued between industry, contractors, and the agency concerning the interpretation and implementation of the rule. Concerns have been raised that some interpretations of the part 11 requirements would: (1) Unnecessarily restrict the use of electronic technology in a manner that is inconsistent with FDA's stated intent in issuing the rule, (2) significantly increase the costs of compliance to an extent that was not contemplated at the time the rule was drafted, and (3) discourage innovation and technological advances without providing a significant public health benefit. These concerns have been raised particularly in the areas of part 11 requirements for validation, audit trails, record retention, record copying, and legacy systems.

This document provides guidance to persons who, in fulfillment of a requirement in a statute or another part of FDA's regulations to maintain records or submit information to FDA, have chosen to maintain the records or submit designated information electronically and, as a result, have become subject to part 11.

This draft guidance announces that we intend to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the validation, audit trail, record retention, and record copying requirements of part 11. However, records must still be maintained or submitted in accordance with the underlying predicate rules. We also intend to exercise enforcement discretion and will not normally take regulatory action to enforce part 11 with regard to systems that were operational before August 20, 1997, the effective date of part 11 (commonly known as existing or legacy systems) while we are reexamining part 11.

It is important to note that FDA's exercise of enforcement discretion as described in this guidance is limited to the specified part 11 requirements. We intend to enforce all other provisions of part 11 including, but not limited to, certain controls for closed systems in § 11.10, the corresponding controls for open systems (§ 11.30), and requirements related to electronic signatures (e.g., §§ 11.50, 11.70, 11.100, 11.200, and 11.300). We expect continued compliance with these provisions, and we will continue to enforce them.

In the Federal Register of February 4, 2003 (68 FR 5645), we announced the withdrawal of the draft guidance entitled “Guidance for Industry, 21 CFR Part 11; Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures, Electronic Copies of Electronic Records” because we wished to limit the time spent by industry reviewing and commenting on the guidance, which might not have been representative of FDA's approach under the CGMP initiative.

At this time, we are also announcing the withdrawal of CPG 7153.17 and previously published part 11 draft guidance documents on validation, glossary of terms, time stamps, and maintenance of electronic records. FDA has determined that it might cause confusion to leave standing these other draft guidances on part 11 and CPG 7153.17. FDA received valuable public comment on the draft guidances and plans to use that information to inform the agency's future decisionmaking with respect to part 11.

This level 1 draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, if finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on “Part 11, Electronic Records, Electronic Signatures—Scope and Application.” It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm, http://www.fda.gov/ora under “Compliance References,” or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Request for Termination of Multifamily Mortgage Insurance.

OMB Approval Number: 2502-0416.

Form Numbers: HUD-9807.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Notification from mortgagor and mortgagee to HUD of mutual agreement of termination of HUD multifamily mortgage insurance.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 175.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 establishes a five-year payment schedule to local counties in lieu of funds formerly derived from the harvest of timber on federal lands. Pursuant to the Act, BLM established five Communities for western Oregon BLM districts that contain O&C grant lands and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands. Committees' consists of 15 local citizens, plus 6 alternates, representing a wide array of interests.

The Act creates a mechanism for local community collaboration with federal land management activities in the selection of projects to be conducted on federal lands or that will benefit resources on federal lands using funds under Title II of the Act. Committee members review proposed projects and transmit their recommendations on these projects to the agency.

Committee membership must be balanced in terms of the categories of interest represented. Members serve without monetary compensation, but will be reimbursed for travel and per diem when on Committee business, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Prospective members and alternates are advised that serving on a Resource Advisory Committee calls for a substantial commitment of time and energy.

Any individual or organization may nominate one or more persons to serve on the Committees. Individuals may also nominate themselves or others. Nominees must reside within one of the counties that are (in whole or part) within the BLM District boundaries of the Committee(s) on which membership is sought. A person may apply for and serve on more than one Committee. Nominees will be evaluated based on their education, training, and experience relating to land use issues and knowledge of the geographical area of the Committee. Nominees must also demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making.

You may make nominations for the following categories of interest:

Category One—representatives of organized labor; developed outdoor recreation; off-highway vehicle use; energy and/or mining development; timber industry; or holders of federal grazing permits.

Category Two—representatives of nationally, regionally or locally recognized environmental organizations; dispersed recreation, archaeological and historic interests; or wild horse and burro groups.

Category Three—State, county or local elected officials; representatives of Native American Tribes; school officials or teachers, or the public-at-large.

The BLM Resource Advisory Committees are based on western Oregon BLM District boundaries. Specifically, the BLM Committees are as follows:

Salem District Resource Advisory Committee advises officials on projects associated with federal lands within the Salem District boundary which includes Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties.

Eugene District Resource Advisory Committee advises federal officials on projects associated with federal lands within the Eugene District boundary. The area covers Benton, Douglas, Lane, and Linn Counties.

Roseburg District Resource Advisory Committee advises federal officials on projects associated with federal lands within the Roseburg District boundary which includes Douglas, Lane, and Jackson Counties.

Medford District Resource Advisory Committee advises federal officials on projects associated with federal lands within the Medford District and Klamath Falls Resource Area in the Lakeview District. The area covers Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine Counties, and small portions of west Klamath County.

Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee advises federal officials on projects associated with federal lands within the Coos Bay District which includes Coos, Curry, Douglas, and Lane Counties.

Title: 30 CFR part 206, subpart B, Indian Oil (Form MMS-4416, Indian Crude Oil Valuation Report).

OMB Control Number: 1010-0113.

Bureau Form Number: Form MMS-4416.

Abstract: The Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for matters relevant to mineral resource development on Federal and Indian lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is responsible for managing the production of minerals from Federal and Indian lands and the OCS, collecting royalties from lessees who produce minerals, and distributing the funds collected in accordance with applicable laws. The Secretary has an Indian trust responsibility to manage Indian lands and seek advice and information from Indian beneficiaries. MMS performs the royalty management functions and assists the Secretary in carrying out DOI's Indian trust responsibility.

Section 101(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (FOGRMA), as amended, requires the Secretary to “establish a comprehensive inspection, collection, and fiscal and production accounting and auditing system to provide the capability to accurately determine oil and gas royalties, interest, fines, penalties, fees, deposits, and other payments owed, and collect and account for such amounts in a timely manner.” To accomplish these tasks more effectively, MMS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on February 12, 1998 (63 FR 7089) and a supplementary proposed rule on January 5, 2000 (65 FR 403). The proposed rules add more certainty to the valuation of oil produced from Indian lands and eliminate any direct reliance on posted prices by, among other provisions, requiring Indian lessees and purchasers to submit certain contract information to MMS.

MMS has announced in the Federal Register on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7086), the dates, places, and times for workshops on issues related to the existing rules adopted in March 2000 governing the valuation for royalty purposes of crude oil produced from Federal leases. The workshops will address, among other things, issues related to calculation of transportation allowances (including the rate of return allowed for calculating actual costs under non-arm's-length transportation arrangements), timing and application of published index prices, and calculation of location and quality differentials under certain circumstances.

Because of the substantive overlap between these issues and issues involved in the proposed rule on Indian oil valuation, and to give persons interested in Indian lease issues an opportunity to participate in the workshops, MMS is reopening the comment period for 60 days on the proposed rule on Indian oil valuation so it can include in the record any relevant comments received. MMS can then consider those comments as they might apply to the Indian oil valuation rule.

Not collecting this information would limit the Secretary's ability to discharge his/her duties and may also result in loss of royalty payments to the Indian lessor due to royalties not being collected on prices received under higher priced long-term sales contracts. Proprietary information submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this ICR.

We have also changed the title of this ICR from “Indian Crude Oil Valuation Report (Form MMS-4416)” to “30 CFR part 206, subpart B, Indian Oil (Form MMS-4416, Indian Crude Oil Valuation Report)” to clarify the regulatory language we are covering under 30 CFR part 206.

Frequency: Annually; as Agreements/Contracts Change.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 337 (225 oil royalty payors/112 nonpayor—purchasers).

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 2,363 hours.

The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. Therefore, we consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no “non-hour” cost burdens.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides 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.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA Section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, we published a Federal Register Notice on October 9, 2002 (67 FR 62985), announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. We received no comments in response to the notice.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by March 27, 2003.

Public Comment Policy: We will post all comments in response to this notice on our web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We will also make copies of the comments available for public review, including names and addresses of respondents, during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado. Individual respondents may request we withhold their home address from the public record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you request that we withhold your name and/or address, state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Information Collection Clearance Officer: Jo Ann Lauterbach, (202) 208-7744.

The National Park Service (NPS) is preparing a backcountry management plan and accompanying EIS that amends the 1986 General Management Plan for Denali National Park and Preserve. The purpose of the plan and EIS is to formulate a comprehensive plan for the backcountry, including designated wilderness, of Denali National Park and Preserve that will provide management direction over the next 15-20 years. The backcountry of Denali National Park and Preserve is defined to include the entire park except for those areas designated specifically for development in the entrance area and along the road corridor. Many issues to be addressed in the backcountry management plan, however, would affect the entire park, including developed areas. The NPS has initiated this management plan and EIS to address the rapidly growing level and diversity of uses, resource management needs, and the anticipated demand for future uses not foreseen or addressed in the 1986 General Management Plan. The NPS developed a range of alternatives based on planning objectives, park resources, and public input. Each alternative represents a distinct vision for the park's backcountry. These alternatives describe actions related to management area designation, recreational activities, and administrative activities. Four alternatives in addition to a no-action alternative were developed.

Alternative A (No Action): Current and projected conditions under this alternative provide a baseline for evaluating the changes and impacts of the other action alternatives. The NPS would continue the present management direction, guided by the 1986 General Management Plan, the 1997 Entrance Area and Road Corridor Development Concept Plan, the 1997 South Side Denali Development Concept Plan, the 1997 Strategic Plan, and backcountry management plans from 1976 and 1982. Recreational use and access patterns would continue to develop, and the NPS would respond as necessary on a case-by-case basis. No new services or facilities would be developed to meet increased levels of use in the backcountry, except for those identified in the Entrance Area or South Side plans. This alternative represents “no action” for this plan. For all activities, the NPS would respond to changing use patterns as necessary to protect park resources, visitor safety, and visitor experience.

Alternative B: This alternative would emphasize wilderness resource values (including solitude and natural sounds) and opportunities for self-reliant, non-motorized recreation that depend on the wilderness character of the resource. Denali would have a high degree of resource protection, especially in the original Old Park area. Under this alternative, some uses would be reduced or managed for greater dispersal to enhance resource protection. While some new approved uses could occur, services would be minimized to provide self-reliant experiences.

Alternative C: This alternative would emphasize highly dispersed recreational uses that are consistent with wilderness values and opportunities for solitude. It would allow for both motorized and non-motorized recreation activities, but would limit growth or otherwise manage use levels to provide a quality visitor experience and protect park resources.

Alternative D (NPS Preferred Alternative): The NPS would provide for expanded recreational opportunities in many areas of the park and preserve for activities that are particularly well suited to the unique character of Denali. Use levels would not exceed those that maintain the management vision for a particular unit. Patterns and types of use would be somewhat similar to current conditions, but increases in levels of use would be noticeable at several locations.

Alternative E: This alternative would emphasize expanded visitor services, additional facilities, and increased motorized access for backcountry users. A variety of uses would be accommodated throughout the park, and new forms and levels of recreational uses would be allowed in the park additions and preserve, while protecting resources. New facilities would be added in the entrance area and on the south side. There would be some expansion of existing uses in the original Old Park area, with modest expansion of uses in the park additions and preserve. There would be minimal reductions of or redistribution of existing uses even in congested areas. This alternative would allow additional types of use not presently occurring but consistent with laws, regulations, and management policies. As types and levels of use increase, so too would administrative presence.

Informational meetings and public hearings are scheduled in Alaska at the following locations: Anchorage, Wasilla, Fairbanks, Healy, Susitna Valley, Minchumina, and Cantwell. The specific dates and times of the meetings and public hearings will be announced in local media.

Effective December 27, 2002, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigation (68 FR 1860, January 14, 2003). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce extended the date for its final determination in the investigation to May 12 (68 FR 6885, February 11, 2003). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule.

The Commission's new schedule for the investigation is as follows: Requests to appear at the hearing must be filed with the Secretary to the Commission not later than May 8; the prehearing conference will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on May 12, 2003; the prehearing staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on May 1, 2003; the deadline for filing prehearing briefs is May 8, 2003; the hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on May 15, 2003; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs is May 22, 2003; the Commission will make its final release of information on June 6, 2003; and final party comments are due on June 10, 2003.

For further information concerning this investigation see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

Signed into law on August 6, 2002, the Trade Act of 2002 contains, in title XXXI, provisions for enhanced trade benefits for eligible Andean countries. Titled the “Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act” (ATPDEA), the ATPDEA renews the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and amends the ATPA to provide preferential treatment for certain products previously excluded from such treatment. In Presidential Proclamation 7616 of October 31, 2002, the President designated Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru as ATPDEA beneficiary countries. Section 203(f) of the ATPA, as amended by the ATPDEA, requires the USTR, not later than April 30, 2003, to submit to Congress a report on the operation of the ATPA. Section 203(f)(2) requires USTR, before submitting such report, to request comments on whether beneficiary countries are meeting the criteria listed in section 204(6)(B). USTR refers interested parties to the Federal Register notice published on August 15, 2002 (67 FR 53379), for a full list of section 204(6)(B)'s eligibility criteria.

Submitting Comments: Comments, in English, may be submitted by mail, express delivery service, or e-mail (to FR0030@ustr.gov). It is strongly recommended that comments submitted by mail or express delivery service also be sent by e-mail. Persons making submissions by e-mail should use the following subject line: “ATPDEA Beneficiary Countries”. Documents should be submitted as either WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel. For any document containing business confidential information submitted electronically, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Persons who make submissions by e-mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files. Persons submitting written comments by mail or express delivery service should provide 20 copies.

Written comments, notices of testimony, and testimony will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and nonconfidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling (202) 395-6186. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance.

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

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

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

(2) Report by the Coast Guard on meetings held and plans to develop maritime and offshore security rules.

(3) Report from Offshore Security Subcommittee and discussion of any recommendations to the Coast Guard regarding security regulations.

(4) Report from Liftboat Subcommittee.

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

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

(7) MMS presentation on the use of their pipeline database for the Gulf of Mexico.

(8) Revision of 33 CFR subchapter N, Outer Continental Shelf activities.

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

(10) Update on Coast Guard Initiatives on Crew Fatigue.

The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. If you would like to make an oral presentation at the meeting, please notify the Executive Director no later than March 20, 2003. Written material for distribution at the meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than March 20, 2003. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director (see ADDRESSES) no later than March 20, 2003.

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

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application 03-06-C-00-SLC to impose and use PFC revenue at Salt Lake City International Airport, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On February 12, 2003, the FAA determined that the application, to impose and use the revenue from a PFC, submitted by the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Salt Lake City, Utah, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than May 13, 2003.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: October 31, 2003.

Proposed charge expiration date: May 31, 2004.

Total requested for use approval: $22,231,100.

Brief description of proposed project: Taxiway H Pavement Reconstruction (H2-H4); Runway 16L/34R Overlay; North Support Tunnel Road Rehabilitation; Taxiway P Extension; Security Improvement Projects; Terminal Unit 1 Bag Carousel Modifications; Terminal Access Road Reconfiguration; Maintenance/Airfield Equipment.

Class or classes of air carrier that the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFC's: all air taxi/commercial operators filing or required to file FAA Form 1800-31.

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

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at Salt Lake City International Airport.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Wilmington International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On February 12, 2003, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by New Hanover Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than May 21, 2003.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

PFC Application No.: 03-04-C-00-ILM.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: April 1, 2007.

Proposed charge expiration date: April 1, 2018.

Total estimated net PFC revenue: $12,985,648.

Brief description of proposed project(s):

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Non-scheduled/on-demand air taxi operators (ATCO) filing FAA Form 1800-31.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

The proposed policy statement is available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may request a copy by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The FAA invites interested parties to comment on the proposed policy. Comments should identify the subject of the proposed policy and be submitted to the individual identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date before issuing the final policy.

The proposed policy statement would supersede FAA policy number 2000-33.87-R2, issued April 21, 2000. The intent of this proposed policy is to establish a uniform approach for Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs) to evaluate and approve a 2-minute gas temperature limit caused by thermal mismatch of engine hardware or flight conditions during acceleration to takeoff power. The FAA has revised this policy to provide guidance for demonstrating a 2-minute gas temperature limit within the 5-minute time limit associated with the takeoff power or thrust rating. The proposed policy would not establish new requirements.

The proposed policy is available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/anminfo/devpaper.cfm. If you do not have access to the Internet, you can obtain a copy of the policy by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

The FAA invites your comments on this proposed policy. We will accept your comments, data, views, or arguments by letter, fax, or e-mail. Send your comments to the person indicated in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Mark your comments, “Comments to Policy Statement No. ANM-03-117-09.”

Use the following format when preparing your comments:

• Organize your comments issue-by-issue.

• For each issue, state what specific change you are requesting to the proposed policy.

• Include justification, reasons, or data for each change you are requesting.

We also welcome comments in support of the proposed policy.

We will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments. We may change the proposed policy because of the comments received.

The proposed policy clarifies FAA certification policy on determination of system development assurance levels, hardware design assurance levels, and software levels for transport category airplanes.

You may see all the comments online through the Document Management System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.

On August 22, 2002, the FMCSA published a notice of applications (67 FR 54525) requesting comments on Mr. Parker's request for an exemption from the Federal standards for vision at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and for the loss of limbs at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1). Mr. Parker does not meet the vision requirements because of severe vision loss in his right eye. He does not meet the physical qualification requirements for the loss of limbs as he is missing his left arm and is unable to demonstrate power grasp prehension and precision prehension with each upper limb separately. To operate in interstate commerce, Mr. Parker must be granted an exemption from the vision requirements and must be granted a skill performance evaluation (SPE) certificate.

Mr. Parker applied for a waiver from the vision requirements in 1996 under criteria established under the agency's former Vision Waiver Program. The criteria included a provision that vision waiver applicants must be otherwise medically qualified under all other physical qualification requirements at 49 CFR 391.41. When the agency discovered that Mr. Parker's left arm had been amputated at the shoulder, it denied his application for a vision waiver because the agency determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine if someone with both a vision impairment and amputation could safely operate a CMV.

Mr. Parker filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit reversed the agency's denial, and remanded the case to the agency with instructions to create a functional capacity test consistent with FMCSA's findings that an individual's driving record is indicative of future performance which will evaluate Mr. Parker's driving skills based upon his individual capabilities (Jerry W. Parker v. United States Department of Transportation, 207 F. 3d 359 (6th Cir. 2000)). Mr. Parker's request for regulatory relief is discussed in detail in the August 22, 2002, notice (67 FR 54525).

In response to the Court's decision, the FMCSA has determined that Mr. Parker's request for a vision exemption will be considered on its own merits as outlined within the vision exemption program and the regulations found in 49 CFR part 381. Additionally, the FMCSA will evaluate Mr. Parker's amputation under the alternative physical qualification standards for the loss of limbs found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) and 391.49. In other words, each impairment that would preclude Mr. Parker from complying with the physical qualification standards would be considered and evaluated separately under the agency's process for granting or denying the vision exemption application or SPE certificate.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. Accordingly, the FMCSA has evaluated Mr. Parker's application for a vision exemption on its merits and made a determination to grant the exemption. The comment period closed on September 23, 2002. Seven comments were received, and their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in reaching the final decision to grant the exemption.

Although FMCSA is granting Mr. Parker a vision exemption, this does not allow Mr. Parker to drive in interstate commerce until he meets the alternative physical qualification standards for the loss of limbs and the use of a prosthetic device as outlined within 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1) and 391.49 (SPE certificate).

With today's decision to grant a vision exemption, Mr. Parker is “otherwise” qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle, when he meets the alternate physical qualification procedures under the SPE certification program. FMCSA is deferring making a decision regarding Mr. Parker's qualification under the Federal standards for loss of limbs until he obtains a prosthetic device, becomes proficient in using the device, and completes the SPE.

FMCSA has a SPE certification process that allows limb-amputee and limb-impairment CMV drivers to demonstrate, on an individual basis, their ability to operate safely the specific vehicle they intend to drive. Drivers must be able to demonstrate power grasp prehension (the ability to hold, clutch, clasp, or seize the steering wheel firmly) and precision prehension (the ability to effectively turn switches on and off and control other vehicle equipment while performing routine and emergency driver operations) with each upper limb separately (§ 391.49(d)(3)(i)(B)). Over the years, FMCSA has granted more than 2,000 SPE certificates to CMV drivers certifying their capability to operate legally and safely over the nation's highways.

Based on the information provided by Mr. Parker, he does not use a prosthetic device. Mr. Parker is missing his left arm and is unable to demonstrate power grasp prehension and precision prehension with each arm as required under the FMCSRs. Mr. Parker will need to obtain and wear a prosthetic or orthotic device, which enables him to demonstrate power grasp and precision prehension, and become proficient in using the device before we are able to proceed with the SPE certification process. Once Mr. Parker obtains a prosthetic device and can demonstrate power grasp prehension and precision prehension, FMCSA will provide him the opportunity to demonstrate, on an individual basis, his ability to operate safely the specific vehicle he intends to drive. This evaluation will include driving and non-driving safety related activities conducted by an Agency qualified SPE examiner.

Mr. Parker submitted to a road test conducted by a retired State Trooper. This individual is not certified under FMCSA's SPE program to administer an SPE evaluation, and that road test was not administered in accordance with the regulations found at 49 CFR 391.49. Consequently, the FMCSA cannot accept the results of that test.

The FMCSRs provide a standard set of requirements for all CMV drivers who wish to, or who do operate in interstate commerce. The medical standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1), or the alternative physical qualification standards for the loss of limbs found in 49 CFR 391.49, are based upon identified critical driving tasks associated with specific types of amputation or limb-impairments as outlined by the Krusen Center for Research and Engineering of the Moss Rehabilitation Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These standards were incorporated into the agency's regulations in 1985, and require a properly fitted and appropriate prosthesis, the demonstration of proficient use of the prosthesis, and the requirement of the use of the device while driving. Under existing Federal regulations, States may enforce safety regulations governing intrastate operations that vary from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (49 CFR part 350) includes tolerance guidelines governing State oversight of intrastate commerce. Consistent with these requirements, the State of Ohio has adopted intrastate regulations governing commercial driver vision qualifications. Here, the FMCSA must assure all other States, in which Mr. Parker might operate, that he is fully qualified under the Federal regulations. We are unable to reach that conclusion at this time, but we stand ready to immediately proceed with the SPE evaluation process when Mr. Parker obtains a prosthesis and can demonstrate the adequate use of that device in accordance with the alternative physical qualification standards.

The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:

A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).

Beginning in 1992, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has undertaken studies to determine if this vision standard should be amended. The final report from our most recent vision medical panel recommends changing the field of vision standard from 70° to 120°, while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, M.D., “Visual Requirements and Commercial Drivers,” October 16, 1998, filed in the docket, FHWA-98-4334.) The panel's conclusion supported the FMCSA's (and previously the FHWA's) view that the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a general standard to ensure highway safety. The FMCSA also recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard, but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.

Mr. Parker falls into this category. He is unable to meet the vision standard in his right eye because of a congenital eye condition known as Coats disease. However, he has corrected vision of 20/20 in his left eye and, in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The doctor's opinion is supported by the applicant's possession of valid commercial driver's license (CDL) to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce. Before issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and performance tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. Mr. Parker satisfied the testing standards for his State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, Mr. Parker demonstrated his ability to operate a commercial vehicle in intrastate, with his limited vision, to the satisfaction of his home State.

Possessing a valid CDL, Mr. Parker has been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though his vision disqualifies him from driving in interstate commerce. He has driven CMVs with his limited vision for 17 years. In the past 3 years, he has had no accidents or convictions for traffic violations in a CMV.

Mr. Parker's qualifications, experience, and medical condition were stated and discussed in detail in the August 22, 2002, notice (67 FR 54525).

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if, by granting the exemption, it is likely that the level of safety will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the issuance of such exemption. Although the FMCSA is granting Mr. Parker a vision exemption, this does not allow Mr. Parker to drive in interstate commerce. This is because he does not meet the medical standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1), or the alternative physical qualification standards for the loss of limbs at 49 CFR 391.49.

To evaluate the effect of the exemption on safety, the FMCSA considered not only the medical report about the applicant's vision, but also his driving record and experience with the vision deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, the FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he or she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several research studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of accidents and traffic violations. Copies of the studies have been added to the docket. (FHWA-98-3637)

We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers, because data from the vision waiver program clearly demonstrate the driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996.) The fact that experienced monocular drivers with good driving records in the waiver program demonstrated their ability to drive safely supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.

The first major research correlating past and future performance was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, building on that model, concluded that accident rates for the same individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated theories of predicting accident proneness from accident history coupled with other factors. These factors: “such as age, sex, geographic location, mileage driven and conviction history” are used every day by insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an individual experiencing future accidents. (See Weber, Donald C., “Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,” Journal of American Statistical Association, June 1971.) A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall accident predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.

Applying principles from these studies to Mr. Parker's past 3-year record, we note that he has had no accidents or traffic violations in the last 3 years. He achieved this record of safety while driving with his vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that he has adapted his driving skills to accommodate his condition. As his ample driving history with his vision deficiency is a good predictor of future performance, the FMCSA concludes his ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.

We believe Mr. Parker's intrastate driving experience and history provide an adequate basis for predicting his ability to drive safely in interstate commerce with his vision impairment. While not providing the variety of driving conditions and varying climate and geographic conditions of interstate driving, intrastate driving does involve operating on the interstate system and other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances are more compact than on highways. These conditions tax visual capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.

Mr. Parker has operated CMVs safely under those conditions for much longer than 3 years. The FMCSA finds that exempting Mr. Parker from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the agency will grant the exemption for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to Mr. Parker.

We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA will impose requirements on Mr. Parker consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to drivers who participated in the agency's vision waiver program.

Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the following: (1) That Mr. Parker be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that he is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that Mr. Parker provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that Mr. Parker provide a copy of the annual medical certification to his employer for retention in his driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his driver's qualification file if he is self-employed. He must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

The FMCSA received seven comments in this proceeding. The comments were considered and are discussed below.

Of the seven comments, three were in favor of Mr. Parker receiving both exemptions. All three supporting commenters knew Mr. Parker on a personal level and expressed their feelings that Mr. Parker had worked hard and was a good and safe driver.

The other four comments were opposed to Mr. Parker receiving exemptions. One individual wrote that it is not responsible to consider each disability separately without considering them in total to determine an individual driver's ability to safely operate a CMV and that physical qualifications are necessary since the creation of a commercial driving simulator that would evaluate both normal and emergency driving of all types is not realistic.

The FMCSA has determined that Mr. Parker's request for exemptions to the qualification standards will be handled as separate applications for exemptions under existing procedures at 49 CFR part 381, or the SPE program (49 CFR 391.49), as appropriate.

A Driver Trainer/Accident Investigator for a school district wrote in favor of a denial of the exemption request based on the need to strictly enforce regulations for safety on the roads.

The FMCSA's first obligation is to keep our roadways safe. Our safety regulations have a single goal—to reduce the number of CMV crashes and fatalities on the Nation's highways. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption from a regulation, however, only if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.”

A medical examiner wrote that more information about the extent of the impairment of the right arm and why Mr. Parker does not wear prosthetics, and a skills performance examination are necessary to make a determination.

The FMCSA has since received information from a psychiatrist regarding the impairment of Mr. Parker's right arm. In a letter dated November 8, 2002, the psychiatrist notes: “that based on my examination today, Jerry has no impairment of the right upper extremity.”

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) expresses opposition to granting an exemption to Mr. Parker because: (1) There is no research on which to base a determination that an applicant with multiple impairments meets the statutory requirement for an exemption; (2) the FMCSA has no basis for granting an exemption for loss of limb to an individual who does not wear a prosthesis and (3) there is no basis for separately considering the two impairments.

AHAS opposes the granting of exemptions to a single applicant from multiple medical and physical requirements in the FMCSRs because there is no foundation in fact or medical research on which a safety determination can be made. AHAS also states that the FMCSA has presented no analysis and has not cited any research to support the granting of exemptions in this circumstance. They point out that in denying the applicant's earlier request for an exemption in 1996, the FMCSA's predecessor agency stated that it lacked evidence to determine if an individual with these impairments could safely operate a CMV. AHAS stated that FMCSA has presented no evidence to contradict the 1996 analysis.

AHAS further states that the requirement for a driver to be capable of demonstrating precision prehension and power grasp prehension in each upper limb is based on medical information. They claim that, in line with this requirement, a driver with an upper limb amputation or impairment must wear a properly fitted and appropriate prosthesis to safely operate a CMV. AHAS then states that there is no record in this notice presenting evidence to refute the prosthesis requirement.

AHAS avers that FMCSA has presented no information or evidence that addresses the potential interaction of the two impairments and its effect while driving a CMV. They claim that the lack of a prosthesis alone is a sufficient basis on which to deny the exemption request. The addition of poor vision is a factor that presents a more complex medical and safety condition.

The agency has no data to refute the requirement that a prosthesis must be used to properly and safely operate a CMV. Therefore, in today's decision the FMCSA has deferred Mr. Parker's request for a SPE certificate until he obtains a properly fitted prosthesis and demonstrates full use of that device in accordance with the alternative physical qualification standards for the loss of limbs. If Mr. Parker fails to obtain a properly fitted prosthesis the FMCSA will not issue the SPE certificate. While the FMCSA has no specific data to address the level of safety that can be achieved when an applicant has two impairments, the agency does have data that identifies the requirements needed to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce with the vision deficiency in question, and with a properly fitted prosthesis. The FMCSA has determined that it is reasonable to use this known data to grant the vision exemption and defer a decision on the physical qualification issue (loss of limb).

Our response today is also guided by the Sixth Circuit's prior ruling in this matter. We believe that today's decision is consistent with the Court's remand and that the FMCSA is using a functional capacity test that is consistent with our prior findings that an individual's driving record is indicative of future performance and considers Mr. Parker's driving skills based upon his individual capabilities.

The FMCSA believes that its SPE certification process provides the agency with a functional capacity type test to evaluate Mr. Parker's individual capabilities. The SPE certification process allows limb-amputee and limb-impaired CMV drivers with good driving records to demonstrate, on an individual basis, their ability to operate safely the specific vehicle they intend to drive. This process is an assessment of the functional capabilities of the driver as they relate to the driver's ability to perform normal tasks associated with operating a CMV, and is based on the Amputee Driver Functional Matrix Chart (Krusen Study, 1977). The Matrix, formulated on the assumption that a prosthetic device is being worn by the amputee, identifies critical driving tasks associated with specific types of amputation or limb impairment and rates their difficulty given the specific handicap type. The SPE certification specialist reviews the functional capacities of the SPE applicant within the Matrix to focus on potential areas of difficulty, before administering an on-the-road test. Prior to the on-the-road evaluation, the process includes a review of the applicant's driving record for the last 3 years. Nonetheless, the FMCSA will continue to review this process and will examine ways to obtain funding to undertake a more extensive review of individuals with multiple impairments.

After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its evaluation of the vision exemption application, the FMCSA exempts Mr. Parker from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the following conditions: (1) That Mr. Parker be physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that he is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that Mr. Parker provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that Mr. Parker provide a copy of the annual medical certification to his employer for retention in his driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his driver's qualification file if he is self-employed. He must also have a copy of the certification when driving, so it may be presented to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Although the FMCSA has granted Mr. Parker a vision exemption, this action does not allow Mr. Parker to drive in interstate commerce because he has not met the physical qualification requirements for the loss of limbs. Action on Mr. Parker's SPE certification is deferred.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if: (1) Mr. Parker fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, Mr. Parker may apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

Section 4019 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, requires that the agency review the adequacy of the current commercial driver's license (CDL) testing process, make improvements and assess the merits of implementing a graduated commercial driver's license (GCDL).

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) describes the concept of a graduated driver's licensing as “a system designed to ease beginning drivers into the traffic environment under controlled exposure to progressively more difficult driving experiences. This system helps improve their driving skills and helps them acquire on-the-road experience under less risky conditions by progressing, or graduating, through driver licensing stages before unrestricted licensure.” FMCSA wants to determine if this concept can be successfully adapted to novice commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

The following questions were designed to gauge how commercial vehicle drivers, industry groups, and government agencies involved in vehicle operation, regulation, and enforcement feel about a GCDL.

The FMCSA originally intended to distribute the questionnaire to a limited number of persons representing the affected commercial motor vehicle industry. However, it now has decided to expand participation in this study process to anyone with an interest in this important issue by publishing this notice of inquiry. In addition, the answers to these questions will help determine the best way to implement a GCDL, if the FMCSA finds it beneficial to motor carrier safety and industry efficiency.

This notice incorporates information obtained through a series of focus groups with truck and bus drivers, industry representatives, and enforcement and regulatory agency representatives. The focus groups indicated support for a GCDL as a means for improving commercial vehicle safety. These groups were divided, however, over whether drivers between 18 and 21 years of age should be eligible for a GCDL as a means for attracting new entrants into the field and increasing the pool of qualified drivers. Additional information, including the March 1, 1999 report, “Designing a Graduated Commercial Driver's License, A Report on Focus Group Findings,” Final Report, by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), is available in the public docket for viewing and copying through the Docket Management System at: http://dms.dot.gov.

The 16 questions address issues considered important to the commercial vehicle community. Commenters may add narrative comments about the need for, benefits of, potential acceptance of, institutional barriers to, and practicality of a graduated commercial driver licensing system and the likely improvements in highway safety, employment opportunities, and transportation efficiency.

After data from the questions are compiled and evaluated, the FMCSA will present its results and conclusions in a final report on the potential benefits, costs and feasibility of implementing a graduated or provisional CDL program. The results will be used to evaluate the potential for pilot testing the graduated commercial driver's license (GCDL) concept.

Please organize and identify your comments by question number. General comments on the GCDL concept and areas that you believe were not addressed in the questionnaire are also welcome.

1. Please indicate your primary occupation(s) from the following list:

2. Do you think a graduated commercial driver's license (GCDL) is needed?

Regardless of your response to question number 2, please complete the rest of the questions so that we will know your preferences if a GCDL were to be pilot tested or implemented nationally.

3. Should issuance of a GCDL be linked to enrollment in a commercial driving training program?

4. Should the curricula of a commercial driver training program meet widely-endorsed standards for a student to be eligible to receive a GCDL while in training?

5. Approximately how many months/years of entry level training and experience should new drivers receive before “graduating” to an unrestricted CDL?

6. Should an applicant's past driving record be considered in issuing a GCDL?

7. How many of each of the following types of motor vehicle accidents and convictions within the past 12 months should cause an applicant to be denied a GCDL?

8. Should penalties for drivers holding a GCDL, who have at-fault accidents or moving violations, be more severe than those for drivers with an unrestricted CDL?

9. How many months/years of passenger car or light truck driving experience should an applicant have before being issued a GCDL?

10. Which of the following restrictions should apply to entry level drivers operating under a GCDL?

11. Should a fully licensed CDL driver be required to accompany and observe a driver with a GCDL? If yes, for how many weeks/months/years?

12. What is the minimum age at which an applicant should be eligible to receive a Graduated CDL?

13. Assuming that training requirements are met, what is the minimum age at which the holder of a graduated CDL should be eligible to graduate to an unrestricted CDL?

14. How much testing (knowledge and road test) should be given to GCDL holders prior to issuing an unrestricted CDL?

15. What other factors do you feel must be addressed in the implementation of a graduated CDL program?

16. What costs would you or your organization anticipate incurring if a GCDL program is implemented?

Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, (50 U.S.C. App. 2158), as implemented by regulations of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (44 CFR part 332), “Voluntary agreements for preparedness programs and expansion of production capacity and supply”, authorizes the President, upon a finding that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs, “* * * to consult with representatives of industry, business, financing, agriculture, labor and other interests * * *” in order to provide the making of such voluntary agreements. It further authorizes the President to delegate that authority to individuals who are appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, upon the condition that such individuals obtain the prior approval of the Attorney General after the Attorney General's consultation with the Federal Trade Commission. Section 501 of Executive Order 12919, as amended, delegated this authority of the President to the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), among others. By DOT Order 1900.8, the Secretary delegated to the Maritime Administrator the authority under which the VISA is sponsored. Through advance arrangements in joint planning, it is intended that participants in VISA will provide capacity to support a significant portion of surge and sustainment requirements in the deployment of U.S. military forces during war or other national emergency.

The text of the VISA was first published in the Federal Register on February 13, 1997, to be effective for a two-year term until February 13, 1999. The VISA document has been extended and subsequently published in the Federal Register every two years. The last extension was published on February 20, 2001. The text of the VISA herein is identical to the text previously published in the Federal Register.

The text published herein will now be implemented. Copies will be made available to the public upon request.

“AMC”—Air Mobility Command.

“CCA”—Carrier Coordination Agreements.

“CDS”—Construction Differential Subsidy.

“CFR”—Code of Federal Regulations.

“CONOPS”—Concept of Operations.

“DoD”—Department of Defense.

“DOJ”—Department of Justice.

“DOT”—Department of Transportation.

“DPA”—Defense Production Act.

“EUSC”—Effective United States Control.

“FAR”—Federal Acquisition Regulations.

“FEMA”—Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“FTC”—Federal Trade Commission.

“JCS”—Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“JPAG”—Joint Planning Advisory Group.

“MARAD”—Maritime Administration, DOT.

“MSP”—Maritime Security Program.

“MSC”—Military Sealift Command.

“MTMC”—Military Transportation Management Command.

“NCA”—National Command Authorities.

“NDRF”—National Defense Reserve Fleet maintained by MARAD.

“ODS”—Operating Differential Subsidy.

“RRF”—Ready Reserve Force component of the NDRF.

“SecDef”—Secretary of Defense.

“SecTrans”—Secretary of Transportation.

“USCINCTRANS”—Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command.

“USTRANSCOM”—United States Transportation Command (including its sealift transportation component, Military Sealift Command).

“VISA”—Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement.

“VSA”—Vessel Sharing Agreement.

For purposes of this agreement, the following definitions apply:

Administrator—Maritime Administrator.

Agreement—Agreement (proper noun) refers to the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA).

Attorney General—Attorney General of the United States.

Broker—A person who arranges for transportation of cargo for a fee.

Carrier Coordination Agreement (CCA)—An agreement between two or more Participants or between Participant and non-Participant carriers to coordinate their services in a Contingency, including agreements to: (i) Charter vessels or portions of the cargo-carrying capacity of vessels; (ii) share cargo handling equipment, chassis, containers and ancillary transportation equipment; (iii) share wharves, warehouse, marshaling yards and other marine terminal facilities; and (iv) coordinate the movement of vessels.

Chairman—FTC—Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Charter—Any agreement or commitment by which the possession or services of a vessel are secured for a period of time, or for one or more voyages, whether or not a demise of the vessel.

Commercial—Transportation service provided for profit by privately owned (not government owned) vessels to a private or government shipper. The type of service may be either common carrier or contract carriage.

Contingency—Includes, but is not limited to a “contingency operation” as defined at 10 App. U.S.C. 101(a)(13), and a JCS-directed, NCA-approved action undertaken with military forces in response to: (i) Natural disasters; (ii) terrorists or subversive activities; or (iii) required military operations, whether or not there is a declaration of war or national emergency.

Contingency contracts—DoD contracts in which Participants implement advance commitments of capacity and services to be provided in the event of a Contingency.

Contract carrier—A for-hire carrier who does not hold out regular service to the general public, but instead contracts, for agreed compensation, with a particular shipper for the carriage of cargo in all or a particular part of a ship for a specified period of time or on a specified voyage or voyages.

Controlling interest—More than a 50-percent interest by stock ownership.

Director—FEMA—Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Effective U.S. Control (EUSC)—U.S. citizen-owned ships which are registered in certain open registry countries and which the United States can rely upon for defense in national security emergencies. The term has no legal or other formal significance. U.S. citizen-owned ships registered in Liberia, Panama, Honduras, the Bahamas and the Republic of the Marshall Islands are considered under effective U.S. control. EUSC registries are recognized by the Maritime Administration after consultation with the Department of Defense. (MARAD OPLAN 001A, 17 July 1990)

Enrollment Contract—The document, executed and signed by MSC, and the individual carrier enrolling that carrier into VISA Stage III.

Foreign flag vessel—A vessel registered or documented under the law of a country other than the United States of America.

Intermodal equipment—Containers (including specialized equipment), chassis, trailers, tractors, cranes and other materiel handling equipment, as well as other ancillary items.

Liner—Type of service offered on a definite, advertised schedule and giving relatively frequent sailings at regular intervals between specific ports or ranges.

Liner throughput capacity—The system/intermodal capacity available and committed, used or unused, depending on the system cycle time necessary to move the designated capacity through to destination. Liner throughput capacity shall be calculated as: static capacity (outbound from CONUS) X voyage frequency X.5.

Management services—Management expertise and experience, intermodal terminal management, information resources, and control and tracking systems.

Ocean Common carrier—An entity holding itself out to the general public to provide transportation by water of passengers or cargo for compensation; which assumes responsibility for transportation from port or point of receipt to port or point of destination; and which operates and utilizes a vessel operating on the high seas for all or part of that transportation. (As defined in 46 App. U.S.C. 1702, 801, and 842 regarding international, interstate, and intercoastal commerce respectively.)

Operator—An ocean common carrier or contract carrier that owns or controls or manages vessels by which ocean transportation is provided.

Organic sealift—Ships considered to be under government control or long-term charter—Fast Sealift Ships, Ready Reserve Force and commercial ships under long-term charter to DoD.

Participant—A signatory party to VISA, and otherwise as defined within Section VI of this document.

Person—Includes individuals and corporations, partnerships, and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of the United States or any state, territory, district, or possession thereof, or of a foreign country.

SecTrans—Secretary of Transportation.

Service contract—A contract between a shipper (or a shipper's association) and an ocean common carrier (or conference) in which the shipper makes a commitment to provide a certain minimum quantity of cargo or freight revenue over a fixed time period, and the ocean common carrier or conference commits to a certain rate or rate schedule, as well as a defined service level (such as assured space, transit time, port rotation, or similar service features), as defined in the Shipping Act of 1984. The contract may also specify provisions in the event of nonperformance on the part of either party.

Standby period—The interval between the effective date of a Participant's acceptance into the Agreement and the activation of any stage, and the periods between deactivation of all stages and any later activation of any stage.

U.S. Flag Vessel—A vessel registered or documented under the laws of the United States of America.

USTRANSCOM—The United States Transportation Command and its component commands (AMC, MSC and MTMC).

Vessel Sharing Agreement (VSA) Capacity—Space chartered to a Participant for carriage of cargo, under its commercial contracts, service contracts or in common carriage, aboard vessels shared with another carrier or carriers pursuant to a commercial vessel sharing agreement under which the carriers may compete with each other for the carriage of cargo. In U.S. foreign trades the agreement is filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) in conformity with the Shipping Act of 1984 and implementing regulations.

Volunteers—Any vessel owner/operator who is an ocean carrier and who offers to make capacity, resources or systems available to support contingency requirements.

The Administrator, pursuant to the authority contained in section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 2158)(section 708)(DPA), in cooperation with the Department of Defense (DoD), has developed this Agreement [hereafter called the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA)] to provide DoD the commercial sealift and intermodal shipping services/systems necessary to meet national defense Contingency requirements.

USTRANSCOM procures commercial shipping capacity to meet requirements for ships and intermodal shipping services/systems through arrangements with common carriers, with contract carriers and by charter. DoD (through USTRANSCOM) and Department of Transportation (DOT) (through MARAD) maintain and operate a fleet of ships owned by or under charter to the Federal Government to meet the logistic needs of the military services which cannot be met by existing commercial service. Ships of the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) are selectively activated for peacetime military tests and exercises, and to satisfy military operational requirements which cannot be met by commercial shipping in time of war, national emergency, or military Contingency. Foreign-flag shipping is used in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and policies.

The objective of VISA is to provide DoD a coordinated, seamless transition from peacetime to wartime for the acquisition of commercial sealift and intermodal capability to augment DoD's organic sealift capabilities. This Agreement establishes the terms, conditions and general procedures by which persons or parties may become VISA Participants. Through advance joint planning among USTRANSCOM, MARAD and the Participants, Participants may provide predetermined capacity in designated stages to support DoD Contingency requirements.

VISA is designed to create close working relationships among MARAD, USTRANSCOM and Participants through which Contingency needs and the needs of the civil economy can be met by cooperative action. During Contingencies, Participants are afforded maximum flexibility to adjust commercial operations by Carrier Coordination Agreements (CCA), in accordance with applicable law.

Participants will be afforded the first opportunity to meet DoD peacetime and Contingency sealift requirements within applicable law and regulations, to the extent that operational requirements are met. In the event VISA Participants are unable to fully meet Contingency requirements, the shipping capacity made available under VISA may be supplemented by ships/capacity from non-Participants in accordance with applicable law and by ships requisitioned under section 902 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (as amended) (46 App. U.S.C. 1242). In addition, containers and chassis made available under VISA may be supplemented by services and equipment acquired by USTRANSCOM or accessed by the Administrator through the provisions of 46 CFR part 340.

The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) has approved VISA as a sealift readiness program for the purpose of section 909 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1248).

A. The Administrator has made a determination, in accordance with section 708(c)(1) of the Defense Production Act (DPA) of 1950, that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense of the United States or its preparedness programs and, under the provisions of section 708, has certified to the Attorney General that a standby agreement for utilization of intermodal shipping services/systems is necessary for the national defense. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, has issued a finding that dry cargo shipping capacity to meet national defense requirements cannot be provided by the industry through a voluntary agreement having less anticompetitive effects or without a voluntary agreement.

B. The purpose of VISA is to provide a responsive transition from peace to Contingency operations through pre-coordinated agreements for sealift capacity to support DoD Contingency requirements. VISA establishes procedures for the commitment of intermodal shipping services/systems to satisfy such requirements. VISA will change from standby to active status upon activation by appropriate authority of any of the Stages, as described in Section V.

C. It is intended that VISA promote and facilitate DoD's use of existing commercial transportation resources and integrated intermodal transportation systems, in a manner which minimizes disruption to commercial operations, whenever possible.

D. Participants' capacity which may be committed pursuant to this Agreement may include all intermodal shipping services/systems and all ship types, including container, partial container, container/bulk, container/roll-on/roll-off, roll-on/roll-off (of all varieties), breakbulk ships, tug and barge combinations, and barge carrier (LASH, SeaBee).

1. Sections 101 and 708 of the DPA, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 2158); Executive Order 12919, 59 FR 29525, June 7, 1994; Executive Order 12148, 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 412, as amended; 44 CFR part 332; DOT Order 1900.8; 46 CFR part 340.

2. Section 501 of Executive Order 12919, as amended, delegated the authority of the President under section 708 to SecTrans, among others. By DOT Order 1900.8, SecTrans delegated to the Administrator the authority under which VISA is sponsored.

1. Section 113 and Chapter 6 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

2. DoD Directive 5158.4 designating USCINCTRANS to provide air, land, and sea transportation for the DoD.

1. VISA provides for the staged, time-phased availability of Participants' shipping services/systems to meet NCA-directed DoD Contingency requirements in the most demanding defense oriented sealift emergencies and for less demanding defense oriented situations through prenegotiated Contingency contracts between the government and Participants (see Figure 1). Such arrangements will be jointly planned with MARAD, USTRANSCOM, and Participants in peacetime to allow effective, and efficient and best valued use of commercial sealift capacity, provide DoD assured Contingency access, and minimize commercial disruption, whenever possible.

a. Stages I and II provide for prenegotiated contracts between the DoD and Participants to provide sealift capacity against all projected DoD Contingency requirements. These agreements will be executed in accordance with approved DoD contracting methodologies.

b. Stage III will provide for additional capacity to the DoD when Stages I and II commitments or volunteered capacity are insufficient to meet Contingency requirements, and adequate shipping services from non-Participants are not available through established DoD contracting practices or U.S. Government treaty agreements.

2. Activation will be in accordance with procedures outlined in Section V of this Agreement.

3. Following is the prioritized order for utilization of commercial sealift capacity to meet DoD peacetime and Contingency requirements:

a. U.S. Flag vessel capacity operated by a Participant and U.S. Flag Vessel Sharing Agreement (VSA) capacity of a Participant.

b. U.S. Flag vessel capacity operated by a non-Participant.

c. Combination U.S./foreign flag vessel capacity operated by a Participant and combination U.S./foreign flag VSA capacity of a Participant.

d. Combination U.S./foreign flag vessel capacity operated by a non-Participant.

e. U.S. owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a Participant.

f. U.S. owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity and VSA capacity of a non-Participant.

g. Foreign-owned or operated foreign flag vessel capacity of a non-Participant.

4. Under Section VI.F. of this Agreement, Participants may implement CCAs to fulfill their contractual commitments to meet VISA requirements.

1. The SecDef, through USTRANSCOM, shall:

a. Define time-phased requirements for Contingency sealift capacity and resources required in Stages I, II and III to augment DoD sealift resources.

b. Keep MARAD and Participants apprised of Contingency sealift capacity required and resources committed to Stages I and II.

c. Obtain Contingency sealift capacity through the implementation of specific prenegotiated DoD Contingency contracts with Participants.

d. Notify the Administrator upon activation of any stage of VISA.

e. Co-chair (with MARAD) the Joint Planning Advisory Group (JPAG).

f. Establish procedures, in accordance with applicable law and regulation, providing Participants with necessary determinations for use of foreign flag vessels to replace an equivalent U.S. Flag capacity to transport a Participant's normal peacetime DoD cargo, when Participant's U.S. Flag assets are removed from regular service to meet VISA Contingency requirements.

g. Provide a reasonable time to permit an orderly return of a Participant's vessel(s) to its regular schedule and termination of its foreign flag capacity arrangements as determined through coordination between DoD and the Participants.

h. Review and endorse Participants' requests to MARAD for use of foreign flag replacement capacity for non-DoD government cargo, when U.S. Flag capacity is required to meet Contingency requirements.

2. The SecTrans, through MARAD, shall:

a. Review the amount of sealift resources committed in DoD contracts to Stages I and II and notify USTRANSCOM if a particular level of VISA commitment will have serious adverse impact on the commercial sealift industry's ability to provide essential services. MARAD's analysis shall be based on the consideration that all VISA Stage I and II capacity committed will be activated. This notification will occur on an annual basis upon USCINCTRANS' acceptance of VISA commitments from the Participants. If so advised by MARAD, USTRANSCOM will adjust the size of the stages or provide MARAD with justification for maintaining the size of those stages. USTRANSCOM and MARAD will coordinate to ensure that the amount of sealift assets committed to Stages I and II will not have an adverse, national economic impact.

b. Coordinate with DOJ for the expedited approval of CCAs.

c. Upon request by USCINCTRANS and approval by SecDef to activate Stage III, allocate sealift capacity and intermodal assets to meet DoD Contingency requirements. DoD shall have priority consideration in any allocation situation.

d. Establish procedures, pursuant to section 653(d) of the Maritime Security Act (MSA), for determinations regarding the equivalency and duration of the use of foreign flag vessels to replace U.S. Flag vessel capacity to transport the cargo of a Participant which has entered into an operating agreement under section 652 of the MSA and whose U.S. Flag vessel capacity has been removed from regular service to meet VISA contingency requirements. Such foreign flag vessels shall be eligible to transport cargo subject to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 (10 U.S.C. 2631), P.R. 17 (46 App. U.S.C. 1241-1), and Pub. L. 664 (46 App. U.S.C. 1241(b)). However, any procedures regarding the use of such foreign flag vessels to transport cargo subject to the Cargo Preference Act of 1904 must have the concurrence of USTRANSCOM before it becomes effective.

e. Co-chair (with USTRANSCOM) the JPAG.

f. Seek necessary Jones Act waivers as required. To the extent feasible, participants with Jones Act vessels or vessel capacity will use CCAs or other arrangements to protect their ability to maintain services for their commercial customers and to fulfill their commercial peacetime commitments with U.S. Flag vessels. In situations where the activation of this Agreement deprives a Participant of all or a portion of its Jones Act vessels or vessel capacity and, at the same time, creates a general shortage of Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity on the market, the Administrator may request that the Secretary of the Treasury grant a temporary waiver of the provisions of the Jones Act to permit a Participant to charter or otherwise utilize non-Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity, with priority consideration recommended for U.S. crewed vessel(s) or vessel capacity. The vessel(s) or vessel capacity for which such waivers are requested will be approximately equal to the Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity chartered or under contract to the DoD, and any waiver that may be granted will be effective for the period that the Jones Act vessel(s) or vessel capacity is on charter or under contract to the DoD plus a reasonable time for termination of the replacement charters as determined by the Administrator.

1. USTRANSCOM will notify the Administrator as soon as possible of the prospective termination of charters, leases, management service contracts or other contractual arrangements made by the DoD under this Agreement.

2. In the event of general requisitioning of ships under 46 App. U.S.C. 1242, the Administrator shall consider commitments made with the DoD under this Agreement.

1. The Attorney General may modify this Agreement, in writing, after consultation with the Chairman-FTC, SecTrans, through his representative MARAD, and SecDef, through his representative USCINCTRANS. Although Participants may withdraw from this Agreement pursuant to Section VI.D, they remain subject to VISA as amended or modified until such withdrawal.

2. The Administrator, USCINCTRANS and Participants may modify this Agreement at any time by mutual agreement, but only in writing with the approval of the Attorney General and the Chairman-FTC.

3. Participants may propose amendments to this Agreement at any time.

1. MARAD has primary responsibility for maintaining carrier VISA application records in connection with this Agreement. Records will be maintained in accordance with MARAD Regulations. Once a carrier is selected as a VISA Participant, a copy of the VISA application form will be forwarded to USTRANSCOM.

2. In accordance with 44 CFR 332.2(c), MARAD is responsible for the making and record maintenance of a full and verbatim transcript of each JPAG meeting. MARAD shall send this transcript, and any voluntary agreement resulting from the meeting, to the Attorney General, the Chairman—FTC, the Director—FEMA, any other party or repository required by law and to Participants upon their request.

3. USTRANSCOM shall be the official custodian of records related to the contracts to be used under this Agreement, to include specific information on enrollment of a Participant's capacity in VISA.

4. In accordance with 44 CFR 332.3(d), a Participant shall maintain for five (5) years all minutes of meetings, transcripts, records, documents and other data, including any communications with other Participants or with any other member of the industry or their representatives, related to the administration, including planning related to and implementation of Stage activations of this Agreement. Each Participant agrees to make such records available to the Administrator, USCINCTRANS, the Attorney General, and the Chairman—FTC for inspection and copying at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice. Any record maintained by MARAD or USTRANSCOM pursuant to paragraphs 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection shall be available for public inspection and copying unless exempted on the grounds specified in 5 U.S.C 552(b) or identified as privileged and confidential information in accordance with section 708(e).

A. The JPAG provides USTRANSCOM, MARAD and VISA Participants a planning forum to:

1. Analyze DoD Contingency sealift/intermodal service and resource requirements.

2. Identify commercial sealift capacity that may be used to meet DoD requirements, related to Contingencies and, as requested by USTRANSCOM, exercises and special movements.

3. Develop and recommend Concepts of Operations (CONOPS) to meet DoD-approved Contingency requirements and, as requested by USTRANSCOM, exercises and special movements.

B. The JPAG will be co-chaired by MARAD and USTRANSCOM, and will convene as jointly determined by the co-chairs.

C. The JPAG will consist of designated representatives from MARAD, USTRANSCOM, each Participant, and maritime labor. Other attendees may be invited at the discretion of the co-chairs as necessary to meet JPAG requirements. Representatives will provide technical advice and support to ensure maximum coordination, efficiency and effectiveness in the use of Participants' resources. All Participants will be invited to all open JPAG meetings. For selected JPAG meetings, attendance may be limited to designated Participants to meet specific operational requirements.

1. The co-chairs may establish working groups within JPAG. Participants may be assigned to working groups as necessary to develop specific CONOPS.

2. Each working group will be co-chaired by representatives designated by MARAD and USTRANSCOM.

D. The JPAG will not be used for contract negotiations and/or contract discussions between carriers and the DoD; such negotiations and/or discussions will be in accordance with applicable DoD contracting policies and procedures.

E. The JPAG co-chairs shall:

1. Notify the Attorney General, the Chairman—FTC, Participants and the maritime labor representative of the time, place and nature of each JPAG meeting.

2. Provide for publication in the Federal Register of a notice of the time, place and nature of each JPAG meeting. If the meeting is open, a Federal Register notice will be published reasonably in advance of the meeting. If a meeting is closed, a Federal Register notice will be published within ten (10) days after the meeting and will include the reasons for closing the meeting.

3. Establish the agenda for each JPAG meeting and be responsible for adherence to the agenda.

4. Provide for a full and complete transcript or other record of each meeting and provide one copy each of transcript or other record to the Attorney General, the Chairman-FTC, and to Participants, upon request.

F. Security Measures—The co-chairs will develop and coordinate appropriate security measures so that Contingency planning information can be shared with Participants to enable them to plan their commitments.

VISA may be activated at the request of USCINCTRANS, with approval of SecDef, as needed to support Contingency operations. Activating voluntary commitments of capacity to support such operations will be in accordance with prenegotiated Contingency contracts between DoD and Participants.

1. USCINCTRANS will notify the Administrator of the activation of Stages I, II, and III.

2. The Administrator shall notify the Attorney General and the Chairman-FTC when it has been determined by DoD that activation of any Stage of VISA is necessary to meet DoD Contingency requirements.

1. Throughout the activation of any Stages of this Agreement, DoD may utilize voluntary commitment of sealift capacity or systems.

2. Requests for volunteer capacity will be extended simultaneously to both Participants and other carriers. First priority for utilization will be given to Participants who have signed Stage I and/or II contracts and are capable of meeting the operational requirements. Participants providing voluntary capacity may request USTRANSCOM to activate their prenegotiated Contingency contracts; to the maximum extent possible, USTRANSCOM, where appropriate, shall support such requests. Volunteered capacity will be credited against Participants' staged commitments, in the event such stages are subsequently activated.

3. In the event Participants are unable to fully meet Contingency requirements, or do not voluntarily offer to provide the required capacity, the shipping capacity made available under VISA may be supplemented by ships/capacity from non-Participants.

4. When voluntary capacity does not meet DoD Contingency requirements, DoD will activate the VISA stages as necessary.

1. Stage I will be activated in whole or in part by USCINCTRANS, with approval of SecDef, when voluntary capacity commitments are insufficient to meet DoD Contingency requirements. USCINCTRANS will notify the Administrator upon activation.

2. USTRANSCOM will implement Stage I Contingency contracts as needed to meet operational requirements.

1. Stage II will be activated, in whole or in part, when Contingency requirements exceed the capability of Stage I and/or voluntarily committed resources.

2. Stage II will be activated by USCINCTRANS, with approval of SecDef, following the same procedures discussed in paragraph D above.

1. Stage III will be activated, in whole or in part, when Contingency requirements exceed the capability of Stages I and II, and other shipping services are not available. This stage involves DoD use of capacity and vessels operated by Participants which will be furnished to DoD when required in accordance with this Agreement. The capacity and vessels are allocated by MARAD on behalf of SecTrans to USCINCTRANS.

2. Stage III will be activated by USCINCTRANS upon approval by SecDef. Upon activation, DoD SecDef will request SecTrans to allocate sealift capacity based on DoD requirements, in accordance with Title 1 of DPA, to meet the Contingency requirement. All Participants' capacity committed to VISA is subject to use during Stage III.

3. Upon allocation of sealift assets by SecTrans, through its designated representative MARAD, USTRANSCOM will negotiate and execute Contingency contracts with Participants, using pre-approved rate methodologies as established jointly by SecTrans and SecDef in fulfillment of section 653 of the Maritime Security Act of 1996. Until execution of such contract, the Participant agrees that the assets remain subject to the provisions of section 902 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, Title 46 App. U.S.C. 1242.

4. Simultaneously with activation of Stage III, the DoD Sealift Readiness Program (SRP) will be activated for those carriers still under obligation to that program.

As used in this Section V, activation “in part” of any Stage under this Agreement shall mean one of the following:

1. Activation of only a portion of the committed capacity of some, but not all, of the Participants in any Stage that is activated; or

2. Activation of the entire committed capacity of some, but not all, of the Participants in any Stage that is activated; or

3. Activation of only a portion of the entire committed capacity of all of the Participants in any Stage that is activated.

1. Any U.S. Flag vessel operator organized under the laws of a State of the United States, or the District of Columbia, may become a “Participant” in this Agreement by submitting an executed copy of the form referenced in Section VII, and by entering into a VISA Enrollment Contract with DoD which establishes a legal obligation to perform and which specifies payment or payment methodology for all services rendered.

2. The term “Participant” includes the entity described in VI.A.1 above, and all United States subsidiaries and affiliates of the entity which own, operate, charter or lease ships and intermodal equipment in the regular course of their business and in which the entity holds a controlling interest.

3. Upon request of the entity executing the form referenced in Section VII, the term “Participant” may include the controlled non-domestic subsidiaries and affiliates of such entity signing this Agreement, provided that the Administrator, in coordination with USCINCTRANS, grants specific approval for their inclusion.

4. Any entity receiving payments under the Maritime Security Program (MSP), pursuant to the Maritime Security Act of 1996 (MSA) (Pub. L. 104-239), shall become a “Participant” with respect to all vessels enrolled in MSP at all times until the date the MSP operating agreement would have terminated according to its original terms. The MSP operator shall be enrolled in VISA as a Stage III Participant, at a minimum. Such participation will satisfy the requirement for an MSP participant to be enrolled in an emergency preparedness program approved by SecDef as provided in section 653 of the MSA.

5. A Participant shall be subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and not to the provisions of the SRP.

6. MARAD shall publish periodically in the Federal Register a list of Participants.

1. Each Participant agrees to provide commercial sealift and/or intermodal shipping services/systems in accordance with DoD Contingency contracts. USTRANSCOM will review and approve each Participant's commitment to ensure it meets DoD Contingency requirements. A Participant's capacity commitment to Stages I and II will be one of the considerations in determining the level of DoD peacetime contracts awarded with the exception of Jones Act capacity (as discussed in paragraph 4 below).

2. DoD may also enter into Contingency contracts, not linked to peacetime contract commitments, with Participants, as required to meet Stage I and II requirements.

3. Commitment of Participants' resources to VISA is as follows:

a. Stage III: A carrier desiring to participate in DoD peacetime contracts/traffic must commit no less than 50% of its total U.S. Flag capacity into Stage III. Carriers receiving DOT payments under the MSP, or carriers subject to section 909 of Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, that are not enrolled in the SRP will have vessels receiving such assistance enrolled in Stage III. Participants' capacity under charter to DoD will be considered “organic” to DoD, and does not count towards the Participant's Contingency commitment during the period of the charter. Participants utilized under Stage III activation will be compensated based upon a DoD pre-approved rate methodology.

b. Stages I and II: DoD will annually develop and publish minimum commitment requirements for Stages I and II. Normally, the awarding of a long-term (i.e., one year or longer) DoD contract, exclusive of charters, will include the annual predesignated minimum commitment to Stages I and/or II. Participants desiring to bid on DoD peacetime contracts will be required to provide commitment levels to meet DoD-established Stage I and/or II minimums on an annual basis. Participants may gain additional consideration for peacetime contract cargo allocation awards by committing capacity to Stages I and II beyond the specified minimums. If the Participant is awarded a contract reflecting such a commitment, that commitment shall become the actual amount of a Participant's U.S. Flag capacity commitment to Stages I and II. A Participant's Stage III U.S. Flag capacity commitment shall represent its total minimum VISA commitment. That Participant's Stage I and II capacity commitments as well as any volunteer capacity contribution by Participant are portions of Participant's total VISA commitment. Participants activated during Stages I and II will be compensated in accordance with prenegotiated Contingency contracts.

4. Participants exclusively operating vessels engaged in domestic trades will be required to commit 50% of that capacity to Stage III. Such Participants will not be required to commit capacity to Stages I and II as a consideration of domestic peacetime traffic and/or contract award. However, such Participants may voluntarily agree to commit capacity to Stages I and/or II.

5. The Participant owning, operating, or controlling an activated ship or ship capacity will provide intermodal equipment and management services needed to utilize the ship and equipment at not less than the Participant's normal efficiency, in accordance with the prenegotiated Contingency contracts implementing this Agreement.

1. Participation in this Agreement is effective upon execution by MARAD of the submitted form referenced in section VII, and approval by USTRANSCOM by execution of an Enrollment Contract, for Stage III, at a minimum.

2. VISA participation remains in effect until the Participant terminates the Agreement in accordance with paragraph D below, or termination of the Agreement in accordance with 44 CFR 332.4. Notwithstanding termination of VISA or participation in VISA, obligations pursuant to executed DoD peacetime contracts shall remain in effect for the term of such contracts and are subject to all terms and conditions thereof.

1. Except as provided in paragraph 2 below, a Participant may terminate its participation in VISA upon written notice to the Administrator. Such termination shall become effective 30 days after written notice is received, unless obligations incurred under VISA by virtue of activation of any Contingency contract cannot be fulfilled prior to the termination date, in which case the Participant shall be required to complete the performance of such obligations. Voluntary termination by a carrier of its VISA participation shall not act to terminate or otherwise mitigate any separate contractual commitment entered into with DoD.

2. A Participant having an MSP operating agreement with SecTrans shall not withdraw from this Agreement at any time during the original term of the MSP operating agreement.

3. A Participant's withdrawal, or termination of this Agreement, will not deprive a Participant of an antitrust defense otherwise available to it in accordance with DPA section 708 for the fulfillment of obligations incurred prior to withdrawal or termination.

4. A Participant otherwise subject to the DoD SRP that voluntarily withdraws from this Agreement will become subject again to the DoD SRP.

Each Participant acknowledges and agrees to abide by all provisions of DPA section 708, and regulations related thereto which are promulgated by the Secretary, the Attorney General, and the Chairman-FTC. Standards and procedures pertaining to voluntary agreements have been promulgated in 44 CFR part 332. 46 CFR part 340 establishes procedures for assigning the priority for use and the allocation of shipping services, containers and chassis. The JPAG will inform Participants of new and amended rules and regulations as they are issued in accordance with law and administrative due process. Although Participants may withdraw from VISA, they remain subject to all authorized rules and regulations while in Participant status.

1. When any Stage of VISA is activated or when DoD has requested volunteer capacity pursuant to Section V.B. of VISA, Participants may implement approved CCAs to meet the needs of the DoD and to minimize the disruption of their services to the civil economy.

2. A CCA for which the parties seek the benefit of section 708(j) of the DPA shall be identified as such and shall be submitted to the Administrator for approval and certification in accordance with section 708(f)(1)(A) of the DPA. Upon approval and certification, the Administrator shall transmit the Agreement to the Attorney General for a finding in accordance with section 708(f)(1)(B) of the DPA. Parties to approved CCAs may avail themselves of the antitrust defenses set forth in section 708(j) of the DPA. Nothing in VISA precludes Participants from engaging in lawful conduct (including carrier coordination activities) that lies outside the scope of an approved Carrier Coordination Agreement; but antitrust defenses will not be available pursuant to section 708(j) of the DPA for such conduct.

3. Participants may seek approval for CCAs at any time.

1. A list identifying the ships/capacity and intermodal equipment committed by a Participant to each Stage of VISA will be prepared by the Participant and submitted to USTRANSCOM within seven days after a carrier has become a Participant. USTRANSCOM will maintain a record of all such commitments. Participants will notify USTRANSCOM of any changes not later than seven days prior to the change.

2. USTRANSCOM will provide a copy of each Participant's VISA commitment data and all changes to MARAD.

3. Information which a Participant identifies as privileged or business confidential/proprietary data shall be withheld from public disclosure in accordance with section 708(h)(3) and section 705(e) of the DPA, 5 App. U.S.C. 552(b), and 44 CFR part 332.

4. Enrolled ships are required to comply with 46 CFR part 307, Establishment of Mandatory Position Reporting System for Vessels.

1. Where commercial war risk insurance is not available on reasonable terms and conditions, DOT shall provide non-premium government war risk insurance, subject to the provisions of section 1205 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1285(a)).

2. Pursuant to 46 CFR 308.1(c), the Administrator (or DOT) will find each ship enrolled or utilized under this agreement eligible for U.S. Government war risk insurance.

1. Under the provisions of DPA section 708, each carrier shall have available as a defense to any civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws (or any similar law of any State) with respect to any action taken to develop or carry out this Agreement, that such act was taken in the course of developing or carrying out this Agreement and that the Participant complied with the provisions of DPA section 708 and any regulation thereunder, and acted in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

2. This defense shall not be available to the Participant for any action occurring after termination of this Agreement. This defense shall not be available upon the modification of this Agreement with respect to any subsequent action that is beyond the scope of the modified text of this Agreement, except that no such modification shall be accomplished in a way that will deprive the Participant of antitrust defense for the fulfillment of obligations incurred.

3. This defense shall be available only if and to the extent that the Participant asserting it demonstrates that the action, which includes a discussion or agreement, was within the scope of this Agreement.

4. The person asserting the defense bears the burden of proof.

5. The defense shall not be available if the person against whom it is asserted shows that the action was taken for the purpose of violating the antitrust laws.

6. As appropriate, the Administrator, on behalf of SecTrans, and DoD will support agreements filed by Participants with the Federal Maritime Commission that are related to the standby or Contingency implementation of VISA.

Under the provisions of DPA section 708, in any action in any Federal or State court for breach of contract, there shall be available as a defense that the alleged breach of contract was caused predominantly by action taken by a Participant during an emergency (including action taken in imminent anticipation of an emergency) to carry out this Agreement. Such defense shall not release the party asserting it from any obligation under applicable law to mitigate damages to the greatest extent possible.

1. VISA allows Participants the use of a VSA to utilize non-Participant U.S. Flag or foreign-owned and operated foreign flag vessel capacity as a substitute for VISA Contingency capability provided:

a. The foreign flag capacity is utilized in accordance with cargo preference laws and regulations.

b. The use of a VSA, either currently in use or a new proposal, as a substitution to meet DoD Contingency requirements is agreed upon by USTRANSCOM and MARAD.

c. The Participant carrier demonstrates adequate control over the offered VSA capacity during the period of utilization.

d. Service requirements are satisfied.

e. Participant is responsible to DoD for the carriage or services contracted for. Though VSA capacity may be utilized to fulfill a Contingency commitment, a Participant's U.S. Flag VSA capacity in another Participant's vessel shall not act in a manner to increase a Participant's capacity commitment to VISA.

2. Participants will apprise MARAD and USTRANSCOM in advance of any change in a VSA of which it is a member, if such changes reduce the availability of Participant capacity provided for in any approved and accepted Contingency Concept of Operations.

3. Participants will not act as a broker for DoD cargo unless requested by USTRANSCOM.

The Administrator, in coordination with USCINCTRANS has adopted the form on page 31 (“Application to Participate in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement”) on which intermodal ship operators may apply to become a Participant in this Agreement. The form incorporates, by reference, the terms of this Agreement.

The applicant identified below hereby applies to participate in the Maritime Administration's agreement entitled “Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement.” The text of said Agreement is published in ___Federal Register _____, _____, 19___. This Agreement is authorized under section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 App. U.S.C. 2158). Regulations governing this Agreement appear at 44 CFR part 332 and are reflected at 49 CFR subtitle A.

The applicant, if selected, hereby acknowledges and agrees to the incorporation by reference into this Application and Agreement of the entire text of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement published in ___Federal Register _____, _____, 19___, as though said text were physically recited herein.

The Applicant, as a Participant, agrees to comply with the provisions of section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, the regulations of 44 CFR part 332 and as reflected at 49 CFR subtitle A, and the terms of the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement. Further, the applicant, if selected as a Participant, hereby agrees to contractually commit to make specifically enrolled vessels or capacity, intermodal equipment and management of intermodal transportation systems available for use by the Department of Defense and to other Participants as discussed in this Agreement and the subsequent Department of Defense Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Enrollment Contract for the purpose of meeting national defense requirement.

Title VI of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (December 8, 1993), contains provisions pertaining to Customs Modernization (107 Stat. 2170). Subpart B of Title VI of the Act concerns the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP), an electronic system for the processing of commercial imports. Within subpart B, section 631 of the Act added section 414 (19 U.S.C. 1414), which provides for Remote Location Filing (RLF), to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. RLF permits an eligible NCAP participant to elect to file electronically a formal or informal consumption entry with Customs from a remote location within the Customs territory of the United States other than the port of arrival, or from within the port of arrival with a requested designated examination site outside the port of arrival.

In accordance with § 101.9(b) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), Customs has developed and tested two RLF prototypes.

RLF Prototype Two commenced on January 1, 1997. See document published in the Federal Register (61 FR 60749) on November 29, 1996. On December 7, 1998, Customs announced in the Federal Register (63 FR 67511) that Prototype Two would remain in effect until Customs concluded the prototype by notice in the Federal Register. On July 6, 2001, Customs announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 35693) changes to the eligibility requirements for participation in RLF Prototype Two which mandated that customs brokers hold a national permit. That notice also announced that the provisions of part 111 of the Customs Regulations (which set forth the regulations providing for the licensing of and granting of permits to customs brokers) were applicable to customs brokers participating in the RLF prototype. The July 6, 2001, document noted that all of the other RLF Prototype Two terms and conditions set forth in the December 7, 1998 document remained in effect.

Since the inception of RLF Prototype Two, there have been significant changes made to the RLF application process, as well as to the prototype's eligibility requirements. As a result, much of the information contained in previous Federal Register notices regarding the application process, participant selection, and eligibility requirements needs to be updated or is now obsolete. For these reasons, this notice contains a comprehensive and updated list of current RLF eligibility requirements and a description of the new one-step application process. Therefore, information contained in this notice regarding these subject areas supercedes the information set forth in the sections entitled “Eligibility Criteria,” “Prototype Two Applications,” and “Basis for Participant Selection” in the above-referenced Federal Register notices. All of the other RLF Prototype Two terms and conditions set forth in the above-referenced Federal Register notices remain in effect, except those explicitly changed by this document and described below.

RLF participants may not file using paper invoices or line release for RLF transactions. This prohibition is necessary to reflect the fact that RLF participants must possess a national permit and line release programs require a local permit.

To be eligible to participate in RLF Prototype Two, a filer must have proven capability to provide electronically, on an entry-by-entry basis, the following: entry; entry summary; invoice information using the Electronic Invoice Program (EIP); and the payment of duties, fees, and taxes through the Automated Clearinghouse (ACH). See 19 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2). EIP includes modules of the Automated Broker Interface (ABI) that allow entry filers to electronically transmit detailed entry data and includes Automated Invoice Interface (AII) and Electronic Data Interchange for Administration, Commerce and Transportation (EDIFACT). In addition, the following requirements and conditions apply:

1. RLF participants must be operational on the ABI (see 19 CFR part 143, subpart A);

2. RLF participants must be operational on the ACH 30 days before applying for RLF (see 19 CFR 24.25);

3. RLF participants must be operational on the EIP prior to applying for RLF;

4. RLF participants must possess a National Permit (see 19 CFR 111.19(f));

5. The remote Customs location(s) to which a prospective RLF participant wishes to transmit RLF information must have received EIP/RLF training.

A current listing of RLF-trained locations, as well as other RLF information and updates, is available on the Customs Electronic Bulletin Board (CEBB), the Customs Administrative Message System (CAMS), and on the Customs Internet Web site at http://www.customs.gov;

6. RLF participants must maintain a continuous bond which meets or exceeds the national guidelines for bond sufficiency;

7. Only entry type 01 (consumption) and entry type 11 (informal) will be accepted for RLF;

8. Cargo release must be certified from the entry summary transaction data (EI);

9. RLF participants may not file using paper invoices or line release for RLF transactions;

10. Cargo that has been moved in-bond is not eligible for RLF but may be eligible for clearance under EIP; and

11. RLF participants must use other government agency (OGA) interfaces where available. It is the filer's responsibility to ensure that all OGA requirements are met for each entry filed under RLF. If an electronic interface is not available, contact your local RLF coordinator for possible alternative filing options.

In addition to the eligibility requirements described above, all RLF participants are reminded of their responsibility to provide accurate information to Customs, and of their responsibility to adhere to all laws, regulations, rules, restrictions and eligibility criteria that pertain to this program. Any RLF participant who violates any of the above conditions will be subject to all penalties available under the law including possible suspension from the prototype.

Participants are further reminded that participation in RLF Prototype Two is not confidential. Lists of approved participants will be made available to the public.

Applications for participation in RLF Prototype Two will be accepted on an ongoing basis and should be submitted to the Remote Filing Team, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 5.2B, Washington, DC 20229. Applications must contain the following information:

1. Filer name, point of contact, address, filer code and IRS #;

2. Site(s) from which RLF transmission originates (include port code);

3. Name of port(s) (including port code) to which RLF electronic filings will be transmitted; and

4. A sample of 5 entries filed using the Automated Invoice Interface (AII)/EIP, of varying complexity, that include: multiple lines, multiple invoices and an adjustment to the entered value (Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) and Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF)).

After an application has been reviewed and evaluated, the applicant will receive an approval or denial letter from the Remote Filing Team, Customs Headquarters. An applicant will be permitted to begin filing entries to a remote location upon receipt of a letter from Customs granting approval to participate in RLF. If an approved RLF participant seeks to add additional ports or importers, they must notify their ABI client representative or the Headquarters coordinator for profile updates.

The IRS welcomes suggestions that will simplify the taxpayer burden associated with tip reporting by restaurants and their employees. The IRS is also interested in current tip practice and the electronic collection of data. Written comments can be mailed to the IRS, Taxpayer Education and Communications Area Director, 2001 Butterfield Rd., Suite 1301, Downers Grove, IL 60515 or via e-mail to leonard.n.hall@irs.gov. Comments are due by March 14, 2003.

Background: In 1994, the IRS met with industry representatives and developed several voluntary programs to encourage accurate tip reporting. Despite these existing programs, a significant amount of tip income remains unreported. In June 2002, the Supreme Court affirmed in the case of United States vs. Fior D'Italia that the IRS can impose employer-only assessments of unpaid employment taxes on tips. While the Court sustained the IRS' authority to perform these audits, the IRS is interested in continuing its long-held successful dialogue with the food and beverage industry. The IRS is seeking taxpayer input to help increase participation and compliance in existing tip programs.

The topics that are planned to be covered are as follows:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Area 3 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, March 21, 2003, from 11:00 am EST to 12:30 pm EST via a telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979.

The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Wage & Investment Reducing Taxpayer Burden (Notices) Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Wednesday, March 26, 2003, from 12 noon EST to 1 pm EST via a telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979.

The agenda will include the following: IRS Notices.