Section 203 (c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture “to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices * * *”. AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and will make copies of official standards available upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations but are maintained by USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs.

When dry whole milk is officially graded, the USDA regulations (7 CFR part 58) governing the grading of manufactured or processed dairy products are used. These regulations require a charge for the grading service provided by USDA. The Agency believes this proposal would accurately identify quality characteristics in dry whole milk.

AMS is proposing to change the United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk using the procedures that appear in part 36 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).

The current United States Standards for Grades of Dry Whole Milk have been in effect since May 13,1983. AMS initiated a review of this Standard and discussed possible changes with the dairy industry. The American Dairy Products Institute, a trade association representing the dry whole milk industry, provided specific suggestions, including a recommendation to lower the maximum bacterial estimate.

The American Dairy Products Institute provided suggestions to:

• Lower the maximum bacterial estimate for U.S. Extra Grade from not more than 50,000 per gram to not more than 10,000 per gram;

• Lower the maximum bacterial estimate for U.S. Standard Grade from not more than 100,000 per gram to not more than 50,000 per gram; and

• Expand the definition of dry whole milk to specify optional ingredients that may be added to dry whole milk.

AMS is proposing to:

• Lower the maximum bacterial content requirements as suggested by the American Dairy Products Institute;

• Reference the Food and Drug Administration's standards of identity for dry whole milk to provide for optional ingredients as suggested by the American Dairy Products Institute;

• Incorporate a maximum titratable acidity requirement for U.S. Extra Grade and U.S. Standard Grade;

• Delete specific provisions for dry whole milk produced by roller process;

• Include protein content as an optional test;

• Reference additional test methods that may be used to determine U.S. grade;

• Include provisions to report actual moisture which is moisture calculated on a residual or as is basis; and

• Make editorial changes that would provide consistency with other U.S. grade standards for dairy products.

This notice provides for a 60 day comment period for interested parties to comment on proposed revisions to the standards. The following is an outline of these changes.

The Allegheny Forest Plan provides for management of forest resources. Management objectives include producing a sustainable supply of high-quality sawtimber and wood products, developing and maintaining a wide array of wildlife habitats, and providing a range of recreation settings and experiences. Specific objectives are defined for each Management Area, and the Lewis Run Project is located entirely within Management Area 3.0, which emphasizes timber harvest as a means for making desired changes to forest vegetation and satisfying the public demand for wood products.

Preliminary Issues were developed based on past projects in the area (environmental assessments), issues developed for similar projects, and Forest Service concerns and opportunities identified in the Project Area. These issues are listed below:

1. Road Management—The Forest Service will complete a Roads Analysis, which includes evaluating all roads in the Project Area for effects to the ecosystem. The proposed action requires examining the road system to determine if the existing road system is adequate (or if improvements are needed), and if any roads need to be closed for resource protection or other reasons ( e.g., water quality, wildlife, or recreation opportunities).

2. Even-Aged/Uneven-Aged Management—The Forest Plan provides direction regarding the primary silvicultural system to be used in each management area; for Management Area 3.0 it is even-aged management. Uneven-aged management is an option considered for inclusions such as riparian areas, wet soils, or visually sensitive areas. A court decision (10/15/97) determined that the Forest should more fully explore the use of uneven-aged management techniques.

3. Threatened and Endangered Species—The Forest Service is mandated to protect all proposed, threatened, endangered and sensitive (PETS) species. Suitable Indiana and Northern long-eared bat habitat was sampled within the project area in 1999; although no bats were detected or captured, the project area is assumed to provide occupied habitat for both species. All treatments in the proposed action would adhere to terms and conditions set forth in the 6/1/99 Biological Opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Commenting: A range of alternatives will be considered after public comments are received and analyzed. One of these will consider No Action for the Project Area. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public review by January 2001. At that time the Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability of the document in the Federal Register (this will begin the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS). After the comment period ends on the Draft EIS, the comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final environmental impact statement. The Final EIS is scheduled for release in June 2001.

Comments received, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record and may be subject to public disclosure. Any person may request the Agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court ruling related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions ( Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519 553 [1978]). Also, environmental objection that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement state but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts ( City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 f.2nd 1016, 1022 [9th Cir. 1986] and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 [E.D. Wis. 1980]).

Because of the above rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments are made available to the Forest Service at a time when they can be meaningfully considered and responded to in the final environmental impact statement. Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages, sections, or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

This decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215. The responsible official is John R. Schultz, Bradford Ranger District, Star Route 1 Box 88, Bradford, PA 16701.

The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to giver reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions, ( Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corp . v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978)). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts, ( City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc . v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Responsible Official : David D. Rittenhouse, Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest is the responsible official, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Suite 200, Boise, Idaho 83709.

A Notice of Intent for this project was originally published in the Federal Register (Volume 65, Number 104, pp. 34436 to 34437) on May 30, 2000. The May 20th NOI contained an error in the scoping dates. This Revision to the NOI provides for another scoping comment period, revises the anticipated completion dates for the Draft and Final environmental impact statements, and updates the name of the project leader and contact.

The Ray's Valley Road is a heavily used travel route that connects with the Diamond Fork Road (Forest Development Road #029), and the Right Fork Hobble Creek Road (Forest Development Road #058) at Springville Crossing. These arterial travel routes provide access for the Wasatch Front to Spanish Fork Canyon, and Utah State Highway 6 via the Diamond Fork and Ray's Valley Roads. They also provide access to and from Utah State Highway 6 and the Strawberry Reservoir Recreation Complex via the Ray's Valley Road.

The surface of the Diamond Fork Road and most of the Ray's Valley Road are asphalt pavement of gravel. However, a portion of the Ray's Valley Road is narrow, winding, and native-surfaced. During inclement weather conditions, the road surface becomes extremely hazardous to travel, and/or impassable.

Some of the existing road lies directly adjacent to tributaries of Diamond Fork Creek. Approximately 1.8 miles of this route are located on soils subject to severe slumping and/or erosion. Due to the proximity of the road to the streams, eroding soil is easily transported into Diamond Fork and Sixth Water Creeks. Diamond Fork Creek provides habitat for Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, a sensitive species. Operation and maintenance costs on this section of road are high. Existing road conditions do not meet Road Management Objectives for an arterial system road. The Forest Service has long planned to realign this road to address these concerns; however, funding has never been available.

The proposed action is to construct the Ray's Valley Road on a new alignment and to obliterate the road on its existing alignment. The purpose and need of the proposed action is to reduce or eliminate these adverse watershed and fisheries impacts, and to provide safer driving conditions, while maintaining a key arterial component of the Forest's travel system.

Preliminary issues: Issues identified at this time include: health and safety; travel management; soils; fisheries; threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species; and roadless areas.

Possible Alternatives: Three possible alternatives have been identified: (1) No Action—Leave the road in its current condition: (2) Reconstruct Using the Existing Alignment—Reconstruct on the existing alignment and surface the road with crushed aggregate; and (3) Construct on a New Alignment (Proposed Action)—Reconstruct, realign, and obliterate portions of the Ray's Valley Road.

The No Action Alternative would leave the road in current condition. Maintenance would be limited to actions required for passage of high clearance vehicles. The road would remain unsafe during periods of precipitation. Arterial system road standards for capacity and safety would not be addressed by this alternative. Road induced sediment in nearby streams would remain at current levels, or increase as erosion of the roadway continues.

The Reconstruct Existing Alignment Alternative would reconstruct the road on its existing alignment and add a crushed aggregate surface. Reconstruction would provide better control of drainage from roadway runoff, provide safer and more comfortable vehicle travel during precipitation, and support a greater range of vehicle types. Road induced sediment in nearby streams would slightly decrease due to better drainage and aggregate surfacing. Road Management Objectives for an arterial system road will not be fully accomplished by this alternative due to the location.

The Proposed Action is the Construct New Alignment Alternative. Under this alternative the majority of the existing Ray's Valley Road would be constructed on a new alignment and a small portion would be reconstructed on the existing alignment. The new alignment would be located on more stable soils, and away from streams and riparian areas. The abandoned portions of the existing alignment would be closed and rehabilitated. This proposal would result in approximately 3.6 miles of a double lane road with a crushed aggregate surface. Access to Forest Development Road 715 from the new alignment would be maintained by reconstructing a portion of Forest Development Road 387. This would ensure continued access to the west portal of the Strawberry Tunnel.

Proposed Scoping Process: This Revised Notice of Intent extends the scoping process. As part of the scoping period, the Forest Services solicits public comment on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues related to the proposed action that should be analyzed in depth in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Comments on this proposal should be sent to the address shown earlier in this notice.

Public participation will be solicited by notifying affected interests through personal contacts and by mail. This project has been listed in the Uinta National Forests “Schedule of Proposed Actions” ( i.e. NEPA Quarterly). News releases will also be utilized to give the public general notice. Comments concerning the Proposed Action and EIS should address environmental issues to be considered, feasible alternatives to examine, possible mitigation, and information relevant to or bearing on the Proposed Action.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage, but are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement, may be viewed or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in the proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can be meaningfully considered and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environment impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Tentative Project Schedule: Begin Comment Period—April, 2000; Comment Period Ends—August 30, 2000; Draft EIS—December, 2000; Final EIS and Record of Decision—April 2001.

Responsible Official: Jack A. Blackwell, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Regional Forester, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401.

For Further Information Contact: Renee Flanagan, (801) 342-5100 or at the address listed previously.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after the enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding the disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

On June 9 and 16, 2000, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 36663 and 37757) of proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List:

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the commodities and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the commodities and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the commodities and service.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and service to the Government.

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

Accordingly, the following commodities and service are hereby added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

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

1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the commodities.

3. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities to the Government.

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

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

Accordingly, the following commodities are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:

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

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the commodities and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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

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

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

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodity and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following commodity and services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

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

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

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

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

The following commodities have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

On August 16, 1995, the Department suspended the antidumping duty investigation on honey from China (60 FR 42521). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department initiated a sunset review of this suspended investigation by publishing notice of the initiation in the Federal Register , July 3, 2000 (65 FR 41054). In addition, as a courtesy to interested parties, the Department sent letters, via certified and registered mail, to each party listed on the Department's most current service list for this proceeding to inform them of the automatic initiation of the sunset review on this suspended investigation.

In the sunset review of the suspended antidumping investigation on honey from China, we received notice of intent to participate from the American Honey Producers Association and the American Beekeeping Federation, Inc. However, on July 21, 2000, each of these domestic interested parties withdrew their notice. Therefore, the Department has determined that no domestic interested party intends to participate in the sunset review of this suspended investigation.

Pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(A) of the Act and § 351.218(d)(1)(iii)(B)(3) of the Sunset Regulations (19 CFR 351.218(d)(i)(iii)(B)(3)), if no domestic interested party responds to the notice of initiation, the Department shall issue a final determination, within 90 days after the initiation of the review, revoking the finding or order or terminating the suspended investigation. Because no domestic interested party responded to the notice of initiation by the applicable deadline, July 18, 2000, we are terminating this suspended antidumping investigation.

The termination of the suspended investigation is effective as to all entries, or withdrawals from warehouse of the subject merchandise on or after August 16, 2000.

On March 11, 1999, fifteen U.S. Senators, in a letter to the President, requested that he take immediate action to address the threat of increasing oil imports to our national security. Subsequently, on March 12, 1999, eleven U.S. Senators and a member of the House of Representatives, in two separate letters to the Secretary of Commerce, raised similar concerns and directly requested that he initiate an expedited review and investigation into the impact of low oil prices and ever increasing oil imports on the United States national security under the authority of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.

On April 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce self-initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, to determine the effects on the national security of imports of crude oil and petroleum products. The investigation focused on two issues. One, are imports of oil and petroleum products threatening to impair the national security of the United States and two, if a positive finding can be found that imports of crude oil and petroleum products do threaten the national security, is a trade adjustment, as provided for under Section 232, the appropriate means to address the threat?

In conducting the investigation, the Department chaired an interagency working group that included the Departments of Energy, Interior, State, Treasury, and Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisors. The Department and the interagency working group drew upon an extensive body of data and analyses on the current and prospective status of the domestic petroleum industry and the world oil market. The Department also utilized written comments solicited from and provided by interested parties in response to a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1999. In view of the extensive amount of interagency and public comment information available to it, the Department determined that an industry survey or public hearing was not necessary.

On November 2, 1999, Secretary William Daley concluded his investigation and submitted a report to the President. While concluding that some improvements in U.S. energy security have occurred since previous investigations in 1988 and 1994, the Department found that petroleum imports continue to threaten to impair the national security. As in previous investigations, the Department did not recommend the adjustment of oil imports under Section 232 because the economic costs of such a move outweigh the benefits, but rather recommended continued efforts to achieve the policy goals set forth in the Department of Energy's April 1998 Comprehensive National Energy Strategy. The Executive Summary of the Secretary's November 1999 report to the President entitled, the Effect on the National Security of Imports of Crude Oil and Refined Petroleum Products, is reproduced below.

On March 11, 1999, Senators Domenici, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Nighthorse-Campbell, Roberts, Sessions, Crapo, Nickels, Murkowski, Craig, Burns, McConnell, DeWine, Brownback, and Bunning, in a letter to the President, requested that he take immediate action to address the threat of increasing oil imports to our national security. On March 12, 1999, Senators Bingaman, Breaux, Landrieu, Conrad, Enzi, Lincoln, Lott, Dorgan, Baucus, Murkowski, and Burns, in a letter to Secretary Daley, raised similar concerns and directly requested that the Department of Commerce initiate an expedited review and investigation into the impact of low oil prices and ever increasing oil imports on the United States national security under the authority of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Representative Istook made a similar request.

In their letter to Secretary Daley, the Senators quoted from a 1999 survey by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which alleged that, since November of 1997, 193,000 marginal oil and gas wells have been shut down with a loss in oil production of 360,000 barrels per day. The Senators stated that 24,000 domestic jobs have already been lost in the oil industry and another 17,000 job cuts are expected. Finally, the Senators addressed the concern that low priced crude oil imports could lead to the permanent loss of a significant portion of the United States domestic oil production capacity and resource base.

On April 28, 1999, the Department of Commerce self-initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, to determine the effects on the national security of imports of crude oil and petroleum products. The investigation focused on two issues. One, are imports of oil and petroleum products threatening to impair the national security of the United States? Two, if a positive finding is found that imports of crude oil and petroleum products do threaten the national security, is a trade adjustment, as provided for under section 232, the appropriate means to address the threat?

Under Section 232, The Department has 270 days from the date of initiation of an investigation to submit a report of findings and recommendations to the President. Based upon an initiation date of April 28, 1999, the Department has until January 29, 2000 to complete its investigation and submit its report to the President.

The Department chaired an interagency working group that included the Departments of Energy, Interior, State, Treasury, and Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Council of Economic Advisers. This report is based on a number of agreed-upon economic assumptions including, inter alia, crude oil price levels, U.S. crude oil reserves and production rates, economic growth rates, and inflation.

In determining whether petroleum imports threaten to impair the national security, the Department reviewed key factors from the 1994 investigation as a starting point to determine whether they improved or deteriorated. These factors include: (1) Domestic oil reserves; (2) Domestic oil production; (3) Exploration and industry employment; (4) Impact of low oil prices on the economy; (5) Current status of the domestic oil industry; (6) Oil import dependence; (7) Vulnerability to a supply disruption; (8) Foreign policy flexibility; (9) U.S. military requirements; (10) Status of OPEC; (11) Transparency of oil markets; (12); Breakup of the Soviet Union. The Department also reviewed new factors that have emerged since the 1994 investigation, including: (1) Temporary economic decline in East Asia; (2) Iraqi oil exports; and (3). Non-OPEC offshore drilling.

The Department made use of the extensive data and analyses that were already available regarding the current and prospective status of the domestic petroleum industry and the world oil market. In addition, the Department reviewed the Department of Energy's Comprehensive National Energy Strategy, which, issued in April 1998, outlines five major energy goals of the Administration. In view of this extensive body of available data, the Department determined that an industry survey was not necessary. The Department also drew upon the written comments solicited from and provided by interested parties in response to a Federal Register notice published on May 4, 1999.

Since the 1994 investigation, U.S. proven crude oil reserves declined by an estimated 0.5 billion barrels from 23.0 billion barrels in 1993 to 22.5 billion barrels in 1998. The underlying physical reality is that the United States has already developed the bulk of its known and easily accessible low cost deposits and has decided against developing other geological prospects such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and certain portions of the Outer Continental Shelf . The reserves base reflects the structural geological and geophysical reality, given present technology and economics.

The production outlook remains essentially the same as in the 1994 investigation. The United States is a high cost producer compared to other countries because it has already depleted its known low cost reserves. U.S. production of crude oil declined by 0.42 million barrels per day (MMB/D) between 1994 and 1998 (from 6.66 to 6.24 MMB/D) and fell below 6 MMB/D in early 1999. To offset this decline in production and increasing consumption, imports have increased dramatically since 1994, rising by 1.64 MMB/D (1998 basis).

The Department did find some change in U.S. drilling and in oil and gas industry employment between 1994 and early 1999. Levels of employment in the extraction industry varied from a high of 337,000 in 1994 and a low in 1995 of 320,000, but increased again to 339,000 in 1997 and 338,000 in early 1998. Industry commenters provided anecdotal information showing additional steep drops in employment and drilling activity during 1998 and early 1999 due to the oil price decline. In addition, Department of Labor statistics indicate a decrease in extraction industry employment starting in the last half of 1998 (falling from 325,000 to 308,000) and continuing into 1999 (229,000 in January and 291,000 in February). However, the total footage of exploratory drilling, the number of well completions, and the number of rotary rigs in use for oil and gas exploration increased between 1994 and 1998, albeit with significant variations from year to year.

Low oil prices are not the only reason for the long term historical decline in industry employment, exploratory drilling, and well completions. U.S. companies are drilling less because they have made substantial gains in total productivity by employing new exploration and drilling technology and by focusing on the most promising geological sites based upon improved geological science and technology. In addition, the high cost of off-shore exploration and drilling, where most of the domestic exploratory activity is occurring today, strongly favors the development and use of advanced seismic mapping and analysis techniques in order to maximize drilling productivity. Companies are also continuing to realize productivity gains due to improvements in operations management.

The Department found that the economic consequences of low prices resulted in positive benefits to the U.S. economy. Because the United States is a net importer of oil, lower prices on balance helped the economy. The public benefitted from lower prices for transportation fuels and heating oil. For the economy as a whole, low oil prices contributed to a reduction in inflation, a rise in real disposable income, and an increase in the Gross Domestic Product.

Low oil prices starting in November of 1997 and continuing through early 1999 exacerbated the chronic cost-price squeeze problems faced by independent producers who account for the largest share of lower 48 states oil production (40 percent). Consequences for the 7000 independents who operate in the U.S. include: assuming more debt; scaling-down exploration activities; reducing their work force of skilled labor; and shutting-in temporarily or abandoning certain oil and gas producing wells.

The impact of low oil prices is particularly hard on small producers operating stripper or marginal wells with an average production of 15 barrels per day or less. These wells, which represent over 300 million barrels of annual production, could be permanently lost during a sustained period of low oil prices and high operating costs.

The Department's efforts to analyze the impact of the 1998 price decline on the smaller producers was complicated by the commenters' failure to provide specific economic and technical information. Various commenters argued strongly for the U.S. Government to provide financial incentives to smaller producers, but no company or trade association submitted economic and financial data regarding levels of profitability and tax burden under various oil price scenarios. Nevertheless, the 1998 through early 1999 price drop, although temporary, did have a severe impact on marginal oil and gas wells and raised concerns about the ability of the United States to stabilize domestic oil production and to achieve its natural gas expansion goals. Since the November 1997 price collapse, 136,000 oil wells are believed to have been shut-in (non-producing), representing about 24 percent of all producing oil wells. In addition, 57,000 gas wells are believed to have been shut-in, about 19 percent of all gas wells. This data is based on anecdotal information provided by industry (Independent Petroleum Association of America). Note: About 20 percent of the U.S. gas supply (“associated gas”) is associated with oil production and is therefore also impacted by low oil prices.

The Department found that net U.S. imports have grown from 8.1 MMB/D in 1994 to 9.7 MMB/D in 1998 and currently account for 51 percent of domestic consumption compared to 45 percent in 1994. Imports from Persian Gulf countries, which increased from 1.7 MMB/D in 1994 to 2.1 MMB/D in 1998, currently account for 22 percent of all U.S. petroleum imports. The majority of U.S. imports, over 50 percent, are sourced from reliable Western Hemispheric countries such as Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.

The Department found that the energy provisions of the recent trade agreements between the United States and Canada have enhanced U.S. energy security. Specifically, Article 605 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provides a number of reciprocal benefits that provide for energy security in the event of a supply interruption. These mutual benefits include: (1) Each country will not impose restrictions on the delivery of energy and basic petrochemical supplies during a supply interruption; (2) any shortfall in supply will be shared equally among U.S. and Canadian markets based on historical percentages; (3) each party will not impose higher export prices than those charged domestically; and (4) there will not be a disruption of the prevailing proportion of energy goods supplied, such as, for example, between crude oil and refined products and among different categories of crude oil and refined products. This unprecedented energy cooperation provides significant security benefits for both nations, and clearly demonstrates that the United States and Canada are developing an integrated and secure North American energy market.

U.S. demand for imported oil is expected to continue growing because of declining production by high cost small producers, who account for the largest share of lower 48 states oil production, and continued economic growth. The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy (EIA/DOE) projects that, based on current forcasts, net imports should increase to 12.2 MMB/D by 2005 and account for approximately 58 percent of domestic consumption.

To the extent that the United States and other countries import more oil in the future, EIA/DOE projects that they will turn increasingly to OPEC countries located in the Persian Gulf which have the largest amount of known low cost reserves and excess production capacity. The OPEC producers in the Persian Gulf region, representing 42 percent of world crude oil exports in 1994, will account for approximately 49 percent by 2010.

The Department found that unresolved socio-political and economic issues in some Persian Gulf countries increase the probability of future supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf region. However, the Persian Gulf's largest producer, Saudi Arabia, has pursued oil policies, including diversification of export routes and maintenance of considerable excess production capacity, that serve to mitigate some of these risks. Disruptions are possible in other regions, but the risks to the United States and other importing countries are comparatively less severe given the magnitude of Persian Gulf production and because oil production facilities elsewhere are not as concentrated as they are in the Persian Gulf.

The capability of the United States and the OECD countries to offset a major oil supply disruption has not improved since 1994. The U.S. is still vulnerable because: (1) Most of the spare production capacity is still in the Persian Gulf region; (2) U.S. and OECD government oil stocks today provide less protection from an interruption than was the case in 1988 or 1994; and (3) There is currently no substitute for liquid transportation fuels which account for approximately two-thirds of all oil consumption in the United States. During a major oil supply disruption, there could be substantial economic austerity as a result of the decreased availability of oil. This, in turn, could pose a hardship for the U.S. economy.

In both the 1988 and 1994 investigations, the Department found that the dependence of our allies and trading partners on potentially insecure sources of oil might affect their willingness to cooperate with the United States during a major supply disruption. Some of these concerns are mitigated by the participation of the United States in the International Energy Agency (IEA), which groups together 24 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The principle purpose of the IEA is to fashion a collective response to energy emergencies, which may include the coordinated release of the emergency oil stocks that all IEA members are required to maintain. However, increased market share forecasted for some OPEC countries, and some Persian Gulf States, over the next 20 years, could make cooperation by some oil consumers more difficult.

The Department of Defense advises the Department that, under current planning scenarios, the United States will be able to meet both its direct and indirect military requirements for petroleum products in the event of two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts or a major peacetime supply disruption.

Low world oil prices are only partially due to the fact that OPEC members have been unable, until very recently, to coordinate production levels among themselves. The urgent financial requirements of some OPEC members has led them to compete for revenue and market share even if this has meant accepting a lower per-unit price for their oil. However, by mid-1998, declining prices set in motion renewed OPEC efforts to reduce excess oil supplies. For the remaining months of 1998, announced and realized production cuts were not clearly synchronized, and efforts to reduce production had only modest success. More recently, OPEC members have been more effective at reducing world production to increase prices. Ten members of OPEC, excluding Iraq, pledged in March 1999 to cut production by 2.1 MMB/D. The compliance of these ten OPEC members with announced production cuts was about 89 percent in July 1999. Oil prices have steadily increased since then due to these production cuts and stronger overall worldwide demand. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration projects that the cost for imported oil (Refiner Acquisition Cost) will be $22.50 and $23.50 per barrel, respectively, for November and December of 1999 and average $21.85 per barrel in 2000.

The growth of the futures market into a full-fledged commodity market has made crude oil prices more transparent and less subject to manipulation by foreign governments or OPEC. Prices are now determined by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), the Singapore Mercantile Exchange (SIMEX), and other commodity markets. The use of computerized trading, options, and forward contracts has connected crude oil and refined product markets and suppliers more closely than was the case in 1988 or 1994. However, commodity markets, like all markets, are subject to volatility and have the potential to react in ways which can harm U.S. oil production.

The end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union has reduced tensions around the world, including the Middle East. The advancement of the Middle East Peace Process has also contributed to a reduction of tensions in the region. Both of these developments have reduced the probability of a conventional war that could have jeopardized access to Middle East oil. In addition, oil production in the former Soviet Union, primarily in the Caspian Sea area, is expected to reach 7.6 MMB/D by 2005 and 13 MMB/D by 2020. Based on projected demand, the region could become a net exporter of oil at approximately 7.9 MMB/D by 2020. These additions to the world oil supply and as well as reduced tensions in the Persian Gulf region help to assure that there will be stable supplies of oil and reasonable oil prices into the future.

The Department also evaluated several new factors which have or will significantly affect worldwide petroleum supply and demand since the 1994 investigation. Foremost among these factors are the following:

An economic crisis in East Asia started in the summer of 1997 and continued to deepen throughout 1998. This, in combination with the already weak economy in Japan, significantly reduced worldwide demand for crude oil and petroleum products. The economic decline in turn led to sharply reduced worldwide oil prices in 1998 and early 1999 and a significant oversupply of crude. These factors contributed to the decrease in U.S. production seen during the same time period.

As of August 1, 1999, the United Nations Security Council, within the framework of UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq (mandated by UNSCR 661, August 1990), has established the “Oil-for-Food” program “as a temporary measure to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people” (UNSCR 986, April 1995). Thus, the United Nations Security Council, within the framework of UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq, allows, since February 1998, Iraq to export up to $5.256 billion worth of oil in a six month period, up from $2 billion per six month period prior to that date. Increased Iraqi oil exports, in total on the order of 2.0 MMB/D, were among the supply and demand variables which led to appreciably lower oil prices for much of 1998 and early 1999. However, the U.S. supports UN efforts to meet the identified humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and neither the U.S. nor the UN attempt to influence world oil prices or markets via sanctions regimes.

Offshore oil exploration and production projects off the coasts of the United States, South America, Mexico, Eastern Canada, and Western Africa, and in the Gulf of Mexico, the Caspian Sea, and the South China Sea are expected to produce significant volumes of oil and natural gas early in the next century. Because drilling platforms are reserved so far in advance, most of the worldwide projects are proceeding on schedule even at relatively low oil prices. These increased sources, while harmful to U.S. domestic production to the extent that they increase world supplies and therefore possibly lower worldwide oil prices, increase U.S. energy security by broadening the mix of possible exporters beyond the control of individual countries or coalitions.

Since the previous Section 232 petroleum finding in 1994, there have been some improvements in U.S. energy security. The continued erosion of external threats to the Middle East and the continued increase in non-OPEC production have enhanced U.S. energy security. Additional discoveries of both inland and offshore oil reserves outside of the Persian Gulf region have at least slowed OPEC's market share growth.

Lower oil prices on balance benefit the U.S. economy. However, reduced oil reserves, falling domestic production, and the relatively high cost of U.S. production all point toward a contraction in the U.S. oil extraction industry and increasing dependence on foreign imports. Growing import dependence, in turn, increases U.S. and OECD vulnerability to a supply disruption because non-OPEC non-Persian Gulf sources lack significant excess production capacity. Furthermore, there are at present no substitutes for oil-based transportation fuels.

The Department finds that petroleum imports threaten to impair the national security.

The Department does not recommend that the President use his authority under Section 232 to adjust oil imports. Ongoing programs and activities crafted by the Administration to improve U.S. energy security based upon other statutes and executive authorities are more appropriate and cost effective than an import adjustment.

Section 232 requires the Secretary of Commerce and the President to recognize the close relationship between the economic welfare of the Nation and U.S. national security. As energy security affects the economic welfare of the United States, energy security must be considered in determining the effects on the national security of petroleum imports.

The Department concurs with the conclusions of the 1994 and 1988 studies that, on balance, the costs to the national security of an oil import adjustment outweigh the potential benefits. For example, an oil import adjustment such as a tariff could result in the loss of a significant number of jobs in many non-petroleum sectors. This, in turn, would reduce real Gross Domestic Product (GDP). An import adjustment would also diminish the competitiveness of our energy-intensive export companies and strain relations with our close trading partners who would most likely seek relief under North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

The Clinton Administration recognizes the importance of U.S. energy security. Since 1993, it has pursued the energy policy of reliance on markets to allocate resources with selective government intervention to ensure that certain highly valued societal needs—including the need for energy security, environmental quality, and energy research—are met. The policy recognizes that no cost-effective government action could eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil entirely, but that the following supply enhancement, energy conservation, and critical research policies help to preserve our current oil and gas productive capacity and limit that dependence. Accordingly, the Department recommends continuing the policy goals set forth in the Department of Energy's April 1998 Comprehensive National Energy Strategy as described below.

Goal #1—Improve the efficiency of the national energy system by making the most productive use of energy resources, enhance overall economic performance, and protect the environment: The Administration is working to achieve a more productive and efficient use of energy resources, including electricity infrastructure, fossil fuel reserves, and productive capacity for clean alternative fuels. The twin goals of comprehensive electricity reform, as detailed in the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act (CECA) submitted to Congress on April 15, 1999, and increasing energy efficiencies in the transportation, industrial, and housing sectors and in the generation and distribution of electric power maximize the productive use of energy through market competition and technological innovation. When implemented, these measures will result in a more productive and efficient use of energy and a decreased U.S. consumption of oil.

Goal #2—Prevent the disruption or decline of world energy supplies and protect the U.S. economy from the harmful effects of a short-term supply interruption or infrastructure failure: The Administration is continuing its strong emphasis on emergency preparedness efforts and the need to stabilize domestic oil production, including: arresting the decline in domestic oil production by 2005; maintaining the readiness of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to respond to threats of disruption in world oil supplies; making unutilized SPR storage capacity available for the mid-to long-term storage of commercial oil; coordinating responses to supply disruptions through continued cooperation with the member countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA); diversifying sources of oil by working with industry to increase the supplies of oil available to the world market; and ensuring the integrity of the oil and natural gas supply infrastructure with respect to emergency response capabilities.

Goal #3—Promote U.S. domestic energy production and use in ways that respect national health & environmental values and improve public health and local, regional, and global environments: The Administration has pursued a balanced program to increase domestic energy production in an environmentally responsible manner by: supporting policies to allow the annual domestic natural gas supply to increase by as much as 6 trillion cubic feet (2.9 MMB/D oil equivalent) by 2010; supporting research, design, and development to promote the use of advanced technologies to recover more oil and gas from existing reservoirs without environmental degradation; supporting the suspension, by the Department of the Interior, of production requirements for stripper wells producing less than 15 barrels per day on federal onshore lands when oil prices are extremely low (this suspension temporarily expired on July 26, 1999, when West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude stayed above $15/bbl for 90 days); supporting the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council's ten regional centers and their December 1998 Industry Crisis Action Plan to teach independent operators strategies for improving cost efficiencies and identifying best practices; and accelerating the development and market adoption of environmentally friendly technologies through a combination of increased investments in research, development, and early deployment programs.

The combination of increased natural gas utilization, the increased use of renewable electrical technologies, the accelerated development of biomass liquids fuel technology, and the recovery of more oil and gas from existing reservoirs and the preservation of those reservoirs will collectively reduce oil consumption and limit our dependence on imported oil.

Goal #4—Expand future energy choices by pursuing continued progress in science and technology to provide future generations with a portfolio of clean and reasonably priced energy sources: Advances in science and technology are essential in terms of the United States achieving its economic, environmental and energy security objectives. Technological innovation can significantly decrease the domestic finding and development costs for natural gas and oil, thereby preserving and expanding the domestic resource base and improving the economics of extraction. These programs include: accelerating the advanced oil recovery program; increased support for the natural gas supply program, especially for the new emerging resource program in methane hydrates; conducting basic research to provide the foundation for technological breakthroughs that are beneficial to energy development and environmental protection; and continued budgetary increases over current levels for technology partnerships with the private sector.

Goal #5—Cooperate internationally on global issues and develop the means to address global economic, security, and environmental concerns: The United States should continue its active and sustained participation in multilateral and regional forums as well as bilateral contacts with key suppliers, such as our NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico, Norway, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and other major oil producers. Achievement of this objective requires: promoting the development of open, competitive international energy markets through U.S. participation in multilateral groups such as the International Energy Agency, the Summit of the America's Hemispheric Energy Initiative, and the Asian Pacific Economic Council (APEC) energy working group; working with our reliable neighbors in Canada and Mexico to establish an efficient and integrated North American natural gas and electricity system; promoting the development of worldwide crude oil and natural gas transportation networks to move South American, Caspian Basin, and Central Asian oil and natural gas, for example, to world markets to further diversify world energy supplies; and emphasize free trade and the promotion of American exports to help develop the world's free market economy and prevent over reliance on any single region of the world.

The Department of Commerce's Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is in the process of reviewing its crude oil short supply regulations and identifying reforms that would allow U.S. firms to be on equal footing with their foreign competitors. BXA is reviewing a number of changes, including: (1) Creating a license exception to allow the export of crude oil to Canada and Mexico without an individual license; and (2) establishing a license exception to allow the export of California heavy crude oil sold, as part of bunker fuel oil mixtures, to foreign ships visiting U.S. ports. The interagency group recommends that BXA proceed expeditiously with its short supply reform package.

During the review, the Department received comments from oil companies and trade associations about several possible modifications to the Federal Tax Code that the commenters believe would provide support for the domestic oil industry. The Department did not evaluate these proposals as part of its Section 232 investigation. Instead, the Department recommends that the National Economic Council evaluate the industry proposals.

The VCAT was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

1. The Committee shall review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress.

2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory body, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

3. The Committee

Shall report to the Director of NIST.

4. The Committee shall provide a written annual report, through the Director of NIST, to the Secretary of Commerce for submission to the Congress on or before January 31 each year. Such report shall deal essentially, though not necessarily exclusively, with policy issues or matters which affect the Institute, or with which the Committee in its official role as the private sector policy adviser of the Institute is concerned. Each such report shall identify areas of research and research techniques of the Institute of potential importance to the long-term competitiveness of United States industry, which could be used to assist United States enterprises and United States industrial joint research and development ventures. The Committee shall submit to the Secretary and the Congress such additional reports on specific policy matters as it deems appropriate.

1. The Committee is composed of fifteen members that provide representation of a cross-section of traditional and emerging United States industries. Members shall be selected solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in one or more fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Committee.

2. The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shall appoint the members of the committee, and they will be selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance.

1. Members of the VCAT are not paid for their service, but will, upon request, be allowed travel expenses in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq., while attending meetings of the Committee or of its subcommittees, or while otherwise performing duties at the request of the chairperson, while away from their homes or a regular place of business.

2. Meetings of the VCAT take place in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, usually at the NIST headquarters in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and once each year at the NIST headquarters in Boulder, Colorado. Meetings are one or two days in duration and are held quarterly.

3. Committee meetings are open to the public except for approximately one hour, usually at the beginning of the meeting, a closed session is held in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6), because divulging information discussed in those portions of the meetings is likely to reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. All other portions of the meetings are open to the public.

1. Nominations are sought from all fields described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be eminent in fields such as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environmental and international relations. The category (field of eminence) (for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the VCAT, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the VCAT. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of two days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth in furtherance of their Committee duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse VCAT membership.

The Board was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(2)(B), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.2).

1. The Board shall review the work of the private sector contractor(s), which assists the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in administering the Award. The Board will make such suggestions for the improvements of the Award process as it deems necessary.

2. The Board shall provide a written annual report on the results of Award activities to the Secretary of Commerce, along with its recommendations for the improvement of the Award process.

3. The Board will function solely as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Board will report to the Director of NIST and the Secretary of Commerce.

1. The Board will consist of approximately eleven members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance, and for their preeminence in the field of quality management. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education and health care. The Board will include members familiar with the quality improvements operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Board of Overseers.

2. The Board will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Board member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.

1. Members of the Board shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

2. The Boards will meet twice annually, except that additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one day in duration.

3. Board meetings are open to the public. Board members do not have access to classified or proprietary information in connection with their Board duties.

1. Nominations are sought from the private sector as described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education, and health care. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employment. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledges the responsibilities of serving on the Board, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Board. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seven days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, and so forth, in furtherance of their Board duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Board membership.

The Judges Panel was established in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3711a(d)(1), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2), The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act of 1987 (Public Law 101-107).

1. The Judges Panel will ensure the integrity of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award selection process by reviewing the results of examiners' scoring of written applications, and then voting on which applicants merit site visits by examiners to verify the accuracy of quality improvements claimed by applicants.

2. The Judges Panel will ensure that individuals on site visit teams for the Award finalists have no conflict of interest with respect to the finalists. The Panel will also review recommendations from site visits, and recommend Award recipients.

3. The Judges Panel will function solely as an advisory body, and will comply with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

4. The Panel will report to the Director of NIST.

1. The Judges Panel is composed of nine members selected on a clear, standardized basis, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce Guidance. There will be a balanced representation from U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, and health care and will include members familiar with quality improvement in their area of business. No employee of the Federal Government shall serve as a member of the Judges Panel.

2. The Judges Panel will be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and will serve at the discretion of the Secretary. The term of office of each Panel member shall be three years. All terms will commence on March 1 and end on February 28 of the appropriate year.

1. Members of the Judges Panel shall serve without compensation, but may, upon request, be reimbursed travel expenses, including per diem, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

2. The Judges Panel will meet four times per year. Additional meetings may be called as deemed necessary by the NIST Director or by the Chairperson. Meetings are one to four days in duration. In addition, each Judge must attend an annual three-day Examiner training course.

3. Committee meetings are closed to the public pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, and in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of title 5, United States Code. Since the members of the Judges Panel examine records and discuss Award applicant data, the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person may be privileged or confidential.

1. Nominations are sought from all U.S. service and manufacturing industries, education, and health care as described above.

2. Nominees should have established records of distinguished service and shall be familiar with the quality improvement operations of manufacturing companies, service companies, small businesses, education and health care organizations. The category (field of eminence) for which the candidate is qualified should be specified in the nomination letter. Nominations for a particular category should come from organizations or individuals within that category. A summary of the candidate's qualifications should be included with the nomination, including (where applicable) current or former service on federal advisory boards and federal employee. In addition, each nomination letter should state that the person agrees to the nomination, acknowledge the responsibilities of serving on the Judges Panel, and will actively participate in good faith in the tasks of the Judges Panel. Besides participation at meetings, it is desired that members be able to devote the equivalent of seventeen days between meetings to either developing or researching topics of potential interest, reading Baldrige applications, and so forth, in furtherance of their Committee duties.

3. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks a broad-based and diverse Judges Panel membership.

NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the inventions for purposes of commercialization. The inventions available for licensing are:

Title: Humidity Chamber For Scanning Stylus Atomic Force Microscope With Cantilever Tracking.

Abstract: The present invention provides a novel humidity chamber suitable for use with an atomic force microscope (AFM).The humidity chamber of the present invention employs an intricate geometrical design which can accommodate a scanned-stylus AFM with an optical lever. This geometrical design allows the invention to enclose one or more of the AFM scanner, tip assembly, optical lever detection system, sample and an optical microscope objective lens, without degrading the ability to operate the AFM or the related systems. The invention is comprised of two major pieces: a chamber within which the AFM scanning head assembly is placed, and an integrated sample platform and spring-loaded base-plate that allows samples to be loaded and unloaded without removal of the chamber from the AFM scanning head assembly. The sample platform, which extends up from the base-plate and is inserted into the chamber and the bottom portion of the sample platform to secure the sample platform and base-plate. The spring-loaded base allows the z-directional motors of the AFM to be used to position the sample just below the probe prior to scanning, while at the same time providing an essentially air-tight fit between the chamber and the AFM scanning head. An embodiment of the present invention is suitable for use with one or both of a means for sensing relative humidity and a means for controlling relative humidity.

Title: A Rotating-Wheel Refreshable Braille Reader.

Abstract: This invention would produce computer-refreshable Braille text for tactile reading by the blind and visually impaired, thus improving accessibility to computer services such as electronic books, e-mail and other network access, and general computer use. Cost and mechanical reliability are the two main impediments to widespread use of refreshable Braille devices. This device utilizes a rotating-wheel and is designed to be mechanically simpler than existing refreshable Braille devices, while providing much of their functionality as well as additional features. It is believed that this design will allow for greatly lowered cost and improved reliability in comparison to existing systems. It is believed that this device can be implemented in such a way as to provide refreshable Braille text to the user at a “typical” reading rate of 125 words per minute, and also at a “high” reading rate of 250 words per minute.

Title: Micron-Scale Differential Scanning Calorimeter On A Chip.

Abstract: A differential scanning microcalorimeter produced on a silicon chip enables microscopic scanning calorimetry measurements of small samples and thin films. The chip may be fabricated using standard CMOS processes. The microcalorimeter includes a reference zone and a sample zone. The reference and sample zones may be at opposite ends of a suspended platform or may reside on separate platforms. An integrated polysilicon heater provides heat to each zone. A thermopile consisting of a succession of thermocouple junctions generates a voltage representing the temperature difference between the reference and sample zones. Temperature differences between the zones provide information about the chemical reactions and phase transitions that occur in a sample placed in the sample zone.

The Panel, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement (Pub. L. 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Panel advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

This meeting will be open to the public.

The current limits for certain categories are being increased for the recrediting of unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68333, published on December 7, 1999.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 70217, published on December 16, 1999.

The current limits for certain categories are being increased for special carryover in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated June 2, 2000. This MOU was entered into in recognition of the disruption to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia's exports in 1999 as a result of the crisis in Kosovo.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 71115, published on December 20, 1999.

The current limits for Categories 666-P and 666-S are being increased for special carryforward as allowed under the Memorandum of Understanding dated May 25, 2000 (see Federal Register notice 65 FR 41961, published on July 7, 2000).

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68335, published on December 7, 1999.

The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used. The current limit for Category 603 is being increased for the recrediting of unused carryforward.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999). Also see 64 FR 68336, published on December 7, 1999.

This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Committee after receiving advance approval for participation. To request additional information please contact Dr. John R. Goss III at the above address or phone number.

None.

None.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the Department of the Navy, United States Marine Corps has prepared and filed with the EPA a DEIS for the construction and operation of the Marine Corps Heritage Center on or near MCB Quantico, Virginia.

The proposed Marine Corps Heritage Center would be a large multi-structure museum complex, intended to consolidate operations of the Marine Corps History and Museum Division and enhance the protection and presentation of Marine Corps history and historical collections. The complex would include approximately 20 buildings dispersed over a 100-acre site. Facilities planned for development at the site would include a visitor center, library, workshops, exhibit/display facilities, administrative offices, curation facilities, conference center, theater, restaurant, gift shop, and various related structures. Outdoor areas would be used for exhibits, memorials, ceremonies and demonstrations. Five alternative sites for the Marine Corps Heritage Center are evaluated in the DEIS. All five sites are located adjacent to the Interstate 95/US Route 1 corridor, on or near MCB Quantico, Virginia.

Copies of the DEIS have been mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, area public libraries, local representatives, and persons or groups that expressed an interest in the proposed action during the EIS scoping process. Requests for copies of, or comments on, the DEIS may be made to the point of contact listed above. Federal, State and local agencies, and interested parties are invited to attend the scheduled meeting. Oral comments will be recorded at the public meeting, but it is recommended that written statements be submitted to assure accuracy. All comments must be received no later than September 1, 2000.

The Navy has decided to purchase F/A-18 E/F aircraft because of its improved capabilities over earlier aircraft models. It is designed to fly farther and carry a heavier payload, which will make it a more effective tool for national defense. An EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) were completed in 1998 for the introduction of F/A-18 E/F aircraft on the West Coast. In 1999, the Navy began a phase-in of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft to NAS Lemoore, California. Introduction of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft in the Atlantic fleet area of responsibility will begin in 2004 and be completed by 2008.

The EIS will address the environmental impacts associated with basing and operation of the Atlantic fleet F/A-18 E/F aircraft on the East Coast, retirement of existing F-14 aircraft and earlier F/A-18 models, and new construction and/or renovation of buildings and other support facilities. In addition, the EIS will assess impacts on each local community and economy associated with relocation of military personnel to the area to support the operation and maintenance of the E/F squadrons.

The Navy is currently evaluating East Coast installations to develop reasonable F/A-18 E/F siting alternatives. To date, four Navy and Marine Corps air stations have been identified as potential receiving sites: Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina; MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina; Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, Virginia; and NAS Meridian, Mississippi. Other siting alternatives are still being considered. The Navy's preferred alternative is to site all the Atlantic Fleet F/A-18 E/F squadrons at one location; however, splitting the squadrons between two bases is not precluded.

The Navy intends to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the introduction of the Atlantic Fleet F/A-18 E/F aircraft on the environment. This includes, but is not limited to air quality, plant and animal habitats, and water resources, such as streams. It will also evaluate potential effects on the surrounding communities, including land use patterns, transportation, housing, and the regional economy. Further, the Navy will examine potential effects on existing airspace, training range use, and on aircraft noise exposure levels in and around the bases.

The Navy has initiated a scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues that will be addressed in the EIS. Federal, state, local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the Navy to identify environmental concerns that should be addressed in the EIS. To be most helpful, scoping comments should clearly describe the specific issues or topics that the EIS should address.

Written comments must be postmarked by September 8, 2000, and should be mailed to: Commander, Atlantic Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1510 Gilbert Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23511, Attn: Code 2032 (Mr. Dan Cecchini), telephone (757) 322-4887, fax (757) 322-4984.

The Department will reallocate unexpended FWS Federal funds from the 1999-2000 award year as supplemental allocations for the 2000-2001 award year under the FWS Program. Supplemental allocations will be issued this fall in accordance with the reallocation procedures contained in the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). Under section 442(d) of the HEA, unexpended FWS funds returned to the Secretary must be reallocated to eligible institutions that used at least 10 percent of the total FWS Federal funds granted to the institution to compensate students employed in community services. Because reallocated FWS funds will be distributed on the basis of fair share shortfall criteria, you must also have a fair share shortfall to receive these funds. A fair share shortfall means that you have an unmet need for FWS funds as determined by the FWS allocation formula in the HEA that uses data reported on the FISAP. You must use all the reallocated FWS Federal funds to compensate students employed in community services. To ensure consideration for supplemental FWS Federal funds for the 2000-2001 award year, you must submit the Campus-Based Reallocation Form data by August 25, 2000.

The following regulations apply to the Federal Work-Study Program:

(1) Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668.

(2) General Provisions for the Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Work-Study Program, and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant Program, 34 CFR part 673.

(3) Federal Work-Study Programs, 34 CFR part 675.

(4) Institutional Eligibility under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 CFR part 600.

(5) New Restrictions on Lobbying, 34 CFR part 82.

(6) Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants), 34 CFR part 85.

(7) Drug-Free Schools and Campuses, 34 CFR part 86.

Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, DOE is responsible for ensuring the availability of isotopes for medical, industrial and research applications, meeting the nuclear material needs of other Federal agencies, and undertaking research and development activities related to development of nuclear power for civilian use. To meet these responsibilities, DOE maintains nuclear infrastructure capabilities that support various missions in these areas. These infrastructure capabilities include those of nuclear research and test facilities, such as reactors and accelerators, as well as shielded “hot cell” and glovebox facilities used to prepare nuclear materials for testing and/or to perform postirradiation processing of materials.

To continue to maintain sufficient irradiation facilities to meet its obligations under the Atomic Energy Act, DOE must assess the need for expanding its nuclear infrastructure in light of its commitments to ongoing programs, its commitment to other agencies for nuclear materials support, and its role in supporting civilian nuclear research and development programs.

The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), established in 1998 by DOE to provide independent, expert advice on complex science and technical issues that arise in the planning, management, and implementation of DOE's civilian nuclear energy research programs, informed the Secretary of Energy that “(a) there is an urgent sense that the Nation must rapidly restore an adequate investment in basic and applied research in nuclear energy if it is to sustain a viable United States capability in the 21st Century, (b) the most important role for DOE in the nuclear energy area at the present time is to ensure that the education system and its facility infrastructure are in good shape, and (c) of particular need over the longer term are dependable sources of research isotopes and reactor facilities providing high volume flux irradiation for nuclear fuels and materials testing” (letter dated June 13, 2000, from J.J.Duderstadt, Chair, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee to The Honorable W. Richardson, Secretary of Energy).

Under the guidance of NERAC, DOE has completed an assessment of its existing nuclear facility infrastructure capabilities (U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap, Draft, Revision 1 Summary, March 2000). The basic finding of this assessment was that the capabilities of currently operating DOE facilities will not meet projected U.S. needs for nuclear materials production and testing, research, and development. As demand continues to increase for steady-state neutron sources needed for isotope production and nuclear research and development, DOE's nuclear infrastructure capabilities to support this demand have not improved. Over the years, DOE's nuclear facility infrastructure has diminished because of the shutdown of old facilities, including the High Flux Beam Reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, and the Cyclotron Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee. This has hampered DOE's ability to satisfy increasing demands in various mission areas. The Department's facilities at the Savannah River Site, previously used for plutonium-238 production for the space program, are also no longer available.

Consistent with these findings, DOE recognizes that adequate nuclear research reactor, accelerator, and associated support facilities must be made available in order to implement and maintain a successful nuclear energy program. To continue meeting its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act and to satisfy projected increases in the future demand for isotope products and irradiation services, DOE proposes to enhance its existing nuclear facility infrastructure to: (1) Produce isotopes for medical, research, and industrial uses, (2) produce plutonium-238 for use in advanced radioisotope power systems for future NASA space exploration missions, and (3) support the Nation's nuclear research and development needs for civilian applications.

The NI PEIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and five action alternatives. The action alternatives focus on the use of irradiation facilities that are currently operating, those that could be brought online, or those that could be constructed and operated to meet DOE's nuclear facility infrastructure requirements.

No Action Alternative (maintain status quo): Ongoing operations at existing facilities would continue. DOE would not establish a domestic plutonium-238 production capability, but could, instead, purchase Russian plutonium-238 to meet the needs of future U.S. space missions. However, the existing contract, which expires in 2002, would have to be renegotiated or a new contract would have to be established. FFTF at Hanford would be maintained in standby status.

Alternative 1—Restart FFTF: FFTF at Hanford would be restarted to irradiate targets for medical and industrial isotope production, plutonium-238 production, and nuclear research and development irradiation requirements for a period of 35 years. Ongoing operations at other existing facilities would continue.

Alternative 2—Use Only Existing Operational Facilities: DOE would use existing operating DOE reactors or U.S. commercial light water reactors to produce plutonium-238 for future space missions. The production of medical and industrial isotopes and support of nuclear research and development in DOE reactors and accelerators would continue at the No Action Alternative levels. Other ongoing operations at existing facilities would continue. FFTF at Hanford would be permanently deactivated.

Alternative 3—Construct New Accelerator(s): One or two new accelerators would be constructed for target irradiation and operated for a period of 35 years. The new accelerator(s) would be constructed at an existing DOE site and would be used to irradiate all of the targets for production of plutonium-238, isotopes for medical and industrial uses, and materials testing for research and development. Other ongoing operations at existing facilities would continue. FFTF at Hanford would be permanently deactivated.

Alternative 4—Construct New Research Reactor: A new research reactor would be constructed for target irradiation and operated for a period of 35 years. The new research reactor would be constructed at an existing DOE site, and would be used to irradiate all targets for production of plutonium-238, isotopes for medical and industrial uses, and materials testing for research and development. Other ongoing operations at existing facilities would continue. FFTF at Hanford would be permanently deactivated.

Alternative 5—Permanently Deactivate FFTF (with no new missions): FFTF at Hanford would be permanently deactivated and no enhancements to DOE's nuclear facilities infrastructure would be made. Plutonium-238 would not be produced or purchased. Ongoing operations, such as medical and industrial isotope production and nuclear research and development missions, at existing facilities would continue.

The environmental impact analysis addresses the full range of natural and human resource areas pertinent to the sites considered for the nuclear infrastructure alternatives. Impacts are assessed for human health, land resources, noise, air quality, water resources, geology and soils, ecological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, socioeconomics, and waste management. A region of influence for each resource area is identified and analyzed for each candidate site.

Baseline conditions at the three DOE sites assessed in the NI PEIS, the Oak Ridge Reservation, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford, as well as an existing generic commercial light water reactor, include present and reasonably foreseeable future actions at each site. Sitewide data set forth in the No Action Alternative define the baseline conditions used in the analysis of action alternatives for each site and are the data upon which incremental impacts for action alternatives were imposed to determine overall impacts.

The Department does not have a preferred alternative at this time, but a preferred alternative will be identified in the final PEIS. The environmental analysis in the PEIS, public comments, the findings of a separate cost study and a nonproliferation report that are being prepared concurrently with the PEIS, as well as other program and policy factors, will be considered in making a decision. The Record of Decision to be published in the Federal Register will be issued no sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability of the final PEIS has been published in the Federal Register .

The proposed Blythe Energy Project would involve construction activities within the floodplain of the Colorado River, including the construction of the natural gas pipeline and the microbore drilling. The floodplain assessment would examine the impacts of this construction on the Colorado River floodplain. The Blythe Energy Project would involve the floodplain in both Riverside County, California, Townships 6 and 7 South, Ranges 22 and 23 East, and La Paz County, Arizona, Township 3 North, Range 22 West. Maps and further information are available from the contacts above.

Title : Confidentiality Rules (OMB Control No. 2020-0003; EPA ICR No. 1665.03), expiring August 31, 2000. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

Abstract : EPA administers a number of environmental protection statutes which require it to collect data from thousands of facilities. Businesses often claim the data they submit as confidential business information (CBI). EPA developed the regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B to protect CBI, as well as the rights of the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). When EPA must determine whether information is entitled to confidential treatment, it provides the affected business with an opportunity to submit comments (a substantiation). EPA then considers the business's comments in determining whether the previously submitted information should be protected as CBI. This ICR relates to the collection of information that will assist EPA in making confidentiality determinations.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 12, 2000 (65 FR 19750); comments were received from one organization.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.8 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: 1330.

Estimated Number of Responses: 1101.

Frequency of Response: on occasion.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 6432 hours.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital and Operating & Maintenance Cost Burden: $0.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1665.03 and OMB Control No. 2020-0003 in any correspondence.

Today's document is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. EPA Region 10 sent a letter to Idaho Division of Environmental Quality on June 8, 2000 stating that the motor vehicle emissions budget in the Portneuf Valley submitted Particulate Matter (PM-10) Air Quality Improvement Plan is inadequate. This finding is based on the exceedences of the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards recorded in December 1999, and the need to re-visit the planning effort for the Portneuf Valley PM10 nonattainment area. This finding will also be announced on EPA's conformity website: http://www.epa.gov/oms/traq, (once there, click on the “Conformity” button, then look for “Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions for Conformity”).

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

The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review.

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

In 1995, EPA amended the “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants,” at 40 CFR part 136, to add WET test methods to the list of Agency approved methods in Tables IA and II, for CWA data gathering and compliance monitoring programs (60 FR 53529, October 16, 1995). Known as the “WET Methods rule,” the 1995 action amended 40 CFR 136.3 by standardizing analytical methods that employ freshwater, marine, and estuarine vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants to directly measure the acute and short-term chronic toxicity of effluents and receiving waters. The WET Methods rule incorporated the following three technical documents by reference: Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Freshwater and Marine Organisms; Fourth Edition, August 1993 (EPA/600/4-90/027F); Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Freshwater Organisms, Third Edition, July 1994 (EPA/600/4-91/002); and Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition, July 1994 (EPA/600/4-91/003). In 1999, EPA promulgated technical corrections that incorporated an errata document into the WET Methods rule. EPA intended that the errata document correct minor errors and omissions, provide clarification, and establish consistency among the WET rule and test manuals (64 FR 4975, February 2, 1999).

Today's notice announces the availability of an additional document, “Method Guidance and Recommendations for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (40 CFR Part 136),” EPA/821/B-00/004. This guidance document provides clarification and recommendations to EPA Regional, State, Tribal and local regulatory authorities; regulated entities; and environmental laboratories regarding specific recommended and/or suggested technical elements of the WET test methods. The document provides specific guidance on nominal error rate assumption adjustments, confidence intervals, concentration-response relationships, dilution series selection, and dilution water. EPA prepared the document as part of a settlement agreement to resolve litigation challenging the rulemaking that standardized the testing procedures. The complete text of this Federal Register notice and the subject guidance document may be viewed or downloaded on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/OST/WET/.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0937.

Title: Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00-10.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated time per response: 0.017 hours-52 hours (depending on requirements, this time is split between respondent, and legal and engineering consultants).

Total annual burden: 396,251.

Total annual costs: $2,284,000.

Needs and Uses: The Report and Order in MM Docket No. 00-10 adopted rules for Class A LPTV broadcasters. Class A LPTV broadcasters are subject to the Commission's operating rules for full-service television stations. The Report and Order modified all pertinent Part 73 rules to indicate their applicability to Class A LPTV licensees. The information collections contained within this Report and Order ensure that the integrity of the TV spectrum is not compromised. It will also ensure that unacceptable interference will not be caused to existing radio services and that statutory requirements are met. These rules will ensure that the stations are operated in the public interest.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0798.

Title: FCC Application for Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Radio Service Authorization.

Form No: FCC Form 601.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 240,320.

Estimate Time Per Response: 1.25 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 210,280 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $48,364,000.

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 601 is used as a general application (long form) for market based licensing and site-by-site licensing in the Wireless Telecommunications Radio Service. The purpose of this revision is to make the necessary changes to collect licensing information for the 700 MHz auction winners, to make the necessary adjustments to the form and instructions for implementation of Land Mobile Radio Services to ULS, and to further clarify various instructions for the applicants. As use of the FCC Form 601 progresses after implementation of each service, we are discovering ways to ease the burden of filing on our respondents by making further changes to the form ( i.e., “fine tuning”). These changes do not affect the total estimated number of respondents or the total estimated average annual burden. The information will be used by the Commission to determine whether the applicant is legally, technically and financially qualified to be licensed. Without such information, the Commission could not determine whether to issue the licenses to the applicants that provides telecommunications services to the public and therefore fulfill its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. It will also be used to update the database and provide for proper use of the frequency spectrum.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0783.

Title: 47 CFR Section 90.176, Coordination Notification Requirements on Frequencies Below 512 MHz

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimate Time Per Response: 0.25 hours (multiple responses/annum).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 975 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: The reporting requirement in 47 CFR Section 90.176 is a result of comments sought in the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in PR Docket No. 92-235 and requires each Private Land Mobile frequency coordinator to provide, within one business day, a listing of their frequency recommendations to all other frequency coordinators in their respective pool, and, if requested, an engineering analysis. This requirement is necessary to avoid situations where harmful interference is created because two or more coordinators recommend the same frequency in the same area at approximately the same time to different applicants.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0806.

Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program.

Form Numbers: FCC 470 and 471.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit entities; and State, local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 60,000.

Estimate Time Per Response: 7.3 hours (avg.).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 440,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted rules providing support for all telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections for all eligible schools and libraries. To participate in the program, schools and libraries must submit a description of the services desired to the Administrator via FCC Form 470. FCC Form 471 is submitted by schools and libraries that have ordered telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections.

You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.

FDA is requesting nominations for members to serve on the advisory committee listed below. Individuals should have expertise in the activity of the Committee. Vacancies will occur June 30, 2000.

The Committee provides advice primarily to the Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), and as needed, to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and other appropriate officials, on emerging food safety, food science, and nutrition, and other food-related issues that FDA considers of primary importance for its food and cosmetics program. The Committee may be charged with reviewing and evaluating available data and making recommendations on matters such as those relating to: (1) Broad scientific and technical food or cosmetic related issues; (2) the safety of new foods and food ingredients; (3) labeling of foods and cosmetics; (4) nutrient needs and nutritional adequacy; and (5) safe exposure limits for food contaminants. The Committee may also be asked to provides advice and makes recommendations on ways of communicating to the public the potential risks associated with these issues and recommends on approaches to that might be considered in for addressing them the issues.

The Committee has been restructured to consist of a “parent” Committee and four standing Subcommittees. The Subcommittees are as follows: (1) Additives and Ingredients; (2) Contaminants and Natural Toxicants; (3) Dietary Supplements; and (4) Food Biotechnology. The new Food Advisory Committee “parent”/Subcommittees structure was adopted because of the breadth of scientific disciplines needed to consider emerging food safety and nutrition related matters. Further, the new structure provides an expanded knowledge base from which to draw essential expertise in emerging and reemerging scientific areas. While the former structure of a single standing Committee was considered responsive to the needs of CFSAN and FDA when originally chartered in 1991, the increasing breadth of the scientific questions that must be addressed by CFSAN prompted the design of for the new structure.

The purpose of the Subcommittees is to provide highly specialized expertise in the review and analysis of assigned topics. As was the case of former ad hoc Subcommittees, meetings of the Subcommittees are expected to shall be open to the public in accordance with rules and regulations for advisory committee proceedings except as otherwise determined by the Commissioner or designee. Similarly, interactions between and among the “parent” Committee and the four Subcommittees, will be in accordance with rules and regulations for advisory committee proceedings established requirements. The Subcommittee's findings, conclusions, and recommendations will be reported to the “parent” Committee. As a general matter, included in this report will be a recommendation from the Subcommittee on final disposition of the assigned topic. Generally, matters that cut across the agency program areas would fall under the purview of the “parent” Committee. As a general rule, issues relating to the microbiological safety of food will be addressed by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods.

Persons nominated for membership on the Committee shall be knowledgeable in the fields of physical sciences, biological and life sciences, food science, risk assessment and other relevant scientific and technical disciplines. The agency is particularly interested in considering candidates with a comprehensive background in food technology, molecular biology, genetics, biotechnology, and a variety of medical specialties, as many issues brought before the Committee involve medical or epidemiologic impact on nutrients, additives, contaminants, or other constituents of the diet, such as dietary supplements. The term of office is up to 4 years.

The Committee includes technically qualified members who are identified with consumer interests and representatives of industry interests.

Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Committee. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude Committee membership. Additionally, the nominee's mailing address, telephone number, and curriculum vitae must accompany the nomination. The agency cannot guarantee further consideration of nominations that do not include this requested information. Potential candidates will be asked by FDA to provide detailed information concerning such matters as financial holdings, employment, consultancies, and research grants and/or contracts to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest.

Regarding nominations for members representing industry interests, a letter will be sent to each person or organization that has made a nomination and to other organizations that have expressed an interest in participating in the selection process together with a complete list of all such organizations and the nominees. The letter will state that it is the responsibility of each nominator or organization that has expressed an interest in participating in the selection process to consult with the others to provide a consensus slate of possible members representing industry interests within 60 days. In the event that a slate of nominees has not been provided within 60 days, the agency will select an industry representative for each such vacancy from the entire list of industry nominees to avoid delay or disruption of the work of the Committee. The agency is particularly interested in nominees that possess the essential scientific credentials needed to participate fully and knowledgeably in the Committee's deliberations. In addition to this expertise, the agency believes that it would be an advantage to the Committee's work if the individual(s) had special insight and direct experience into specific industrywide issues, practices, and concerns that might not otherwise be available to others not similarly situated.

This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

In the Federal Register of January 6, 1999 (64 FR 887), FDA announced the availability of a discussion paper entitled “A Proposed Framework for Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing Animals” (the Framework Document). FDA made the Framework Document available to the public to initiate discussions with the scientific community and other interested parties on the agency's thinking about appropriate underlying concepts to be used to develop microbial safety policies protective of the public health. This document discussed several risk management approaches to the regulatory management of antimicrobial drug resistance associated with food-producing animal use of antimicrobials. These strategies covered both preapproval and postapproval approaches and included: (1) Revision of the preapproval safety assessment for antimicrobial resistance for new animal drug applications to assess all uses for microbial safety, (2) categorization of antimicrobials based upon the importance of the drug for human medicine and upon which pre- and postapproval requirements would be based, (3) postapproval monitoring of the development of antimicrobial drug resistance and, (4) elaboration of resistance and monitoring thresholds.

The Framework Document discussed the concept of two thresholds, the resistance threshold and the monitoring threshold, that would be established prior to the approval of an antimicrobial new animal drug for use in food-producing animals to ensure that food products derived from treated animals are safe for consumers. The resistance threshold would be established in humans to represent the upper limit of resistant bacteria that can be transferred from animals to consumers. The Framework Document discussed the possibility of establishing resistance thresholds based on human data, animal data, or both.

Monitoring thresholds would also be established to guide the postapproval monitoring of resistance development in animals. According to the Framework Document, a monitoring threshold would need to be determined for each antimicrobial prior to approval, and the threshold may vary depending on the human or animal pathogen of concern. Monitoring thresholds would be established in animals so that they would serve as an early warning system, signaling when loss of susceptibility or resistance prevalence is approaching the resistance threshold.

If a monitoring threshold were reached, the drug sponsor would implement mitigation actions to address the loss of susceptibility or increasing resistance trend. If mitigation were not successful, and resistance continued to increase and reach the resistance threshold, withdrawal of the approval of the drug for the use(s) of concern would be warranted.

Interested persons may submit written comments regarding this meeting until December 11, 2000. Written comments should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch (address above), or by fax to 301-827-6870. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document.

Transcripts of the three previous CVM public meetings on antimicrobial resistance, related public comments, the “Draft Risk Assessment on the Human Health Impact of Fluoroquinolone Resistant Campylobacter Associated with the Consumption of Chicken (Revised as of February 9, 2000),” and “A Proposed Framework for Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for use in Food-Producing Animals” can be found on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cvm/fda/mappgs/antitoc.html.

FDA is announcing the availability of an internal planning document entitled “PDUFA II Five-Year Plan—FY 2000 Update.” PDUFA was amended and extended through the year 2002 by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. The amended and extended PDUFA is referred to as PDUFA II. PDUFA II authorizes appropriations and fees that will provide FDA with resources to sustain the drug review staff developed through FY 1997 and to achieve the even more stringent new goals.

The FY 2000 updated plan begins with a statement of purpose, provides background information on PDUFA and a summary of the new goals, and updates the 10 major assumptions on which the plan is based. This is the second update of the plan since it was initially published in July 1998. The updated plan summarizes individual plans of agency components with major PDUFA responsibilities, and it also provides a consolidated agency summary. The updated plan to achieve PDUFA II goals for the drug review process takes into account changes in revenue projections and workload based on actual revenue and application receipts in FY 1998 and FY 1999 and updated projections for FY 2000 through FY 2002. Attachments include: The Federal Register notice of December 28, 1999 (64 FR 72669) establishing prescription drug user fee rates for FY 2000, updated 5-year estimates of PDUFA fees and revenues, and the revised PDUFA II Information Management Five-Year Plan.

We are making this plan available to all who have an interest. We welcome comments and will consider them in the future as annual adjustments are made to the plan.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the plan. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance document and received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Section 4016 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to evaluate best practices in the private sector for methods of coordinated care. The statute also directs the Secretary to design a demonstration project for the original Medicare fee-for-service population based on this evaluation. The purpose of the demonstration is to evaluate models of coordinated care that improve the quality of services provided to specific beneficiaries with a chronic illness and manage expenditures under Parts A and B of the Medicare program so that, under the demonstration, Medicare expenditures do not exceed what they would have been in the absence of the demonstration.

Section 4016(b)(3) authorizes the continuation of demonstration projects that are cost-effective. That is, the evaluation of the demonstration projects conducted by HCFA establishes that these projects reduce Medicare expenditures or do not increase Medicare expenditures while increasing the quality of services furnished and beneficiary and provider satisfaction. This section also authorizes us to expand the number of demonstration sites if the models tested are shown to be cost-effective. In addition, we may issue regulations to implement, on a permanent basis, the components of the demonstration projects that are proven to be cost-effective for the Medicare program.

In July 1998, we competitively awarded a task order for conducting a review of best practices in coordinating care and for providing a recommendation of demonstration design options to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR). We have evaluated the findings from the review of best practices and selected the following demonstration design.

Historically, a small proportion of Medicare beneficiaries has accounted for a major proportion of Medicare expenditures. For example, in 1996, 12.1 percent of all Medicare enrollees accounted for 75.5 percent ($126.1 billion) of all Medicare fee-for-service program payments. Many of these high-cost beneficiaries are chronically ill with certain common diagnoses, and most of the Medicare expenditures for their care are for repeated hospitalizations. During the next 30 years, as the population ages, the number of these individuals is expected to grow dramatically.

Health care for individuals with chronic illness is often fragmented and poorly coordinated across multiple health care providers and multiple sites of care. Oftentimes, evidence-based practice guidelines are not followed, nor are patients taught how best to care for themselves. These shortcomings are particularly true for patients served under reimbursement systems in which providers lack incentives for controlling the frequency, mix, and intensity of services, and have limited accountability for the outcomes of care.

A number of health care organizations, including health maintenance organizations, private insurers, commercial firms, and academic medical centers, have developed programs to support adherence (by both provider and patient) to evidence-based medical practices, to better coordinate care across providers and between face-to-face encounters with chronically ill patients, and to reduce costs. At best, the literature on the effectiveness of these models is mixed. There is little hard evidence that these programs are effective. Hence, the applicability and cost-effectiveness of these programs, in general, for the original Medicare fee-for-service program and specifically to its beneficiaries who suffer from complex co-morbid conditions is uncertain.

On March 23, 1999, we published a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 13998) announcing the opportunity to submit information on examples of best practices of coordinated care as well as to comment on potential aspects of the overall Medicare Coordinated Care Demonstration. Through a review of submitted information, electronic literature searches, and expert referrals, MPR identified programs self-reporting success in coordinating care for chronically ill patients. A multi-tiered approach focusing on structure, process, and outcomes was used to identify favorable characteristics of potentially successful programs and to develop a general framework that describes these coordinated care delivery models. The review emphasized the strength of the evidence supporting claims of success, the degree of impact on costs (hospitalizations and total costs), and the degree of impact on patient outcomes. A detailed discussion of the methodology, findings, and limitations of the best practices assessment is available in MPR's final report that can be accessed via our website (www.hcfa.gov/ord/coorcare.htm). A brief summary of the report's findings and limitations is presented below.

MPR identified two main types of coordinated care programs and a three-step conceptual framework applicable to these coordinated care delivery models. The two main types of programs differ in the patients they serve and the tactics they adopt to accomplish the three steps of the conceptual framework for coordinating care. Because of limitations in the submitted data, the cost-effectiveness of the reviewed programs could not be determined with certainty. There were 37 programs reporting credible evidence of impacts on hospitalizations or total costs. Twenty-five of these programs were interviewed in greater depth to obtain greater insight into the reasons for their success. These programs are referred to as “identified potentially cost-effective programs” in this notice.

a. Models of Coordinated Care: The identified potentially cost-effective programs tended to operate as one of the following two program types.

These programs serve a select group of frail, disabled patients who suffer from severe illness, often multiple chronic health problems, and a high risk of recurrent, costly, adverse medical events. Each patient has a unique set of diseases, functional deficits, and social conditions. These programs follow a holistic approach to care and rely on case manager judgment and highly individualized approaches. Creative, innovative interventions are used to address individual care needs. Partnership with the patient, primary care physician (PCP), other providers, caregivers, and the social support system is integral to the interventions.

These programs target persons whose primary health problem is a specific disease, although certain comorbid conditions are usually addressed as well. Patients with a similar level of severity of the disease face similar problems. The care coordination interventions tend to be highly structured and emphasize the use of standard protocols and clinical guidelines. The PCP may not play an active role in the implementation of the interventions; however, successful collaboration with PCPs generally influences program outcomes.

Under both main types of coordinated care programs, the interventions provided go beyond those services for which payment under the original Medicare fee-for-service program is typically made. These interventions may include comprehensive geriatric assessment, intensive patient education, social services, telephone monitoring, medications, or transportation, among others.

Overall, there was variation among the identified potentially cost-effective programs within and between the two main types of programs. The scope, mix, and intensity of care coordination interventions varied as did the duration of the interventions, targeted disease(s), organizational structures, system and staff capabilities, outcomes, and other features. Notwithstanding this variation, there were many examples of programs that claim to have successfully combined particular practices to positively impact patient and cost outcomes.

b. Goals of Successful Coordinated Care Programs: In general, the identified potentially cost-effective coordinated care programs use a variety of interventions to accomplish the following goals:

• Ensure optimal medical management.

• Enhance and support patient self-management.

• Eliminate barriers to efficient and effective utilization of health care services.

To achieve these goals, the identified potentially cost-effective coordinated care programs of both types generally follow a three-step process that is described in the following conceptual framework.

c. Conceptual Framework: Care coordination programs identify the patients they serve through a range of methods. After defining the target population (and any exclusionary criteria), programs may identify potentially eligible clients through provider or self-referrals, claims data, special screening tools, or a combination of methods. Eligible and willing cases then receive the intervention.

Many care coordination programs “risk-stratify” their patients, attempting to identify from those meeting the basic eligibility criteria the subset that would benefit most from the intervention. Some programs use risk stratification to restrict the set of patients admitted to the program, while others use it to tailor the intervention to the estimated level of risk of adverse outcomes faced by the patient. However, the degree of structure imposed in stratifying patients may vary. Thus, the three-step process discussed below focuses on what programs do once targeted patients are identified, rather than how they are selected.

Step One: Assess and Plan : Accurately assess patients' barriers to improved health and devise a feasible plan to overcome those barriers . This step encompasses activities such as initial patient assessment, care plan development, establishing patient-specific goals, assessing patient education needs, and involving PCPs and other providers. The component tasks of Step One are as follows:

• Uncover all important problems. These are the problems that can keep the patient from better health and lead to unplanned hospitalizations. These problems vary for each patient.

• Address all important problems and goals. Every important problem and goal should have a plan and an intervention or interventions to address the problem.

• Draw from a comprehensive arsenal of proven interventions. A care coordinator must have a broad array of appropriate, proven interventions available from which to choose the best ones to meet a patient's needs.

• Produce a clear, practical plan of care with specific goals. The first step concludes with a written, individualized plan of care. It is important that all concerned—patient, care coordinator, primary care physician—have a common, agreed-upon set of goals for the patient, and when and how the patient is going to achieve them.

Step Two: Implement and Deliver: Implement the plan and deliver the interventions. This step encompasses activities such as patient education, service arrangement and provision, and coordination with providers. The component tasks of Step Two are as follows:

• Build ongoing relationships with the primary care physician (PCP) and with other providers. This task enables care coordinators to coordinate care and facilitate communication among providers. Also, programs that fail to engage the physician may be limited in the degree to which they can address the medical aspects of care coordination.

• Build ongoing relationships with patients and families. The foundation for this relationship is often laid during the initial assessment in the first step.

• Provide excellent patient education . This intervention must be part of every plan of care. Programs must teach patients crucial self-care skills, such as proper diet for their condition, medical compliance, self-monitoring, emergency action plans, and skills to cope with the stresses of chronic illnesses.

• Make certain that planned interventions are conducted . This task involves monitoring to make sure each intervention is conducted.

Step Three: Reassess and Adjust : Determine whether the interventions are working as intended. If not, adjust the plan by going back to Step One . This step entails regular evaluation and monitoring of whether the plan of care developed in Step One and its implementation in Step Two are achieving the intended goals. The component tasks of Step Three are as follows:

• Perform periodic reassessments. The care coordinator must contact patients on a regular basis to make sure they continue to progress and have not encountered new problems.

• Be accessible. Patients must have an easy way to reach a care coordinator at all times.

• Nurture the relationship with PCPs and providers.

• Nurture the relationship with patient and family. This relationship and the relationship with the PCPs and providers must be maintained.

• Make prompt adjustments to the plan of care as needed. If the reassessment reveals a lack of progress, the plan of care may need to be changed. Several interventions may have to be tried and discarded before a successful solution is discovered. Changes in the plan of care also need to be made promptly, sometimes even urgently. Patients' level of risk for complications may change, necessitating a change in follow-up frequency.

Overlaying these three steps, at the program level, programs employ system-wide processes for assessing and improving the coordinated care delivery model as a whole. These continuous quality improvement processes ensure that lessons learned about failures and successes are disseminated to other care coordinators and program staff.

d. Similarities Between Program Types: The two main types of coordinated care programs are similar in several respects. First, the identified potentially cost-effective programs of both types accomplish the same three basic steps and address the same basic components under each of these steps, as described above. Both disease and case management programs have case managers who act as advocates for their patients to help them get the care and attention they need. Strong programs of both types stress the critical importance of having personable, knowledgeable case managers who are effective communicators. Programs of both types also provide thorough patient education focused on self-care and overcoming personal barriers to improved health. In addition, the potentially cost-effective programs of both types are proactive rather than reactive, developing written care plans based on evidence-based, disease-specific guidelines at the outset, and monitoring patients between office visits.

e. Differences Between Program Types: Despite these similarities, the two main types of coordinated care programs differ in the types of patients they serve and the tactics they adopt to accomplish the three steps and their component tasks. The major differences between disease management (DM) and case management (CM) programs seem to stem from the somewhat more limited set of problems that DM programs typically deal with. Patients in DM programs generally do not have as high a prevalence of difficult geriatric syndromes, such as incontinence, falling, cognitive impairments, delirium, or such social problems as inadequate family support, housing, or transportation. Instead, the vast majority of DM patients' problems center around a single disease or condition and fall into fundamental problems with either their own behavior or the disease-specific care they receive. Patient behavior problems contributing to their problems include poor medication compliance, lack of self-care skills, and lack of adherence to recommended lifestyle changes. Provider-based problems include failure to prescribe the most effective medications, poor coordination of care across providers and settings, lack of adherence to disease-specific guidelines based on evidence or expert panels, and inadequate follow-up and monitoring. Case management programs tend to serve patients with a more complex mix of problems and comorbidities. While they also face problems of poor self-care and compliance and inadequate prescribing and follow-up by their physicians, the patients are often frail and more prone to face adverse interactions from multiple prescription drugs that they may be taking for different conditions, or from conflicting advice about diet and exercise from different providers treating their multiple conditions.

As a result of the differences in characteristics of the patients served, disease management and case management programs differ in the emphases they place on different component tasks, and on how they accomplish these tasks. They also differ on the degree to which patient education and treatment is standardized. Case management programs tend to rely more heavily on the judgment of the case manager and less on protocols. Case management programs also take a broader perspective, involving family and other caregivers and arranging for services more often than the typical disease management programs. (See MPR's final report for more comprehensive lists of key features of potentially cost-effective disease management and case management programs.)

f. Rural Programs: A few of the identified potentially cost-effective programs served rural areas. Each of these programs was of the case management type and looked similar to nonrural case management type programs. However, having strong ties to the community helped rural case managers gain patients' trust and find ways of getting things done. Travel distance placed important constraints on case managers by limiting their caseloads, forcing them to spend much energy on transportation arrangements, and making it difficult for them to forge collaborative relations with outlying physicians.

In response to the March 23, 1999 notice, we received 25 timely public comments on potential aspects of the overall demonstration. All but six of the comments were from providers that furnish coordinated care services. The commenters included for-profit vendors, tertiary hospitals, academic medical centers, health plans, and nonprofit groups. The comments related to the types of organizations that are appropriate providers of care coordination services, the care manager's role, desired features of care coordination programs, and reimbursement of care coordination services.

Commenters suggested a variety of organizational structures in which to provide care management including for-profit and nonprofit entities, integrated delivery systems, and stand-alone care management providers.

The majority of commenters believed that the care manager should be part of an interdisciplinary team and most believed that the care manager should be intimately involved in the provision of actual care to enrollees. One commenter stressed the need to define the care manager's role in relation to other providers of care coordination (such as discharge planners) in the current Medicare system. Commenters also suggested that programs need to integrate patients' physicians into the care coordination process.

Several providers credited their success to the use of patient risk stratification, evidence-based medicine, information systems, or Internet and telecommunications technologies. The latter two were mentioned by several commenters as being useful for rural populations.

There were many comments on the difficulties of providing care management services under the current Medicare fee-for-service payment system. Almost all respondents suggested some sort of risk bearing system in which providers would be paid a fixed fee per enrollee and would share in any savings to the Medicare system. Some also suggested that reimbursement be linked to patient outcomes.

Through the study design, a number of exemplary or highly regarded coordinated care programs may have been excluded from the review of best practices. Only those programs that volunteered to submit information and that provided self-reported evidence of favorable impacts on costs or hospital admissions were considered in the review. However, a review of excluded programs would not likely alter our basic conclusions about the three basic activities that successful programs must accomplish and the component tasks that they must address. Nor would have examination of additional programs been likely to permit more definitive statements about minimum requirements for a successful care management intervention. Evidence from additional programs would have likely provided further proof that there are multiple ways to achieve the goal of coordinating care.

An additional limitation of the review is that the data were self-reported and it was not possible to validate the reported impacts on outcomes. Nonetheless, the quality of the evidence reported was evaluated, and this ranking was used in the identification of potentially cost-effective practices. Thus, absent fraudulent representation of the data or concealment of questionable evaluation practices, programs that reported large impacts are likely to have had sizeable positive effects, even if the effects are somewhat overstated. This conclusion is reinforced by the focus of the study on programs that also tended to have features that case management experts believe to be strongly associated with good care coordination. Another data-related limitation is that the cost-effectiveness of most programs could not be assessed due to the complete absence or poor quality of data on the costs of the interventions.

In the analysis phase of the assessment, some of the less successful programs (those that reported comparatively smaller impacts) were reviewed in an effort to better understand potential differences between these programs and programs with similar structure and process features that reported large impacts. While this effort yielded limited insight (due largely to the wide variability in the quality of the evidence and large confidence intervals), examination of three unsuccessful programs reinforced the findings described above. These ineffective programs failed to identify all important problems, and failed to set specific goals in creating care plans. They also had shortcomings in implementing and delivering the care. Two of the programs cited difficulties building relations with primary care providers. One program relied solely on pamphlets for patient education. They also failed to reassess patients adequately, lacked procedures for patients to reach case managers between scheduled contacts, and relied on staff with backgrounds in acute care rather than community nursing.

The findings of the best practice assessment suggest two general conclusions. First, there are several, if not many, potentially effective ways of coordinating care, and second, the two delivery models identified (DM and CM) may have the potential to improve care for chronically ill Medicare beneficiaries. In general, these conclusions are sufficiently informative for the purposes of developing a demonstration design. A conceptual framework applicable to the identified coordinated care delivery models is provided, and it appears that implementation of each of these delivery models in the Medicare fee-for-service program under a demonstration is feasible.

In addition to the conceptual framework and favorable characteristics of potentially cost-effective programs found through the review of best practices, there are several key design details that must be specified in order to ensure the likelihood of a successful demonstration within the time frame required by the Balanced Budget Act. These design issues include: Eligibility requirements, organizational capabilities for providing coordinated care services and for participating in the research and evaluation aspects of the demonstration, experimental design, technical operational design features, and the payment methodology to be tested. In specifying these requirements, we rely on our past experience with successful and unsuccessful demonstrations.

This notice solicits applications for demonstration projects that will use existing models of coordinated care to improve the quality of services furnished to specific beneficiaries and manage expenditures under Parts A and B of the Medicare program. These savings are to result from more efficient provision and utilization of Medicare-covered services and the prevention of avoidable, costly medical complications. The intention of this demonstration is not to expand the set of services that Medicare covers with the exception of coordinated care services for targeted beneficiaries. Applicants may propose to expend a portion of the payments received for coordinated care services on services that are typically not covered by the Medicare program. These services are not to be considered Medicare-covered services to which demonstration participants are entitled under the demonstration. Examples of these services include (but are not limited to): Coordination with community-based services, transportation, medications, noncovered home visits, and equipment. Beneficiaries will not be financially liable for these services.

We are interested in testing a variety of delivery and payment models aimed at diseases that represent high costs to the original Medicare fee-for-service program. The number and type of models to be tested will be determined by the quality of the proposals received. Through this solicitation, we intend to award at least eight proposed projects. Five of the selected projects will be conducted in urban areas; three in rural areas. We intend to operate the demonstration projects for 4 years from implementation during which time a formal evaluation will be conducted. We will assign a project officer, to each selected project, who will serve as the point of contact with the demonstration project staff. Our project officer will provide technical consultation regarding cooperative agreement procedures, monitor demonstration site activities, and forward feedback to the demonstration project's staff.

Under the demonstration, using a monthly all-inclusive rate, we will pay for the proposed coordinated care services. As required in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, aggregate Medicare payments for the costs of the demonstration must be budget neutral for the Medicare program. This requirement means that, over the course of the projects, the aggregate Medicare payment for the coordinated care services (and any start up funding and incentive payments, if made) may be no greater than the total expected Medicare program savings from the coordinated care services. In addition to the monthly payment amounts, applicants may propose and we are willing to consider testing well-constructed performance incentives for the coordinated care entity.

Applicants may request minimal financial assistance for initial implementation costs (one-time payment of up to $150,000 per demonstration project, subject to availability). If made, this funding will be considered as part of the project's budget neutrality estimate. We are willing to consider requests for assistance with the following kinds of initial implementation costs: Modification of existing protocols, services, outreach, and educational materials to address a Medicare fee-for-service population. Applicants' proposed project budget must show the applicant's share of start-up costs as well as the proposed HCFA share.

We are seeking innovative proposals from a variety of qualified organizations that test whether models of coordinated care improve clinical outcomes, satisfaction, quality of life, and appropriate use of Medicare-covered services for targeted Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, while managing Medicare expenditures under Parts A and B so that budget neutrality of the project is achieved. Preference will be given to proposals aimed at beneficiaries who have one or more chronic conditions that represent high costs to the Medicare program, such as congestive heart failure, other heart disease (heart attack, ischemic heart disease, angina, arrhythmia), diabetes, liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung disease, stroke or cerebrovascular or other vascular disease, psychotic disorders, major depressive disorders, drug/alcohol dependence, Alzheimer's or other dementia, cancer, or HIV/AIDS. Applicants proposing to target beneficiaries with chronic conditions not listed above must provide evidence justifying their selection.

Applicants must describe, in detail, their experience with providing coordinated care services and the populations served. Enrollment and drop-out rates must be described. Applicants must submit evidence for the following required organizational capabilities: appropriately experienced clinical and management staff; accurate understanding of the original Medicare fee-for-service program coverage and payment policies; adequate data and information systems; capacity to capture and analyze relevant patient-specific data elements; willingness to submit data to our designated evaluation contractor; effective management oversight; and effective quality improvement processes.

We are interested in models that are specifically targeted to the Medicare population and that take into account the beneficiaries' relative health and functional status, age, mental functioning, and other relevant factors. We are interested in and will give preference to proposals that focus on beneficiaries most likely to benefit from coordinated care interventions and that take patient comorbidities into account in the services provided.

Many of the design elements of the proposed demonstration project will depend on the coordinated care delivery model and interventions offered by the applicant, as well as the proposed payment methodology. When appropriate, applicants must demonstrate capabilities consistent with the coordinated care conceptual framework described in section I.C. of this notice.

Applicants must explain how their proposed program addresses each of the following aspects of the demonstration:

We seek to test existing models of coordinated care that have at a minimum been pilot tested by the applicant, thus eliminating the need for a lengthy developmental time frame. The applicant must therefore be an existing provider of coordinated care services applicable to the Medicare population. For purposes of this notice, “existing provider” is defined as an entity that has provided coordination services similar to or identical to the coordinated care services proposed for the demonstration for at least 1 year prior to the date of this notice.

Applicants must serve a chronically ill Medicare population, define their target population precisely, and have a defined scope of coordinated care services to be provided over a defined service period. The proposed coordinated care services must be appropriate for the targeted population, and must be likely to improve the quality of care for these individuals. The proposed bundle of coordinated care services may not include services for which separate Medicare payment is typically allowed (for example, physician office visits, inpatient hospital stays, durable medical equipment, and other Medicare-covered services).

Proposals for models that rely on medication management regimens or services (to be furnished by a provider other than the coordinated care entity) that are not typically covered by the Medicare program must address issues related to the cost of the medications or services, beneficiaries' ability to afford the medications or services, implications for the applicant's protocols, and other pertinent details.

Detailed processes must be proposed for beneficiary participant identification, recruitment, selection, enrollment, and discharge from the program. Applicants must indicate how they plan to assess whether an individual has one of the targeted diseases and what additional restrictions will be placed on eligibility (for example, qualifying conditions, excluded conditions, and mandated referral from a physician). Additional processes must include: Ensuring optimal medical management; enhancing and supporting patient self-management and patient and caregiver education; ensuring efficient and effective utilization of Medicare services; and ensuring adequate flow of patient information from setting to setting.

Preference will be given to proposals in which the intervention protocols are not proprietary in nature.

Applicants must provide clear evidence that their program has achieved reductions in the use of medical services for the target population previously served. Applicants must provide estimates showing that Medicare savings from proportionately similar effects for the target Medicare population would be sufficient to cover the costs of the demonstration to the Medicare program (proposed aggregate payment for coordinated care services and any start up funding). For their claims of prior success, applicants must define the outcomes measures used, the length of time over which they were measured, and how the measures were calculated. Preference will be given to proposals that report strong, credible evidence of savings and improved patient outcomes calculated from actual data collected during past implementation of the proposed care coordination interventions by the applicant. Preference will also be given to proposals that will test protocols that have been shown to be cost-effective specifically with a Medicare population.

The proposed demonstration project must provide for voluntary participation for targeted Medicare beneficiaries. Preference will be given to proposals that make use of a randomized experimental design (for example, concurrent treatment group (receives coordinated care services) and control group (receives usual care) with patient assignment occurring after agreement to participate in the demonstration is established). For a randomized design, applicants must submit evidence of their ability to recruit and serve a study population of at least 618 Medicare beneficiaries per year (309 in the treatment group and 309 in the control group). When characteristics of the proposed intervention or the population under study renders a randomized design infeasible, applicants must provide a justification for this conclusion, and must fully describe how the proposed treatment and comparison groups would be identified such that the selection bias usually avoided by randomization would be minimized. For a comparison group design, applicants must submit evidence of their ability to recruit and serve a large enough population to allow us to differentiate statistically between the two groups.

Details of the applicant's proposed experimental design must be specified in its proposal, including the expected number of eligible Medicare beneficiaries in the geographic area the program intends to serve and the proportion expected to volunteer for the demonstration. Applicants must either (1) allow us (or our contractor) to assign beneficiaries to the experimental or control/comparison groups, or (2) have their proposed procedures for assignment approved and monitored by HCFA. At the time enrollment begins, beneficiaries who are then being served by the applicant's program may not be recruited for participation in the demonstration.

Applicants must propose an overall payment methodology and project budget that are appropriate for their proposed coordinated care delivery model and budget neutral for the Medicare program. Applicants must submit evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the financial assumptions used in their proposed payment methodology and project budget. Applicants' accuracy in estimating the expected net Medicare savings, the expected total yearly Medicare expenditures for the treatment and control (or comparison) groups, and the strength of the evidence supporting these estimates will be considered in evaluating the proposals. Further, applicants selected for award will be required to submit to us data supporting their financial assumptions prior to finalization of the award. In addition, we may revisit the budget neutrality calculations periodically during demonstration implementation to assess if the projects are budget neutral to the Medicare program.

The applicant's payment methodology must propose an all-inclusive rate per enrolled beneficiary served per calendar month for the proposed bundle of coordinated care services. Under the demonstration, the coordinated care entity may bill for and be paid for each calendar month for which the beneficiary was enrolled in the coordinated care program and received coordinated care service furnished by that coordinated care entity. Enrollment begins the first day of the month following consent for participation from the beneficiary. Applicants may propose an alternative enrollment process with justification. For example, an applicant may propose an enrollment process that would allow for enrollment during the month in which the beneficiary consents to participate and for subsequent partial monthly payment.

This demonstration aims to give the care coordination entity increased flexibility in providing services and make participation in the care coordination program attractive to patients and providers. The monthly all-inclusive rate for coordinated care services furnished to participating beneficiaries will be considered an administrative fee; no beneficiary coinsurance amount or deductible liability will be applied. Further, the selected demonstration sites must submit bills for the coordinated care services furnished on an assignment basis (no balance billing will be permitted). Providing coordinated care services to beneficiaries without cost eliminates a potential financial barrier to willingness to participate, offers a modest incentive for beneficiaries to participate (without applicable supplemental insurance) and avoids a layer of complexity in the billing requirements both for us and the demonstration projects. In addition, applicants may propose to expend a portion of the payment for coordinated care services on other services to beneficiaries.

Applicants may also propose to expend a portion of the monthly administrative fee for coordinated care services on appropriate payments to providers whose services are essential to the success of their programs. For example, an applicant may propose to pay physicians for services furnished to demonstration participants for which separate Medicare payment is not allowed. The payment might be structured as a monthly payment for care oversight or payment for participation in a scheduled multidisciplinary team conference. Payments to physicians must be tied to services furnished to an enrolled beneficiary and cannot be based upon referrals to the program. These payments, if any, will be included in the budget-neutrality calculations and in determining any Medicare savings.

The proposed payment amount must be reasonable given the scope of coordinated care services proposed and must be supported by prior evidence of cost savings. The derivation of the monthly all-inclusive rate from the component costs must be specified in the applicant's proposal. No separate payment will be made for recruitment, travel, capital investments, labor, administrative, implementation, operating, data collection, research, evaluation, or any other costs incurred by the demonstration selectees in the provision of the proposed coordinated care services. However, applicants may request minimal financial assistance for initial implementation costs (a one time payment of up to $150,000 per demonstration project, subject to availability). Applicants must submit a detailed project budget with documentation of how the requested start-up funds, if any, would be used.

In proposing the monthly all-inclusive rate per beneficiary, applicants may propose a payment schedule (of up to six rates) that reflects the intensity of services provided to beneficiaries with varying severity of disease or functioning, or length of time enrolled in the coordinated care program. Under this type of payment methodology, applicants must specify the mix of cases anticipated in the treatment group and develop an average rate. This average rate will determine the maximum monthly payment amount permitted (average monthly rate per beneficiary multiplied by the number of beneficiaries enrolled during the month cannot exceed the aggregate case mix adjusted rate for that month).

The demonstration projects will be required to cooperate in an independent formal evaluation of the demonstration, including submission of cost and other program data and two site visits, conducted by HCFA or its contractor. No additional funding will be provided for these activities.

The primary focus of the demonstration program is an all-inclusive rate payment methodology. For the first year, all demonstration sites will be paid in this manner. For the second year and beyond, an applicant may propose testing alternative models such as a financial incentives program for the coordinated care entity beyond the monthly all-inclusive rate. Proposed performance-based financial incentive fee payments may be in the form of a fixed fee (capped by a percentage of net Medicare savings), or a percentage of net Medicare savings (as calculated by HCFA or its contractor). Development of appropriate outcomes-based incentives can be a significant challenge. Thus, applicants must define precisely the target measures to be used to determine if the performance-based financial incentive fee will be paid and how these measures will be calculated. Final decisions on these alternatives will depend on: (1) The applicant's ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed incentives, and (2) the applicant's ability to measure savings attributable to the intervention. Applicants should be aware that our primary interest is in testing the effectiveness of an all-inclusive rate payment and that this will be the primary basis for evaluating proposals.

Applicants must demonstrate that they have the basic infrastructure to carry out the demonstration. At a minimum, the applicant must have adequate physical assets, trained staff, clinical protocols to guide care delivery and management, linkages to providers and services necessary to deliver care, and appropriate information and financial systems. Accordingly, applicants must have substantial experience in coordinating care.

Proposals must include a detailed implementation plan describing tasks, time lines, and costs associated with implementing the demonstration program. Since applicants must demonstrate prior experience in operating successful care management programs, the implementation plan should focus on tasks and a time line for modifying the existing system to fit the demonstration program features listed above. Applicants may need to modify case management models, including protocols, services, outreach, and education to address a Medicare fee-for-service population.

The implementation plan must also demonstrate how the organization will modify its existing data and claims systems in order to submit electronic claims for payment to the appropriate Medicare contractor(s), using standard claims formats, and to meet all data requirements for the project. The preimplementation start-up phase should not exceed 6 months. Within 12 months from the implementation date, at least 309 treatment patients must be served (for a randomized design.)

Applications (original and 10 copies) must be received by HCFA as indicated in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. Only proposals that are considered “on time” will be reviewed and considered by the technical review panel. Applications must be typed for clarity and should not exceed 40 double-spaced pages, exclusive of the cover letter, executive summary, resumes, forms, and documentation supporting the cost proposal. That is, sections IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII below must be presented in 40 double-spaced typewritten pages. These sections make up the body of the proposal and must fully describe the proposed project.

To facilitate the review process, the application should include the following contents in the following order:

I. Cover Letter —Must include a brief description of the proposed project and indicate the model to be tested (that is, DM or CM, target population, and urban site or rural site), and identify any and all HCFA provider numbers assigned to the applicant, a contact person, and contact information.

II. “Application for Federal Assistance” Standard Form 424 (including SF-424a “Budget Information” and SF-424b “Assurances”, available on our website (www.hcfa.gov/ord/ordhp1.htm)).

III. Executive Summary —Must include a summary of the project, care coordination experience, existence of adequate information systems, and willingness to share protocols for care coordination.

IV. Statement of the Problem

V. Demonstration Design

VI. Organizational Capabilities

VII. Project Budget and Cost-Effectiveness Evidence

VIII. Implementation Plan

IX. Related Supplemental Materials

A review of responsive proposals will be conducted by a panel of experts. This technical review panel will convene in the months following the due date for submission of proposals. The panelists' recommendations will contain numerical ratings based on the evaluation criteria, the ranking of all responsive proposals, and a written assessment of each applicant. In addition, we will conduct a financial analysis of the recommended proposals and evaluate the budget neutrality of these proposed projects.

A. The proposal provides clear and convincing evidence and supporting materials that proposed care coordination services are appropriate for the targeted population, likely to achieve reductions in the use of medical services, and likely to improve the quality of care for these individuals.

B. The proposed research design provides for voluntary participation of a sufficient number of Medicare beneficiaries. The research design provides for the enrollment of comparable treatment and comparison groups in order to allow for validity of the evaluation result. Preference will be given to applications that make use of an appropriate randomized design.

A. The proposal provides evidence of the availability and adequacy of facilities, equipment, personnel, and data systems to successfully conduct the proposed project.

B. The proposal provides evidence of the organizational capacity to ensure adequate service delivery and the provision of high quality of care.

C. Specific information is provided concerning how the personnel are to be organized in the project, to whom they will report, and how they will be used to accomplish specific objectives or portions of the project.

A. The proposed project implementation strategy and plan are detailed and appropriate.

B. There are adequate mechanisms for ensuring the medical necessity and reasonableness of the coordinated care services furnished under the demonstration.

C. There are adequate mechanisms for ensuring that beneficiaries' physicians are integrated with the project.

D. The strategy and plan for recruiting the required number of patients in the control and experimental groups appear reasonable and achievable.

E. The data to be collected, data sources, and data analyses planned are specified in detail and are sufficient to ensure optimal medical management and efficient use of health care services.

F. The implementation plan supports an independent evaluation of the project.

G. The proposal provides evidence that effective continuous quality improvement processes are being employed and can be transferred to the demonstration.

A. The proposal provides justification and explanation for the proposed payment amount(s).

B. The proposed payment amount for the bundle of coordinated care services is reasonable considering the scope and nature of services included.

C. The proposal provides clear, convincing evidence that, over the 4 years of the demonstration, the aggregate Medicare expenditures under Parts A and B (including incentives and start-up funding, if made) will be no greater than expected Medicare expenditures in the absence of the demonstration.

From among the most highly qualified applicants, the final selection of projects for the demonstration will be made by the HCFA Administrator and will take in to consideration operational feasibility, geographic location, and program priorities (such as testing a variety of approaches for delivering services, targeting beneficiaries, and payment). We reserve the right to conduct (a) site visit(s) prior to making awards. We expect to make the awards in early 2001.

The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (42 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 1938-0800. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number.

In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Public Law 105-33) established the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program. Under the BBA, we must implement a risk adjustment methodology that accounts for variations in per capita costs based on health status and other demographic factors for payment to M+C organizations (M+COs). Risk adjustment implementation began January 1, 2000.

The BBA gives us the authority to collect inpatient hospital data for discharges on or after July 1, 1997, and additional data for services occurring on or after July 1, 1998. Pending OMB approval, M+COs must submit physician encounter data beginning October 1, 2000.

The agenda for the half-day training sessions will include the following topics:

•; Overview of comprehensive risk adjustment models and implementation timeline.

• Review of M+C National Standard Format (M+C NSF).

• Coding tips and resources for obtaining additional coding information.

• Data requirements for physician encounter data.

• Question-and-answer period.

Registration for these training sessions is required and will be on a first-come, first-served basis, limited to two attendees per organization. A waiting list will be available for additional requests. Registration can be accomplished via the Internet at http:/­/www.hcfa.gov/events or by completing a paper form available at the aforementioned Internet address. A confirmation notice will be sent to attendees upon finalization of registration.

Attendees will be provided with training materials at the time of the training session. There will be two training sessions per day. The morning session will be from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.; the afternoon session will be from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Individuals can attend only one session (either morning or afternoon).