Title: Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project—Data Collection Instruments.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: N/A.

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: Section 109(b) of the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-336) amended Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769) to authorize a pilot study that provides free school breakfasts to all students regardless of family income in up to six school districts. The evaluation will rigorously assess the impact of this universal-free school breakfast program on program participation and a broad range of student outcomes, including academic achievement, school attendance and tardiness, classroom behavior and attentiveness, and dietary status. In addition, the evaluation will include a comprehensive implementation analysis to document how the universal-free breakfast program was implemented, changes in program operations and administration, and its costs. OMB approval is requested for the data collection instruments to be used for evaluating the impact of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project on various student outcomes and for assessing the implementation of the universal-free breakfast program.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden is estimated to range from 30 minutes for school principals to 255 minutes for cafeteria managers.

Respondents: Parents/guardians of sampled students will be interviewed. Elementary school children will be asked to respond to questions about dietary intake, complete a cognitive test battery and have height and weight measured. Teachers, whose students are study participants, will be asked to rate the behavior of these students. School District Administrators, School Food Service Directors, School Principals and Cafeteria Managers will be interviewed.

Estimated Number of Respondents: From each of the selected 144 elementary schools, 30 students and their households totaling 4,320 students and 4,320 households will be sampled. Respondents will also include the 6 School District Administrators, the 6 School Food Service Directors, 144 School Principals, 144 Cafeteria Managers and 864 teachers (6 teachers from each of the 144 elementary schools).

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: One for most respondents. Exceptions include 10 percent (432) of the study households, which will be interviewed for 25 minutes on a second occasion for additional dietary intake information about the student. 24 students from each school district will participate in a focus group. 108 teachers will be interviewed.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,920.5 hours.

Households (4,320 × 45 minutes + 432 × 25 minutes)=3,420 hours; Students (4,320 × 45 minutes + 144 × 60 minutes for focus groups)=3,384 hours; Teachers (864 × 95 minutes + 108 × 30 minutes) =1,422 hours; School District Administrators (6 × 45 minutes)=4.5 hours; School Food Service Directors (6 × 60 minutes)=6 hours; Principals (144 × 30 minutes)=72 hours; Cafeteria Managers (144 × 255 minutes)=612 hours.

Title: 7 CFR Part 1794, Environmental Policies and Procedures.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0117.

Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection with change.

Abstract: The information collection contained in this rule are requirements prescribed the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and certain related Federal environmental laws, statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders.

The major events which influenced the promulgation of the revisions to this rule was the 1994 reorganization of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which transferred the water and waste program from the former Farmers Home Administration to RUS, reforms within the electric and telecommunications programs, and fundamental changes in RUS' implementation of the CEQ regulations.

RUS applicants provide environmental documentation, as prescribed by the rule, to assure that policy contained in NEPA is followed. The burden varies depending on the type, size, and location of each project, which then prescribes the type of information collection involved. The collection of information is only that information that is essential for RUS to provide environmental safeguards and to comply with NEPA as implemented by the CEQ regulations.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 229 hours per response.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and non-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.

Estimate Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 440,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Bob Turner, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service at (202) 720-0696.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms of information technology.

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

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

The merchandise covered by this order consists of carbon steel wire rope. Steel wire rope encompasses ropes, cables, and cordage of iron or carbon steel, other than stranded wire, not fitted with fittings or made up into articles, and not made up of brass plated wire. Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 7312.10.9030, 7312.10.9060 and 7312.10.9090.

Excluded from this review is stainless steel wire rope, which is classifiable under the HTSUS subheading 7312.10.6000, and all forms of stranded wire, with the following exception. Based on the affirmative final determination of circumvention of the antidumping duty order, 60 FR 10831 (Feb. 28, 1995), the Department has determined that steel wire strand, when manufactured in Mexico by Camesa and imported into the United States for use in the production of steel wire rope, falls within the scope of the antidumping duty order on steel wire rope from Mexico. Such merchandise is currently classifiable under subheading 7312.10.3020 of the HTSUS.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations allows the Department to rescind a review if the party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication date of the initiation notice. The Department published the initiation notice on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25303). The petitioner withdrew its request for a review of Camesa's sales on June 15, 2000. The petitioner was the only party to request a review of Camesa's sales for this period of the proceeding. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of sales by Camesa.

Section 351.213(d)(3) allows the Department to rescind a review if the Department concludes that during the POR there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise, as the case may be. Based on Cablesa's certification, submitted on May 10, 2000, which we independently confirmed with the U.S. Customs Service, we conclude that Cablesa had no entries, exports, or sales during the POR, and, thus, that there is no basis for a review. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) we are rescinding this review of sales by Cablesa.

We will instruct customs to liquidate the entries made during the POR at the rate entered. We are publishing this notice in accordance with section 351.213(d)(4) of our regulations.

On November 24, 1999, Cementos de Chihuahua, S.A. de C.V. (CDC), requested that the Department of Commerce (the Department) conduct an expedited changed-circumstances review pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In that letter, CDC stated that, effective December 1, 1999, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. (GCCC), a newly created company, would be the successor in interest to CDC due to a corporate reorganization. CDC also stated that it would become a holding company and the parent of GCCC and its subsidiary companies. On December 13, 1999, the petitioner, the Southern Tier Cement Committee, opposed CDC's request that the Department initiate an expedited changed-circumstances review. Since the Department had very little information on the record concerning this corporate reorganization, the Department concluded that it would be inappropriate to conduct an expedited changed-circumstances review and issue a preliminary determination concurrent with the initiation of a changed-circumstance review. Thus, the Department published only a notice of initiation. See Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed-Circumstances Review, 65 FR 1592 (January 11, 2000). On January 20, 2000, the Department sent a questionnaire to GCCC requesting additional information. On February 9, 2000, the Department received GCCC's response to the questionnaire. On April 6, 2000, the Department sent a supplemental questionnaire to GCCC. GCCC responded on April 27, 2000. On June 23, 2000, the Department conducted a verification of information pertaining to this changed-circumstances review at GCCC's offices in Chihuahua, Mexico.

On August 17, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register (65 FR 50180) the notice of preliminary results of changed-circumstances antidumping duty administrative review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. We now have completed this changed-circumstances review in accordance with section 751(b) of the Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).

The products covered by this review include gray portland cement and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 2523.29 and cement clinker is currently classifiable under item number 2523.10. Gray portland cement has also been entered under item number 2523.90 as “other hydraulic cements.”

The HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. Our written description remains dispositive as to the scope of the product coverage.

According to CDC's November 24, 1999, letter, effective December 1, 1999, GCCC, a newly created company, would become the successor in interest to CDC due to a corporate reorganization. CDC requested that the Department make a determination that GCCC should receive the same antidumping duty treatment as the former CDC with respect to gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico.

The Department examined the following factors: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; (4) customer base. As a result of its examination, the Department has determined that the resulting operation of GCCC is the same as that of its predecessor, CDC, and thus the Department has determined that GCCC is the successor-in-interest to CDC for purposes of determining antidumping duty liability. For a complete discussion of the basis for this decision, see Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 50180 (August 17, 2000).

Although we gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results, none were submitted.

We determine that GCCC is the successor-in-interest to CDC and, accordingly, GCCC will receive the same antidumping duty treatment as the former CDC. Based on the most recently completed review, the cash-deposit rate for entries of subject merchandise from GCCC will be 45.98 percent (see Gray Portland Cement and Clinker From Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR 13943 (March 15, 2000)). We will instruct the U.S. Customs Service accordingly.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.216 of the Department's regulations.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published notice of its amended final affirmative less-than-fair-value determination covering the subject merchandise, i.e., imports of static random access memory semiconductors from Taiwan, on April 16, 1998, Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 18883 (April 16, 1998), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (the “Commission”) subsequently made its final affirmative determination that a U.S. industry was being materially injured by reason of imports of the subject merchandise. See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 63 FR 18443 (April 15, 1998). The Department published the amended antidumping order covering the subject merchandise on April 22, 1998. See Amended Antidumping Duty Order of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From Taiwan, 63 FR 19898.

Following publication of the antidumping duty order, the Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association, an interested party in this case, filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”) challenging the Commission's final affirmative determination of material injury. In two subsequent decisions, the CIT remanded the case to the Commission. See Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association, et al. v. United States, 59 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1336 (CIT) (1999); see also Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-37 (CIT) (April 11, 2000). On the second remand, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States is not being materially injured, nor is it threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of the subject merchandise. The CIT affirmed the Commission's second remand determination on August 29, 2000. See Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association, et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-113 (CIT).

In its decision in Timken Co. v. United States 893 F. 2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“ Timken ”), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the Federal Circuit which is not “in harmony” with the Department's or the Commission's determination. Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The Federal Circuit also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken, the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's August 29, 2000, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the Federal Circuit. Furthermore, because the respondents obtained an injunction in this litigation, the Department will revoke the antidumping duty order covering the subject merchandise effective October 1, 1997, in the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or the Federal Circuit issues a final decision affirming the CIT's ruling.

In section 135 of the 1974 Trade Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2155), Congress established a private-sector advisory system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and trade negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. Section 135(a)(1) of the 1974 Trade Act directs the President to “seek information and advice from representative elements of the private sector and the non-Federal governmental sector with respect to:

(A) negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before entering into a trade agreement under [title I of the 1974 Trade Act and section 1102 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988];

(B) the operation of any trade agreement once entered into; including preparation for dispute settlement panel proceedings to which the United States is a party; and

(C) other matters arising in connection with the development, implementation, and administration of the trade policy of the United States. * * *”

(2) The President shall establish such sectoral or functional advisory committees as may be appropriate. Such committees shall, insofar as is practicable, be representative of all industry, labor, agricultural, or service interests (including small business interests) in the sector or functional areas concerned. In organizing such committees, the United States Trade Representative and the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, the Treasury, or other executive departments, as appropriate, shall—

(A) consult with interested private organizations; and

(B) take into account such factors as—

(i) patterns of actual and potential competition between United States industry and agriculture and foreign enterprise in international trade,

(ii) the character of the nontariff barriers and other distortions affecting such competition,

(iii) the necessity for reasonable limits on the number of such advisory committees,

(iv) the necessity that each committee be reasonably limited in size, and

(v) in the case of each sectoral committee, that the product lines covered by each committee be reasonably related.

Pursuant to this provision, Commerce and USTR have established and co-chair seventeen Industry Sector Advisory Committees (ISACs) and four Industry Functional Advisory Committees (IFACs). The Committees' efforts have resulted in strengthening U.S. negotiating positions by enabling the United States to display a united front when it negotiates trade agreements with other nations. Committees meet an average of four times a year in Washington, D.C. Members serve without compensation and are responsible for all expenses incurred in attending Committee meetings. For additional information regarding the functions and membership of these committees, and general qualifications for membership, see 64 FR 10448-10449, March 4, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 42). Commerce and USTR now solicit nominations for qualified environmental representatives to serve on ISAC 3 (Chemicals and Allied Products). For further background regarding this solicitation, see Federal Register Notice 47405-47406, Vol. 65, Number 149, dated August 2, 2000).

Eligibility to serve as an environmental representative on ISAC 3 is limited to U.S. citizens who are not full-time employees of a governmental entity, who represent a “U.S. entity” that is an organization interested in environmental issues relevant to the work of the committee, and who are not registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. For purposes of the preceding sentence, a “U.S. entity” is an organization incorporated in the United States (or, if unincorporated, having its headquarters in the United States):

(1) that is controlled by U.S. citizens or by another U.S. entity. An entity is not a U.S. entity if more than 50 percent of its Board of Directors or membership is made up of non-U.S. citizens. If the nominee is to represent an organization more than 10 percent of whose Board of Directors or membership is made up of non-U.S. citizens, or non-U.S. entities, the nominee must demonstrate at the time of nomination that this non-U.S. interest does not constitute control and will not adversely affect his or her ability to serve as a trade advisor to the United States; and

(2) at least 50 percent of whose annual revenue is attributable to non-governmental, U.S. sources.

USTR and Commerce will select an environmental representative eligible for appointment to ISAC 3 based upon the following:

(1) The organization to be represented will be considered based on environmental interest in trade policies in the sector relevant to the work of the committee.

(2) The nominee should demonstrate personal interest in and knowledge of the formulation of environmental policies in the sector relevant to the work of the Committee, and ability to work with governmental and officials and industry representatives to reach consensus on complex environmental and trade issues affecting the relevant industry sector.

(3) Preference will be accorded nominees who also demonstrate knowledge of and familiarity with the relevant industry sector, as well as with international trade matters, including trade policy development, relevant to that sector.

The environmental representative, as a member of the Committee, will be required to have a security clearance. Members serve without compensation and are responsible for all expenses incurred in attending Committee meetings.

Requests for applications should be sent to the Director of the Industry Consultations Program, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Room 2015-B, Washington, D.C. 20230.

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.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs NMFS to allow, on request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region, if certain findings are made by NMFS and regulations are issued. Under the MMPA, the term "taking" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill marine mammals.

Permission may be granted for periods up to 5 years if NMFS finds, after notification and opportunity for public comment, that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) of marine mammals, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) of marine mammals for subsistence uses, and if regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking and the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of the offshore oil and gas facility at Northstar in the Beaufort Sea were published and made effective on May 25, 2000 (65 FR 34014), and remain in effect until May 25, 2005.

On November 30, 1998 (64 FR 9965, March 1, 1999), NMFS received a request from BPXA for an incidental, small take exemption under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA to take marine mammals incidental to construction and operation of an offshore oil and gas facility at Northstar in state and Federal waters. Because of delays in construction during 1999, and in issuing a proposed rule on this matter, on October 1, 1999, BPXA updated its application to NMFS. On October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57010), NMFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking on BPXA’s application and invited interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the application and proposed rule. These comments were addressed during the promulgation of final rulemaking on this action, which was published on May 25, 2000 (65 FR 34014). A complete description of the activity, the level of taking of marine mammals, and other concerns can be found in this document.

Issuance of this LOA is based on findings, described in the preamble to the final rule, that the total takings by this activity will result in only small numbers of marine mammals being taken, have no more than a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks in the Beaufort Sea, and not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stocks for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS finds that BPXA has met the requirements contained in the implementing regulations, including monitoring and reporting requirements.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Progress in International Reading Literacy Study.

Frequency: One time.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 12,700.

  Burden Hours: 11,350.

Abstract: Information collected is used to assess the reading literacy skills, habits, and attitudes of approximately 6,000 4th-graders in 200 schools. The purposes of collecting the data in the full-scale study are twofold; first, the data will allow a comparative analysis of American students' reading literacy with that of their counterparts in 36 other nations; second, the data will give researchers an understanding of the status of reading instruction in the United States today.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at Kathy_Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Applications for the U.S. Presidential Scholars Program.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 2,600.

 Burden Hours: 41,600.

Abstract: The United States Presidential Scholars Program is a national recognition program to honor and recognize outstanding graduating high school seniors. Candidates are invited to apply to the program based on academic achievements on the SAT and ACT. This program was established under Executive Order of the President 11155.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_IMG_Issues@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346.

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Jacqueline Montague at (202) 708-5359 or via her internet address Jackie_Montague@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) negotiates a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with each of the Agency's ten Regional offices. The MOA guidance, sent out by OECA, establishes national enforcement and compliance assurance priorities and sets short term (two year) program direction. The MOA guidance provides the basis for the individual agreements negotiated between OECA and each Region. These agreements describe Region-specific implementation of the national and local enforcement and compliance priorities as the Agency works to collectively meet its long term goals set forth in the EPA Strategic Plan. The intent of this FR Notice is to solicit stakeholder input during the selection process of potential FY 2002/2003 MOA priorities. Earlier this spring, stakeholders, EPA Regions, States, and Tribes, were asked to comment on current national enforcement and compliance priorities and suggest any changes or potential new priorities for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance analyzed the many excellent comments received thus far using the following criteria:

(a) Risk Management: In what specific areas can the Federal enforcement and compliance assurance programs make a significant positive impact on human health or the environment? What are the known or estimated public health or environmental risks?

(b) Noncompliance: Are there particular economic or industrial sectors, geographic areas or facility operations where regulated entities have demonstrated serious patterns of noncompliance?

(c) EPA Responsibility: What identified national problem areas or programs are better addressed through EPA's Federal capability in enforcement or compliance assistance?

Based on the analysis of all proposals received to date and ongoing priority work, the Agency has drafted a preliminary list of suggested FY 2002/2003 priorities, as shown below. While no final decisions have been made, this preliminary list reflects input from field personnel, state and local partners, as well as EPA analyses and discussions. Although not all areas suggested appear on the preliminary list of national candidates, the opportunity certainly exists for these additional candidates to be adopted as Regional, State, or local level priorities. In considering the following list, please bear in mind that EPA remains committed to identifying a limited number of national priorities so as to provide flexibility to address some of these other suggestions. In addition, some of the current FY 2000/2001 priority areas may be carried forward and/or refined in FY 2002/2003 to complete unfinished work. The following list is a starting point for internal discussion and eventual narrowing of the list by EPA management. This list is divided into the current FY 2000/2001 priorities and suggested new areas. While the tables below include a brief description of the priority, greater detail and background on each proposed priority can be found at the DOCKET site identified in the address section of this Federal Register .

The draft guidance document will be available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction. Results-Based Approaches to Corrective Action—This guidance will take the form of an overview and supporting documents. The “Overview” and “Tailored Oversight” sections are now available for public review. The “Results-Based Approaches to Corrective Action: Overview” defines results-based corrective action and lists some of the approaches recommended to help stakeholders achieve program goals. These approaches include tailored oversight, procedural flexibility, holistic approach, presumptive remedies, performance standards, use of innovative technologies, targeted data collection, and facility-lead corrective action. The first available supporting document, “Results-Based Approaches to Corrective Action: Tailored Oversight,” focuses on implementing tailored oversight. It provides a recommended framework for project managers and owner/operators to develop an oversight plan tailored to facility-specific conditions. In the future, EPA plans to issue additional supporting documents that deal with other results-based approaches.

The official record for this notice will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all feedback and input received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center.

All input will be thoroughly and seriously considered by EPA. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is exploring ways to streamline and improve business processes with the agency's customers. To this end, CDC is planning an Electronic Grants (E-Grants) system to enable the submission of electronic grant proposals, their review, and award. CDC is reviewing other federal E-Grants systems for potential CDC use; however, CDC wants to ensure that the agency understands the needs of CDC's unique grants customers in determining the best E-Grants approach for CDC. While the primary purpose of this request is to obtain information and comments on CDC's move to an electronic grants system, other suggestions for improving the CDC grants process are welcome.

CDC plans to offer an electronic grants application and review process consistent with recent federal laws, e.g. the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, Public Law 105-277, Title XVII ( http://cio.gov/docs/gpea2.htm ), the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Public Law 106-229 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.761.ENR: ), and the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act, Public Law 106-107 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S.468.ENR: ). CDC is a participating member of the Interagency Electronic Grants Committee (IAEGC) ( http://www.financenet.gov/iaegc.htm ) and the federal commons ( http://www.fedcommons.gov ), the common face of Government to the Grantee Organization Community for the purposes of pre- and post-award administration.

Although CDC views the emergence of Electronic Commerce (E-Commerce) as a means of reducing the burden on organizations as they interact with CDC, the agency also recognizes that some of the agency's customers and/or potential customers may not have the capability to migrate to an E-Grants environment. Therefore, CDC intends to maintain the current paper-based interaction process for the foreseeable future while increasing electronic access to the agency's grants management processes. Consequently, equity between non-electronic and electronic processes will be maintained.

Currently, CDC offers funding application materials and related services via fax, email, Internet listservs, and as downloadable files or printable forms on the Internet through CDC's website ( http://www.cdc.gov/funding.htm ). Many U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) grant application forms are now available at ( http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/ ) on the Internet as files which can be saved and used in electronic formats.

As CDC moves towards increased use of electronic announcements regarding the availability of funds, CDC seeks to understand unique needs and desires among the agency's diverse customers. For this reason CDC requests and welcomes comments from customers regarding all aspects of “E-Grants” including but not limited to the following areas:

CDC business customers (grantees and applicants) would need a computer, printer, connection to the Internet, web browser capable of 128-bit encrypted secure transmissions ( e.g. Microsoft Internet Explorer version 4.01 or greater or Netscape Communicator version 4.07 or greater, both are currently downloadable for no cost from the manufacturers; Microsoft: at http://www.microsoft.com and Netscape: http://www.netscape.com ), word processing or text editing software for preparation of documents in a standard format, e.g. RTF, ASCII, HTML, Adobe Acrobat® reader (downloadable for no cost from the manufacturer at http://www.adobe.com/ ), and electronic mail service. CDC welcomes comments about the use of these technologies.

CDC knows of existing software available to universities which supports grants applications and management activities, but is unaware of which are the leading systems currently in use in universities. Similarly, CDC knows of other Federal agencies beginning to use “E-Grants” systems. CDC is interested in knowing whether CDC grantees and potential applicants are using these systems or have considered the use of these systems and what the experience has been. If you, or your organization have similar plans or experiences with E-Commerce, E-Grants, or knowledge of the use of commercial off-the-shelf packages, that information would be particularly meaningful to CDC.

CDC frequently makes electronic copies of application materials, including standard Federal forms, available on the web for downloading and/or printing. CDC is interested in whether customers find this useful or would prefer paper forms.

CDC requires the use of several assurance and certification documents in the process to make awards. The agency is interested in whether grantees or potential applicants may already be using electronic signatures in lieu of paper-based signatures for legally-binding government grant and/or contract activities and, if so, which technologies.

CDC conducts expert review of both scientific and programmatic applicants for funding. Reviewers are often required to participate in review activities on-site at the agency or within a short distance from the agency's facility. CDC is interested in knowing whether the use of distance-based reviews conducted electronically would impact the quality of peer reviews and pose a barrier to or enhance the recruitment of external reviewers for panels, and to what extent you've already participated in distance-based reviews.

Please send comments or questions within 60 days of this published notice:

Please provide a point of contact with your comments for any follow-up questions CDC may have and indicate the type of organization you represent, e.g. university, state government, local government, community based organization, etc. CDC intends to use the information and comments received in response to this notice in its planning process for an electronic grants system. No summary of comments or published response to comments is planned. All comments received by the agency will be considered to be in the public domain.

As provided by 42 CFR 121.12 (64 FR 56661), the Secretary has established the Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation. The Committee is governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.

The Advisory Committee shall advise the Secretary, acting through the Administrator, HRSA, on all aspects of organ procurement, allocation, and transplantation, and on such other matters that the Secretary determines, including:

(1) Proposed enforceable policies of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) submitted for Secretarial approval.

(2) Organ allocation policies of the OPTN.

(3) Other significant OPTN policies, existing or proposed.

(4) The OPTN's system of collecting, disseminating and ensuring the validity, accuracy, timeliness and usefulness of data.

(5) The current state of knowledge regarding transplantation.

(6) Additional scientific, medical, public health, ethical, legal, coverage and financing issues and socioeconomic issues, including national and international policies and developments, that are relevant to transplantation.

The Committee shall consist of up to 20 members. The Secretary shall appoint members, including the Chair, from individuals knowledgeable in such fields as health care public policy, transplantation medicine and surgery, non-physician transplant professions, biostatistics, immunology, health economics, epidemiology and bioethics as well as representatives of transplant candidates, transplant recipients, organ donors, and family members. To the extent practicable, Committee members should represent the minority, gender and geographic diversity of transplant candidates, transplant recipients, organ donors and family members served by the OPTN. The Secretary may appoint non-voting Ex-Officio members, or designees of such officials, as the Secretary deems necessary for the Committee to effectively carry out its function.

Subcommittees, composed of members of the parent Committee, may be established to perform specific functions. The HHS Committee Management Officer shall be notified upon establishment of each standing subcommittee and shall be provided with information on its name, membership, function, and estimated frequency of meetings.

A member shall be appointed for a term of 4 years, except that initially the Secretary shall appoint a portion of the members to terms of 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years. Members of the Committee may serve after the expiration of their terms until their successors have taken office.

Meetings shall be held not more than 3 times per year at the call of the Chair with the advance approval of a Federal Government official who shall also approve the agenda. A Federal Government official shall be present at all meetings.

A vacancy on the Advisory Committee shall be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was made and shall be subject to any conditions that applied with respect to the original appointment. An individual chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the remainder of the term of the member replaced. The vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the Committee.

All members of HRSA advisory committees shall adhere to the conflict of interest rules applicable to special Government employees as such employees are defined in 18 U.S.C. section 202(a). These rules include relevant provisions in 18 U.S.C. related to criminal activity, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive branch (5 CFR part 2635), and Executive Order 12674 (as modified by Executive Order 12731).

Management and support services shall be provided by the Director, Division of Transplantation, Office of Special Programs, HRSA.

Members shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the rate in effect for Executive level IV of the Executive Schedule for each day they are engaged in the performance of their duties as members of the Committee. Members shall receive per diem and travel expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703, as amended, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service. Members who are officers or employees of the United States shall not receive compensation for service on the Committee.

HHS will consider nomination of all qualified individuals with a view to ensuring that the Committee includes the areas of subject matter expertise noted above (see “Structure”). Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals, and professional associations and other organizations may nominate individuals.

HHS has a strong interest in ensuring that women, minority groups, and physically challenged individuals are adequately represented on the Committee and, therefore, encourages nominations of qualified candidates from these groups. HHS also encourages geographic diversity in the composition of the Committee.

A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee: (1) A letter of nomination stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination ( i.e., what specific attributes recommend him/her for service in this capacity), and the nominee's field(s) of expertise; (2) a biographical sketch of the nominee and a copy of his or her curriculum vitae; and (3) the name, return address, and daytime telephone number at which the nominator can be contacted.

All nomination information should be provided in a single, complete package within 30 days of the publication of this notice. All nominations for membership should be sent to the Director at the address provided above.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of proposal: Application for FHA Insured Mortgage.

OMB control number, if applicable: 2502-0059.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The documents requested are used to determine the eligibility of a loan application for FHA's mortgage insurance. Without these documents, HUD would have difficulty in determining the eligibility of a loan application and, thus, put in jeopardy the insurance fund.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-92900-A, HUD-92900-WS, HUD-92900-PUR, HUD-92561, HUD-92544.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: An estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 215,025, the number of respondents is estimated to be 1,000,000, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the hours per response varies from 15 minutes to 1 hour.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection.

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Utility.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0024.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and its Proposed Use: Utility cost analysis for Housing Agencies to ensure selection of the most effective heating and cooling systems for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of public housing.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal governments.

Frequency of Submission: Biannually.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,428.

Status: Reinstate without change.

Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare Recovery Plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery Plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for the recovery levels for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), requires the development of Recovery Plans for listed species unless such a Plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in 1988, requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during Recovery Plan development. The Service will consider all information presented during a public comment period prior to approval of each new or revised Recovery Plan. The Service and other Federal agencies will also take these comments into account in the course of implementing Recovery Plans.

The document submitted for review is the Agency Draft Bog Turtle ( Clemmys muhlenbergii ), Northern Population, Recovery Plan. The northern population of the bog turtle was listed as a threatened species on November 4, 1997. This population is currently known to occur in Connecticut (5 sites), Delaware (4), Maryland (71), Massachusetts (3), New Jersey (165), New York (37), and Pennsylvania (75). Bog turtles usually occur in small, discrete populations, generally occupying open-canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows and fens bordered by wooded areas. These wetlands are a mosaic of micro-habitats that include dry pockets, saturated areas, and areas that are periodically flooded. Bog turtles depend upon this diversity of micro-habitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation and shelter. Unfragmented riparian systems that are sufficiently dynamic to allow the natural creation of open habitat are needed to compensate for ecological succession. Beaver, deer, and cattle may be instrumental in maintaining the open-canopy wetlands essential for this species' survival.

The bog turtle has experienced at least a 50 percent reduction in range and numbers over the past 20 years. The greatest threats to its survival include the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its habitat, compounded by the increasing take of long-lived adult animals from wild populations for illegal wildlife trade.

The overall objective of the bog turtle recovery program is to protect and maintain the northern allopatric population of this species and its habitat. This will be accomplished by (1) securing long-range protection for at least 185 populations distributed among five recovery units: 10 in the Prairie Peninsula/Lake Plain Recovery Unit, 5 in the Outer Coastal Plain Recovery Unit, 40 in the Hudson/Housatonic Recovery Unit, 50 in the Susquehanna/Potomac Recovery Unit, and 80 in the Delaware Recovery Unit; (2) determining that these 185 populations are stable or increasing over a 25-year period; (3) eliminating or significantly curbing illicit collection and trade in this species; and (4) gaining a sufficient understanding of long-term habitat dynamics.

The Actions needed to accomplish recovery objectives will include a combination of protecting known extant populations and their habitat using existing regulations; securing long-term protection of bog turtle sites; conducting surveys of known, historic, and potential bog turtle habitat; investigating the genetic variability of the bog turtle throughout its range; reintroducing bog turtles into areas from which they have been extirpated or removed; managing and maintaining bog turtle habitat to ensure its continuing suitability for bog turtles; managing bog turtle populations at extant sites, where necessary; creating an effective law enforcement program to halt illicit take and commercialization of bog turtles; and developing and implementing an effective outreach and education program about bog turtles.

The draft Recovery Plan is being submitted for agency review. After consideration of comments received during the review period, the Plan will be submitted for final approval.

The Service solicits written comments on the Recovery Plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the Plan.

Public Law 105-178, Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), June 9, 1998, requires that the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the States, shall adopt a national framework for a public boat access needs assessment that may be used by the States to determine the adequacy, number, location, and quality of facilities providing access to recreational waters for all sizes of recreational boats. The Secretary has delegated the responsibility for developing the national framework to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The Service has received OMB approval for a survey that will serve as the national framework. State officials may obtain the survey by contacting the person listed under ADDRESSES.

Each State that conducts a public boat access needs survey shall report its findings to the Secretary for use in the development of a comprehensive national assessment of recreational boat access needs and currently available facilities. This report is expected to be presented to Congress at the end of 2003. States may fund the cost of conducting this assessment out of Sport Fish Restoration funds dedicated to motorboat access to recreational waters under 16 U.S.C. 777g-1 Sec. 7404, subsection (b)(1).

States, using data gained through these surveys, may develop plans for the construction, renovation, and maintenance of facilities for transient nontrailerable recreational vessels, and access to those facilities, to meet the needs of nontrailerable recreational vessels operating on navigable waters in the State.

The comprehensive national assessment of recreational boat access needs and facilities presented to Congress at the end of 2003 may be used to help determine future legislative action related to recreational boating access needs.

The Letters of Authorization were issued in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Rules and Regulations “Marine Mammals; Incidental Take During Specified Activities (65 FR 16828; March 30, 2000).”

The planning area involves approximately 103,000 acres, of which 76% are Forest Service lands, 13% BLM lands, with the remainder being state and private lands. The main issues anticipated for this planning effort are: (1) Impacts to water quality; vegetation, including riparian and wetland areas; and soils; and (2) impacts to public land users and adjacent private landowners. The Fourmile Travel Management Plan is being prepared by an interagency interdisciplinary team. The analysis and proposed plan amendment are scheduled for completion in August 2001.

Additional public meetings may be held and a public comment period will be established on the Fourmile Travel Management Plan. Dates and locations of the meetings and the time period for the public comment period will be announced in the local media. The Proposed BLM Plan Amendment will be published during the EA process, and a 30-day protest period will apply to the BLM portion of the Fourmile Travel Management Plan.

The locations, dates of RPC meetings, and other information will be published in the Federal Register and posted on the Internet at http://www.rmp.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/RoyPC/RoyPC.htm. Meetings are open to the public without advanced registration, on a space available basis. The public may make statements during the meetings, to the extent time permits, and file written statements with the RPC for its consideration; copies of these written statements should be submitted to Gary Fields.

These meetings are conducted under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 1) and the Office of Management and Budget (Circular No. A-63, revised).

Copies of the document will be available for review at the following locations:

To request copies of the document, please call (508) 996-4095, fax (508) 994-8922, or write Superintendent, New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park, 33 William Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740.

Comments on the Draft General Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be submitted to John Piltzecker, Superintendent, New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park, 33 William Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts 02740. Comments may be faxed to the Superintendent at (508) 994-8922.

Inv. No. 337-TA-383 was instituted on March 8, 1996, based on a complaint by Quickturn. The respondents named in the investigation were Mentor and Meta Systems (hereinafter collectively “Mentor”). The products at issue were certain hardware logic emulation systems used in the semiconductor industry to debug and test electronic circuit designs for semiconductor devices.

On July 31, 1997, the ALJ issued his final initial determination (“ID”) finding that Mentor had violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) by infringing certain claims of U.S. Letters Patent 5,329,470, 5,036,473, 5,448,496, and 5,109,353, all owned by Quickturn. On October 2, 1997, the Commission determined not to review the ALJ's final ID, and on December 3, 1997, issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of respondents' emulators and components thereof found to infringe one or more of the patent claims in controversy. The Commission also issued a cease and desist order prohibiting, inter alia, the electronic importation and transmission of infringing hardware emulation software.

On August 20, 1999 Mentor filed a petition with the Commission requesting issuance of an advisory opinion pursuant to Commission rule 210.79(a) (19 CFR 210.79(a)). Mentor contended that remote access from the United States of its hardware logic emulation systems housed in “design verification centers” located outside the United States would not infringe Quickturn's patents and, therefore, would not be covered by the Commission's limited exclusion order and/or the cease and desist order. On November 10, 1999, the Commission instituted an advisory opinion proceeding to determine (1) whether Mentor's proposed foreign design verification centers would be covered by the cease and desist order issued in this investigation, and (2) whether the importation of integrated circuits (“ICs”) designed and debugged by IC designers in the United States using Mentor's foreign design verification centers would be covered by the limited exclusion order issued in this investigation. The Commission remanded the advisory opinion proceeding to the ALJ for appropriate proceedings and the issuance of an initial advisory opinion (“IAO”). The ALJ was given the authority to conduct any proceedings he deemed necessary, including taking evidence and ordering discovery.

Quickturn stipulated that ICs designed and debugged by designers in the United States using Mentor's design verification centers would not be covered by the limited exclusion order issued in the investigation. Therefore, only the Commission's cease and desist order remained at issue in the IAO proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the ALJ on June 5 and 6, 2000. On June 23, 2000, the ALJ issued Order No. 115 finding that Quickturn had waived arguments that any Mentor's infringing hardware emulation software would be resident in the United States under the proposed scheme. On August 7, 2000, the ALJ issued his IAO finding that Mentor's proposed access in the United States of Mentor's foreign design verification centers would not be covered by the Commission's cease and desist order issued in the investigation.

The ALJ found in the alternative that if the term “covered product” in the cease and desist order is interpreted to include infringing hardware and software that has not been imported into the United States, then Mentor's U.S. customers would be “using” the “covered product” in violation of the cease and desist order.

On August 18, 2000, Quickturn filed a petition for review of the IAO and a petition for the Commission to review and reverse the ALJ's ruling Order No. 115, and Mentor filed a conditional petition for review of the IAO. The IA did not petition for review of the IAO. On August 25, 2000, Mentor, Quickturn, and the IA filed responses to the petitions for review.

Having examined the record in this investigation, including the briefs and the responses thereto, the Commission determined (1) not to review the ALJ's finding in the IAO that access from the United States of Mentor's foreign design verification centers would not be covered by the Commission's cease and desist order, (2) to take no position on the ALJ' s alternative determination in the IAO concerning the “use” of Mentor's hardware logic emulator in the United States if the term “covered product” in the cease and desist order is interpreted to include infringing hardware and software that has not been imported, (3) to affirm Order No. 115, and (4) to grant Quickturn's motion to file a reply to the response of the IA to Quickturn's petitions to the Commission.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and Commission rule 210.79, 19 CFR 210.79.

The Legal Services Corporation's (LSC) policies and procedures regarding LSC-funded recipients' property acquisition, use and disposal are incomplete, outdated and disbursed among several different LSC documents. In 1975 and again in 1979, LSC published Instructions in the Federal Register setting out procedures for the procurement, inventory control and disposal of nonexpendable personal property by LSC recipients. See 44 FR 22525, April 16, 1979. In 1981, the 1979 Instruction was superseded by the Property Management Manual for LSC Programs (“1981 Property Manual”). 1

LSC also addressed property acquisition and management issues in the 1981 version of the Audit and Accounting Guide for Recipients and Auditors (“1981 Audit Guide”). The 1981 Audit Guide included provisions requiring LSC's prior approval of certain purchases and leases of property (real and personal). These provisions were superseded by the LSC rule on cost standards and procedures, 45 CFR part 1630, which was adopted in 1986. See 51 FR 29082, August 13, 1986. Under the current part 1630 rule, LSC must approve in advance all purchases of real property, purchases or leases of personal property with a value of over $10,000 and capital expenditures of more than $10,000 to improve real property. 45 CFR 1630.5(b).

Notwithstanding the 1981 Audit Guide (or the current part 1630 requirements), the 1981 Property Manual, like its predecessor Instructions, does not address the acquisition, use or disposal of real property. 2 LSC has instead established its policies relating to real property in a variety of internal memoranda, Program Letters, regulations, grant assurances and individual agreements with recipients purchasing real property which have either restricted the use or regulated the disposal of the property in the event of cessation of LSC funding. Having policies related to real property in such unconnected and disparate sources has become untenable. For example, grant assurances on property have not been consistent over time and have on occasion been challenged as lacking legal authority.

Accordingly, LSC has decided that all of the relevant policies and requirements related to the acquisition, use and disposal of real and personal property should be consolidated and issued in one document. LSC offers the following proposed Property Acquisition and Management Manual (PAMM) for comment prior to adopting a final, revised version.

LSC proposes that this PAMM apply to both real and non-expendable personal property (equipment), but not apply to expendable personal property (supplies) or services, except for services related to capital expenditures as defined in the PAMM. LSC has not previously applied its standards in the 1981 Property Manual to supplies or services and LSC does not believe it is necessary to enlarge the scope of its oversight in such a manner.

LSC proposes to apply the requirements of the PAMM to purchases made on or after the PAMM's effective date as published in the Federal Register . For purchases of real property prior to the PAMM's effective date, the written agreement between the program and LSC will control. For prior purchases of personal property, the 1981 Property Manual will control.

The proposed PAMM contains both existing and new or revised standards and procedures. In developing the new or revised standards and procedures, LSC looked to three existing Federal sources of property acquisition and management policy: the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR); the Federal Property Management Regulations; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations” which contains standards governing the use and disposition of personal and real property by non-profit recipients of Federal funding. While many provisions of the proposed PAMM are based on equivalent sections on these sources, LSC has revised these provisions as necessary to be consistent with LSC law and practice.

The proposed personal property use standards are intended to give recipients flexibility in using such property acquired with LSC funds, provided that the primary use of the property is for the delivery of legal services to eligible clients in accordance with the requirements of the LSC Act and regulations. The proposed standards governing the disposal of personal property revise existing policy to reflect the heightened need, in this era of reduced funding and competition for grants, for LSC to be compensated for its interest in LSC-funded property. Accordingly, in the event that a recipient owning personal property purchased with LSC funds ceases to receive LSC funding, these standards require LSC approval prior to disposal of the property.

The proposed PAMM would retain LSC's longstanding policy to permit recipients, with LSC's approval, to use LSC funds to purchase real property for the delivery of legal services to eligible clients. The proposed procedures, which incorporate provisions from Program Letter 98-4, would require recipients to demonstrate that purchasing is more economical than leasing. Recipients would also be required to agree to reimburse LSC in the event of a discontinuation of funding.

The section contains a statement indicating that the purpose of this PAMM is to set forth standards governing the acquisition, retention, use and disposal of personal and real property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds. The section would also specify that LSC intends the standards in this PAMM to apply to both real and non-expendable personal property (equipment), but not to expendable personal property (supplies) or services, except services for capital improvements which are subject to the requirements of Section 4(f). LSC has not previously applied the 1981 Property Manual standards to supplies and LSC does not believe that it is necessary to enlarge the scope of its oversight in such a manner. Finally, this section makes clear that LSC proposes to apply the requirements of the PAMM to purchases made on or after the PAMM's effective date as published in the Federal Register . For purchases of real property prior to the PAMM's effective date, the written agreement between the program and LSC would control. For prior purchases of personal property, LSC intends that the 1981 Property Manual would control.

This section sets forth proposed definitions of key terms used throughout the PAMM.

Section (2)(a) would define acquisition as a purchase of real property or a purchase or lease of personal property. It can consist of a single item or it can consist of multiple items obtained simultaneously through a single contract. This definition of acquisition is adapted from the definition of acquisition appearing in the FAR. The FAR definition of acquisition includes leases of real property as well, but LSC proposes to leave real property leases out of the definition of acquisition because LSC proposes to exclude leases of real property from the coverage of the PAMM. LSC proposes to use the term “acquisition” throughout the PAMM, except in those instances in which it is necessary to differentiate between personal property which is leased and personal property which has been purchased. In those cases, the terms “lease” or “purchase” will be used as appropriate.

Section 2(b), capital improvement, incorporates the $10,000 capitalization threshold of LSC's regulation governing cost standards and procedures, 45 CFR 1530.5(b)(2).

Section 2(c) proposes to define lease as a contract for the use of property during a specified period for a specified price. Under a lease, the lessee does not take ownership of or title to the property.

Section 2(d) contains a definition for LSC property interest agreement, a term used in Sections 4(e) and 8(d) of this PAMM. The proposed definition is consistent with section 2-2.4 of the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients, which sets forth the principle that LSC possesses a reversionary interest in real property purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds. LSC is not, however, proposing to use the term “reversionary interest” because LSC believes that the use of “reversionary interest” might be confusing. Although LSC's recipients who have entered into agreements with LSC pursuant to the purchase of real property understand what reversionary interest means in the context of their agreements, the term is a widely used term of art in the property law context with a somewhat broader and different meaning. To avoid potential confusion, LSC proposes to use the more accurate “LSC property interest agreement.”

Section 2(e) contains a definition of personal property adapted from OMB Circular A-110. LSC proposes to omit supplies, which are considered to be personal property in the OMB Circular, from the definition because LSC does not intend to apply its property acquisition and management standards to the purchase, retention or use of supplies.

Section 2(f) proposes to limit the definition of real or personal property to property with a market value of over $1000 and a useful life of more than one year. This definition is taken from Section 2-2.4 of the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients. This definition is consistent with OMB Circular A-110, except that LSC has chosen a capitalization threshold of $1,000 instead of $5,000. The lower threshold is intended to maintain consistency with the LSC Accounting Guide. With this definition, LSC proposes that the property acquisition and management standards would not apply to property excluded from the definition.

Section 2(g) contains a proposed definition of purchase. LSC proposes to use the term purchase in reference to personal property which the recipient obtains ownership of, as distinguished from leased personal property.

Section 2(h) sets forth a proposed definition for quote which incorporates language from the definition of “offer” in the FAR. For the purposes of the PAMM, a quote is intended to be the basis for informal negotiation which results in an offer by the recipient, typically in the form of a purchase order, which a source may accept or reject.

Section 2(i) sets forth a proposed definition of real property taken from the definition of the same term in OMB Circular A-110.

Section 2(j) contains a proposed definition of source as a supplier, vendor or contractor who has agreed to provide property to a recipient through a purchase or lease agreement.

This section sets forth the proposed procedures governing the acquisition of personal property with LSC funds. The requirements herein are based on both the FAR and OMB Circular A-110. Through the use of these procedures, LSC intends to encourage recipients to conduct their property acquisitions in a manner that provides free and open competition to the maximum extent practical.

Acquisitions of over $10,000 would have to be accomplished by written competitive quote. 3 The FAR and OMB Circular A-110 each require that requests for quotes clearly identify the salient characteristics of the property to be acquired, as well as the basis for evaluating quotes and selecting a source. LSC proposes to require competitive quotes to help ensure that the recipient has a reasonable basis for determining that it is receiving a fair deal that meets its needs.

The proposed procedures would permit sole source acquisitions if circumstances prevent requesting competitive quotes. In such cases, recipients would have to document the reason(s) for conducting the acquisition on a sole source basis. This proposed requirement is consistent with the FAR.

Further, individual item acquisitions of over $10,000 would have to be approved in advance by LSC. This includes acquisitions made to replace already-existing property, the original acquisition of which LSC may have approved at a prior point in time. Consistent with previous LSC guidance, requests for prior approvals would have to include a justification stating the need for the acquisition, a brief description of the property to be acquired and a description of the acquisition process used, including the quotes received by the recipient.

Section 4 contains the proposed procedures for the acquisition of real property. Under this section, prior to acquiring real property, a recipient would have to identify and evaluate at least three potential sites. This proposal draws upon a similar requirement in the FAR relating to the selection of sources for the leasing of real property. The types of costs to be considered in an analysis of an acquisition of real property would be those which LSC asks recipients to describe when seeking prior approval of an acquisition of real property pursuant to LSC Program Letter 98-4, dated July 1, 1998. Recipients are encouraged to negotiate with potential sources prior to entering a contract in order to obtain the most favorable contract terms possible.

This section proposes to retain LSC's prior approval requirement for acquisitions of real property. 4 Sections 4(d)(1) through (7) reflect provisions from Program Letter 98-4 setting forth the types of information which LSC requires recipients to submit in support of a request for prior approval of an acquisition of real property.

This section also proposes to retain LSC's longstanding practice of requiring, as a condition of LSC's approval of the acquisition of real property, a formal agreement between LSC and the recipient setting forth the terms of LSC's approval. These agreements have included provisions governing the disposal of property purchased with LSC funds, both during the grant term and upon cessation of funding and requiring the recipient to record LSC's interest in the property.

Finally, LSC proposes to restate in the PAMM, LSC's requirement in 45 CFR 1630.5(b)(4) that recipients obtain prior approval of expenditures for capital improvements. This requirement applies to leasehold improvements as well as improvements to recipient-owned property. LSC proposes to retain the existing requirement from Program Letter 98-4 that recipients submit certain information in support of requests for prior approval of capital improvements.

Section 5 sets forth the proposed standards for the management of real and personal property acquired with LSC funds. These standards build upon the principle contained in OMB Circular A-110, that grant recipients should possess full ownership of personal and real property purchased in whole or in part with grant funds. With regard to leased personal property, LSC proposes to make clear current LSC policy that leased property may be used according to the lease terms during the term of an LSC grant or contract, and must be disposed of according to the lease terms in the event that there is a cessation of LSC funding.

Under the provisions of this section, recipients would be permitted to retain property as long as they continue to receive LSC funding. This represents a change from the existing policy which permits recipients to retain property as long as it is needed for civil legal assistance. This change is being proposed to reflect the heightened need, in the competitive grant environment, for LSC to ensure that its funds are available to the maximum extent possible for LSC recipients and programs.

Notwithstanding the above, LSC proposes to permit recipients to use property acquired with LSC funds for permissible non-LSC activities, such as the representation of income-ineligible clients, provided that such other use does not interfere with the performance of the recipient's duties under its LSC grant. This flexibility parallels similar provisions in OMB Circular A-110. LSC further proposes to allow a recipient to lease space to others or otherwise allow the use of its property for restricted activities, provided that the recipient charges a fair market price for such lease or property use. Any such use would also have to be consistent with the program integrity requirements of 45 CFR Part 1610. These provisions incorporate language from OMB Circular A-110 and are consistent with IRS rules governing the provision of services by non-profit organizations.

Section 5(f) addresses the use of a particular subset of personal property—copyrights. Incorporating language from OMB Circular A-110, this paragraph proposes that recipients be permitted to own copyrights to publications, software, and other copyrightable works created in whole or part with LSC funds. However, in conformance with longstanding LSC policy, recipients creating or otherwise obtaining copyrightable materials with LSC funds would have to provide LSC free access to and use of such materials, including the right to make such materials available to other LSC recipients.

This section proposes to establish requirements governing the disposal of personal property. Generally, a recipient would have considerable discretion in selecting methods of disposing of personal property purchased with LSC funds, except at the point that the recipient ceased to receive LSC funds. At the cessation of LSC funding, recipients would have an obligation to LSC with respect to items of personal property.

LSC proposes, as noted above, to permit recipients, considerable latitude in disposing of personal property purchased with LSC funds during the term of an LSC grant. Specifically, under this section, recipients would be permitted to: (1) Trade property to suppliers or vendors in return for reductions in the acquisition price of new or replacement property; (2) sell the property, by the solicitation of formal quotes for property with a value of over $15,000, or by negotiation where the property has a value $15,000 or less or where advertising for bids has not resulted in reasonable bid prices;  5 (3) transfer the property to third parties which are eligible under statute to receive support from LSC; (4) transfer the property to non-LSC programs, subject to LSC approval; or (5) transfer the property to other nonprofit programs serving the poor in the same community. These options are consistent with current Federal practice as reflected in OMB Circular A-110, the Federal Property Management Regulations (41 CFR Chapter 101) and the 1981 Property Manual.

Under this section, recipients would be prohibited from disposing of personal property purchased with LSC funds by making such property available to recipients' board members or employees (by sale or otherwise). Although Federal policy does not restrict sales of property to employees, LSC is concerned that such sales could create a real or perceived conflict of interest, particularly since such property would have significant market value (since property would be defined as having to be worth more than $1000). Disposition of items not meeting the $1000 value threshold would not be considered property subject to the PAMM and, therefore, would not be subject to this restriction. LSC specifically seeks comment on this issue. What are recipients' current policies and experience in this area?

LSC is proposing different options for the disposal of personal property at the point that a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding. Recipients would be permitted to transfer or retain personal property purchased with LSC funds, provided that LSC would be compensated in an amount equal to the percentage of the property's acquisition cost funded with LSC monies. These provisions are based on disposal options set forth in OMB Circular A-110. It is anticipated that LSC and recipients will identify, on a case by case basis at the time of cessation of funding, the best method for disposing of personal property purchased with LSC funds.

With respect to leased personal property, LSC proposes that during the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients be permitted to dispose of such leased with LSC funds in accordance with the terms of the lease. When a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding, the recipient would be required to dispose of items of personal property leased with LSC funds in accordance with the terms of the lease.

Section 7 sets forth the proposed standards for the disposal of real property purchased with LSC funds. As with the personal property disposal standards in Section 6, LSC proposes to provide different options for disposals occurring during the grant term and at the cessation of LSC funding

For recipients seeking to dispose of real property during the grant term, LSC proposes to continue the longstanding LSC policy whereby recipients are permitted to sell real property acquired with LSC funds. 6 Recipients would also be permitted to transfer real property to other LSC recipients. This is consistent with most LSC property interest agreements between LSC and recipients using LSC funds to purchase real property.

At the point of cessation of LSC funding, LSC proposes to permit recipients to sell, transfer or retain real property acquired with LSC funds, provided that LSC is compensated in an amount equal to the percentage of the property's acquisition cost funded by LSC monies. LSC would have to approve any such disposition in advance.

Section 8 contains proposed requirements for the documentation of property acquisitions and disposals. This section is intended to ensure that recipients create and retain the required records in support of property acquisition and disposal decisions and LSC fund expenditures related thereto.

This section proposes to require that recipients adopt written procurement procedures. This proposal stems from OMB Circular A-110 and is intended to ensure that recipients have standardized procurement procedures that are consistent with LSC requirements. LSC does not propose to collect, review or approve such procedures, although a recipient would have to make them available to LSC upon request for LSC oversight and compliance purposes.

The purpose of this PAMM is to set forth standards governing the acquisition, retention, use and disposal of personal and real property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds. The standards set forth herein apply to both real and non-expendable personal property (equipment), but not apply to expendable personal property (supplies) or services, except for services for capital improvements which are subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) herein.

The requirements set forth herein apply to acquisitions made on or after the PAMM's effective date as published in the Federal Register . For purchases of real property prior to the PAMM's effective date, the written agreement between the program and LSC will control. For prior acquisitions of personal property, the 1981 Property Manual will control.

(a) Acquisition means a purchase of real property or a purchase or lease of personal property in whole or in part with LSC funds. For the purposes of this PAMM, recipients should treat a purchase or lease of related property as a single acquisition when the property can be readily obtained through a single contract with a single source.

(b) Capital improvement means an expenditure of an amount exceeding $10,000 to improve real property through construction or the purchase of immovable items which become an integral part of real property.

(c) Lease means a contract for the use of property during a specified period for a specified price.

(d) LSC property interest agreement means a formal written agreement between LSC and a recipient setting forth the terms of LSC's approval of the recipient's use of LSC funds to acquire real property.

(e) Personal Property means property of any kind, including tangible property (having physical existence), such as equipment, or intangible (having no physical existence), such as copyrights or patents, but does not include supplies or real property or improvements to real property.  7

(f) Property means any real or personal property having a market value greater than $1,000 and a useful life of more than one year.

(g) Purchase means to obtain and take ownership of property through the payment of money or its equivalent.

(h) Quote means a quotation or bid from a potential source interested in selling or leasing property to a recipient.

(i) Real property means land, buildings, and appurtenances, including capital improvements thereto, but not including moveable personal property.

(j) Source means a supplier, vendor, or contractor who has agreed to provide property to a recipient through a purchase or lease agreement.

(a) Before making an acquisition of personal property that has an aggregate cost over $10,000, a recipient shall make a written request from at least three potential sources for competitive quotes for the property.

(b) Written requests for quotes must include:

(1) A clear and accurate description of the property to be acquired; and

(2) Identification of the criteria which will be the basis for the recipient's selection of a source.

(c) The selection of a source shall be on the basis of criteria established in the request for quotes. Such criteria may include price alone or price in combination with other factors.

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may request quotes from a sole source when circumstances prevent the requesting of competitive quotes. When a request for quotes is made to a sole source, the recipient shall maintain written documentation of the reason(s) for not obtaining competitive quotes.

(e) The use of more than $10,000 of LSC funds to acquire an individual item of personal property requires LSC's prior approval pursuant to 45 CFR 1630.5(b)(2), whether or not the acquisition is to replace existing property. When requesting LSC's prior approval of an acquisition of personal property, recipients shall provide to LSC:

(1) Three written quotes, if obtained; and

(2) A letter or memorandum containing:

(i) A statement of need explaining how the acquisition will further the delivery of legal services to eligible clients;

(ii) A brief description of the property to be acquired, including the make and manufacture of the item, the name of the source supplying the item, the quantity to be acquired, and the total dollar amount of the acquisition; and

(iii) A brief description of the acquisition process, including the names of the potential sources who submitted quotes, the amounts of the quotes, the quantity of items offered by the potential sources, and a brief explanation of the reasons for selecting a particular source to supply the item(s). In the absence of quotes, the description should explain what circumstances prevented the recipient from obtaining quotes.

(a) Prior to acquiring real property with LSC funds, recipients shall conduct an informal market survey in order to identify and evaluate at least three potential sources. Recipients may retain a real estate agent or broker for the purposes of conducting a market survey, provided that the cost is reasonable.

(b) The evaluation of potential acquisitions of real property shall include consideration of:

(1) The total cost of the acquisition; and

(2) The quality of the property to be acquired.

(c) Recipients shall conduct an analysis of the average annual cost of the acquisition, including the costs of a down payment, interest and principal payments on debt acquired to finance the acquisition, closing costs, renovation costs, and the costs of utilities, maintenance, and taxes, where applicable. The cost analysis shall include a comparison of:

(1) The total costs of acquiring the property over the life of the financing of the acquisition; with

(2) The total costs of leasing similar property over the same period of time.

(d) The use of LSC funds to acquire real property requires LSC's prior approval pursuant to 45 CFR 1630.5(b)(3). When requesting LSC prior approval of an acquisition of real property, recipients shall provide to LSC in writing:

(1) A statement of need explaining how the acquisition will further the delivery of legal services to eligible clients in terms of:

(i) The location of the property in terms of accessibility to program clients;

(ii) Trends in funding and program staffing levels in relation to space needs; and

(iii) Whether the property will replace or be in addition to existing program offices;

(2) A brief analysis comparing:

(i) The estimated average annual cost of the planned acquisition over the life of the financing of the acquisition, including the costs of maintenance, utilities, and taxes; with

(ii) The estimated average annual cost of leasing or purchasing other, similar property over the same period of time;

(3) A current, independent appraisal of a type sufficient to secure a mortgage;

(4) Documentation of board approval consisting of either a board resolution or board minutes demonstrating approval of the acquisition;

(5) A statement of handicapped accessibility sufficient to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 1624.5(c);

(6) A copy of an acquisition agreement, contract, or other document containing a description of the property and the terms of the acquisition; and

(7) An explanation of the anticipated financing of the acquisition including:

(i) The estimated total cost of the acquisition, including renovations, moving, and closing costs;

(ii) The source and amount of funds to be applied toward a down payment;

(iii) The source of funds to be applied toward a monthly mortgage payment, if any;

(iv) The monthly amount of principal and interest payments on debt secured to finance the acquisition, if any; and

(v) The source and estimated amounts of funds needed to cover moving, renovations, and closing costs.

(e) At the time of approving a recipient's use of LSC funds to acquire real property, LSC and the recipient shall enter into a written LSC property interest agreement, which shall include, at a minimum:

(1) Provisions consistent with Sections 5(a), 7(a) and 7(b) herein;

(2) An agreement by the recipient not to encumber the property without prior approval of LSC;

(3) An agreement by the recipient to record, in accordance with appropriate and applicable state law, LSC's interest in the property.

(f) Expenditures for capital improvements require LSC's prior approval pursuant to 45 CFR 1630.5(b)(4). When requesting LSC's prior approval of such expenditures, recipients shall provide to LSC in writing, the following:

(1) A statement of need explaining how the improvement will further the delivery of legal services to eligible clients;

(2) A brief description of the improvement, including the nature of the work to be done, the name of the contractor performing the work, and the total expected cost of the improvement; and

(3) A brief description of the contractor selection process, including the names of the contractors who submitted quotes, the amounts of the quotes, and a brief explanation of the reason(s) for selecting a particular contractor to perform the work.

(a) Subject to the requirements herein, recipients may use LSC funds to acquire and use personal and real property for the purpose of delivering legal services to eligible clients. Title to personal and real property purchased in whole or in part with LSC funds vests in the recipient subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section.

(b) Recipients may retain personal and real property purchased with LSC funds for as long as they continue to receive LSC funding. When a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding, property purchased with LSC funds shall be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of Sections 6(d) and 7(c) herein.

(c) Recipients may retain personal property obtained through a lease using LSC funds for as long as they continue to receive LSC funds, subject to the terms of the lease. When a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding, property leased with LSC funds shall be disposed of in accordance with Section 6(b) herein.

(d) When using personal or real property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds for the performance of an LSC grant or contract, recipients may use such property for other activities, provided that such other activities do not interfere with the performance of the LSC grant or contract, and provided that such other uses meet the requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.

(e) If a recipient uses personal property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds to provide services to another organization which engages in activity restricted by the LSC Act, regulations, or other applicable law, the recipient shall charge the other organization a fee which shall not be less than that which private non-profit organizations in the same locality charge for the same services under similar conditions.

(f) If a recipient uses real property acquired in whole or in part with LSC funds to provide space to another organization which engages in activity restricted by the LSC Act, regulations, or other applicable law, the recipient shall charge the other organization an amount of rent which shall not be less than that which private non-profit organizations in the same locality charge for the same amount of space under similar conditions.

(g) Recipients may copyright any work that is subject to copyright and was developed, or for which ownership was obtained, under an LSC grant or contract, provided that LSC reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use work copyrighted by recipients, when the work is obtained or developed in whole or in part with LSC funds.

(a) During the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients may dispose of items of personal property leased with LSC funds in accordance with the terms of the lease.

(b) When a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding, the recipient shall dispose of items of personal property leased with LSC funds in accordance with the terms of the lease.

(c) During the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients may dispose of items of personal property purchased with LSC funds by:

(1) Trading in the property at the time of acquiring replacement property;

(2) Selling the property at a reasonable negotiated price, without advertising for quotes, where the property item has a current fair market value not exceeding $15,000;

(3) Selling the property after having advertised for and received quotes, where the current fair market value of the property item exceeds $15,000;

(4) Transferring the property to another recipient of LSC funds; or

(5) With the approval of LSC, transferring the property to another nonprofit organization serving the poor in the same service area.

(d) Recipients shall not dispose of items of personal property by sale, donation or other transfer of the property to the recipients' board members and employees.

(e) During the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients selling personal property purchased with LSC funds may retain and use income from the sale according to the requirements of 45 CFR 1630.12 and 45 CFR 1628.3.

(f) When a recipient ceases to receive LSC funding, subject to the approval of LSC, recipients shall dispose of individual items of personal property purchased with LSC funds according to one of the following methods:

(1) The recipient may transfer the property to another recipient of LSC funds, in which case the recipient transferring the property shall be entitled to compensation in the amount of that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by non-LSC funds;

(2) The recipient may transfer the property to another nonprofit organization serving the poor in the same service area, in which case LSC shall be entitled to compensation for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by LSC funds;

(3) The recipient may sell the property and retain the proceeds from the sale after compensating LSC for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by LSC funds;

(4) The recipient may retain the property, in which case LSC shall be entitled to compensation from the recipient for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by LSC funds.

(a) During the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients may dispose of real property acquired with LSC funds by:

(1) Selling the property after having advertised for and received offers, in which case the recipient may retain and use the proceeds from the sale of the property for the purpose of delivering legal services to eligible clients; or

(2) Transferring the property to another recipient of LSC funds, in which case the recipient transferring the property shall be entitled to compensation in the amount of that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by non-LSC funds.

(b) During the term of an LSC grant or contract, recipients selling real property acquired with LSC funds may retain and use income from the sale of the property according to the requirements of 45 CFR 1630.12 and 45 CFR 1628.3.

(c) When a recipient owning real property acquired with LSC funds ceases to receive funding from LSC, the recipient shall, with the approval of LSC, dispose of the real property according to one of the following methods:

(1) The recipient may transfer title to the property to another recipient of LSC funds, in which case the recipient transferring the property shall be entitled to compensation for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to that percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by non-LSC funds;

(2) The recipient may retain title to the property without further obligation to LSC after the recipient compensates LSC for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to the percentage of the property's acquisition cost which was borne by LSC funds;

(3) The recipient may sell the property and compensate LSC for that percentage of the property's current fair market value which is equal to the percentage of the property's acquisition cost that was borne by LSC funds, after the deduction of actual and reasonable selling and fix-up expenses, if any.

(a) Recipients shall account for personal property acquired with LSC funds according to the requirements of Sections 2-2.4 and 3-5.4(c) of the Accounting Guide for LSC Recipients.

(b) Recipients acquiring real property with LSC funds shall keep such records as are customary for the retention of real property in the jurisdiction where the property is located.

(c) Recipients shall account for income earned from the sale of real or personal property purchased with LSC funds in accordance with the requirements of 45 CFR 1630.12.

(d) Documentation of real property acquisitions shall consist of the acquisition contract, evidence of a market survey, cost or price analysis, and an explanation of the reason(s) for selecting a particular source, a copy of an independent appraisal of the property's market value, evidence of board approval of the acquisition, a statement of handicapped accessibility sufficient to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 1624.5(c), and a copy of the LSC property interest agreement required by Section 4(e) herein.

Recipients shall develop written policies and procedures which implement, at a minimum, the requirements of Sections 3 and 4 herein.

The Legal Services Corporation is authorized by Congress to issue regulations as necessary to carry out its mission. See 42 U.S.C. 2996(e). LSC, however, is not a “department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government.” 42 U.S.C. 2996(d). As such, LSC is not subject to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the rulemaking activities of Federal agencies. Rather, LSC is required to “afford notice and reasonable opportunity for comment to interested parties prior to issuing rules, regulations, and guidelines, and it shall publish in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to their effective date all its rules, regulations, guidelines and instructions.” 42 U.S.C. 2999(g).

Throughout its history, LSC has conducted its rulemaking in compliance with the statutory requirements described above, but has not had a written statement of the Board of Directors (“Board”) setting forth the procedures to be followed in the course of LSC rulemaking activities. The Board determined that, while there is no legal requirement for LSC to have a written protocol related to rulemaking, having one would serve to advance LSC's policy of conducting its rulemaking activities in a spirit of cooperative dialog with our recipients and other interested parties. Accordingly, on September 18, 2000, at a meeting of its Board of Directors, the Legal Services Corporation adopted a new Rulemaking Protocol to govern its rulemaking activities. The text of the Protocol is set forth below.

It should be noted that, since this Protocol is a statement of LSC internal procedure and is not a “rule, regulation, guideline or instruction,” LSC is not required by law to publish this Protocol or seek public comment. LSC is choosing to publish this Protocol in the Federal Register (and has also posted it on the LSC website at http: // www.lsc.gov) in furtherance of LSC's interest in and policy of conducting its business in a fair and open manner.

This Rulemaking Protocol is intended to reflect the policy of LSC to conduct its rulemaking activities in a spirit of cooperative dialog with our recipients and other interested parties  1 and has the following six objectives:

1. Enhanced implementation of the will of Congress as expressed in the LSC Act, amendments thereto and other statutory enactments;

2. Increased public participation in the manner and method in which LSC promulgates rules;

3. The adoption of procedures that reflect the best practices in rulemaking as articulated in the Administrative Procedures Act, the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 and Executive Order 12866;

4. Implementation of LSC's strategic initiatives as set forth in Strategic Directions, 2000-2005 (adopted January 29, 2000);

5. Formalization of LSC's policies governing rulemaking and specifically reserving specific responsibilities and authorities unto the Board; and

6. Development of a rulemaking protocol that is efficient and effective.

The Board, through the Operations and Regulations Committee (“Committee”), provides direction on LSC regulatory policy and establishes priorities for LSC rulemaking activities. The Committee will look to staff to effectuate LSC rulemaking policies and priorities through this Protocol. Final authority over LSC rulemaking policies and actions rests with the Board.

The impetus for a rulemaking  2 may come from any one of several sources; Congressional directive; internal LSC initiative (Board or Committee members and/or staff); or a formal request from a member of the regulated community or general public. Once the Board has agreed on a potential subject for rulemaking, LSC's Office of Legal Affairs  3 (“OLA”), in close consultation with appropriate Corporation staff, will develop a Rulemaking Options Paper (“ROP”). The ROP will contain a discussion of the subject for the potential rulemaking, and will include an outline of the policy and legal issues involved. The ROP shall also recommend whether the potential rulemaking should be Negotiated or accomplished by Notice and Comment Rulemaking. The appropriate rulemaking process shall be selected on a case-by-case with full recognition, however, of LSC's policy favoring open and collaborative rulemaking. It is anticipated that most rulemaking will be Negotiated.  4 Once the ROP is developed, it will be submitted to the Committee. The Committee, acting through its Chair, shall consult with the President before deciding whether to proceed as recommended.

If, after consultation with the President, the Committee elects to proceed with a rulemaking, the President will officially so notify the Board. The President will also inform the Inspector General (“IG”) that the rulemaking is being undertaken and communicate to the IG the general parameters of the proposed rule and the ROP. Notice that a rulemaking proceeding has begun will also be posted on the LSC website, indicating the subject matter of the rulemaking and whether the rulemaking will be Negotiated or accomplished through Notice and Comment. In addition to website notice, notice by mail will also be given those who have previously requested such notice and are included in the Corporation's mailing list dedicated to that purpose.

In a Negotiated Rulemaking, a group comprised of LSC representatives and affected and/or interested parties will meet under the direction of a trained facilitator, (“Working Group”)  5 with the intention of developing consensus-based positions leading to regulations. The key feature of Negotiated Rulemaking is its collaborative approach, which seeks consensus where possible and decisionmaking by LSC after full dialog with the regulated community and other interested parties.

The President, in consultation with the Committee Chair, will solicit suggestions for appointment to the Working Group from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties. The President, working in consultation with the Committee, acting through its Chair, will make appointments of individuals and organizations to the Working Group, including the facilitator and the OLA representative. All groups or organizations asked to participate in the Working Group shall be responsible for selecting and designating their representatives. It is expected that membership on the Working Group will be diverse and fully representative of the legal services community and other interested parties.

The Working Group shall meet as necessary to develop a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”). The members of the Working Group will, drawing upon their substantive expertise, discuss the subjects prompting the need for rulemaking and work toward developing a consensus on solutions to the problems identified.

The OLA representative on the Working Group, with the assistance of a subgroup of the membership, shall draft the regulatory language consistent with achieved consensus. The Working Group will review the regulation to ensure it reflects any consensus reached, although the Corporation retains ultimate responsibility for crafting the regulatory language.

The consensus proposal of the group, once developed, must go through the formal rulemaking process as an NPRM. At this point the Notice and Comment process described below will be followed.

On occasion it may happen that no consensus can be reached by the Working Group on a regulatory proposal or some element thereof. In those instances, the President will report this to the Committee and seek direction from the Committee, acting through its Chair, on whether to continue the rulemaking using the Notice and Comment process or to terminate the rulemaking.

In Notice and Comment Rulemaking, LSC develops rulemaking proposals and takes comment on them in writing and at certain publicly designated meetings of the Committee. Employing this process in conjunction with Negotiated Rulemaking will ensure that LSC's policy of cooperative dialog will be carried out in a fair, open and productive manner. LSC believes the Notice and Comment process will allow for an effective dialog between LSC and its recipients and other interested parties, even in those instances in which Negotiated Rulemaking is not used.

OLA will have the primary responsibility for the drafting of the Draft NPRM, which includes both the proposed regulatory text and the proposed preamble, working with management, appropriate staff and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). 6 The Draft NPRM will be shared with the OIG for review and comment. The Draft NPRM will be submitted to the President with a Statement of Issues. The President may then: approve the Draft NPRM for submission to the Committee for its consideration; return the Draft NPRM to OLA for revisions as necessary; or, jointly with the Committee, terminate the rulemaking.

Once approved, the Draft NPRM will be set for consideration by the Committee at a public meeting. The Draft NPRM and Statement of Issues will be provided to the Committee sufficiently in advance of the meeting to permit their appropriate consideration. The notice of the meeting announcing the placement of the Draft NPRM on the Committee agenda will be published in the Federal Register and will recite that the Draft NPRM will be publicly available and will be posted on the LSC website. Posting of the Draft NPRM to the LSC website will be sufficiently in advance of the Committee meeting to permit appropriate consideration by interested parties.

At the Committee meeting, management will present the Draft NPRM with the assistance of OLA and opportunity for public comment will be provided. The Committee will then deliberate and shall decide whether to publish the NPRM or return it to staff for revisions.

Once the NPRM has been approved, OLA will make any necessary technical revisions to document before it is published in the Federal Register for comment. 7 The comment period will be at least 30 days and, it is anticipated, in most instances will be 60 days (but could, under appropriate circumstances, be longer). However, the decision as to whether to limit the notice period to 30 days or to provide a longer comment period is a matter entirely within discretion of the Board.

Copies of all comments received will be provided to the Committee and made available to other Board Members upon request. Copies of all comments will also be placed in a public docket available for inspection and copying in the FOIA Reading Room at the Corporation's offices. Copies of comments received in electronic format, along with an index of all comments received, will be placed into an “electronic” docket on the LSC website.

Upon the close of the comment period, OLA will draft a Final Rule (which consists of the regulatory text and preamble). 8 The draft of the Final Rule will be shared with the OIG for review and comment. The draft of the Final Rule will be submitted to the President with a Statement of Issues. The President may then: approve the draft of the Final Rule for submission to the Committee for its consideration; return it to OLA for revisions as necessary; or, jointly with the Committee, terminate the rulemaking.

Once approved, the draft of the Final Rule will be set for consideration by the Committee at a public meeting. The draft of the Final Rule and Statement of Issues will be provided to the Committee and the Board sufficiently in advance of the meeting to permit appropriate consideration. In addition, a notice of the meeting announcing the placement of the Final Rule on the Committee agenda will be published in the Federal Register . At the Committee meeting, management will present a summary of the Comments and the draft Final Rule with the assistance of OLA. It is anticipated that the Committee will accept public comment as needed to assist in its deliberations. The Committee will vote on whether to recommend the Final Rule to the Board or return it to staff for revisions.

If the draft Final Rule is approved by the Committee for review by the Board, the Board will consider the draft Final Rule and vote to adopt it or to return it to the Committee for further action. At its discretion, the Board may request the participation of members of the public during its deliberations. Once the Final Rule is adopted by the Board, OLA will make any necessary technical revisions to it and submit the final version for approval for publication to the Board's designee (for example, the Board Chair or the Committee Chair). The Final Rule will then be published in the Federal Register and placed on LSC's website.

As noted above, public notice that a rulemaking proceeding has begun will be accomplished through posting a notice to that effect on the LSC website, and by sending notice by mail to those who have previously requested such notice. With this notice, LSC is formally establishing a mailing list dedicated to that purpose. Persons and organizations wishing to be notified by mail when LSC undertakes a rulemaking proceeding should submit a notice indicating such interest and providing contact information (name, title, organization and mailing address) to Mattie C. Condray at the address listed above.

Title of Collection: 2001 National Survey of Recent College Graduates.

OMB Control No.: 3145-0077.

Expiration Date of Approval: February 28, 2002.

The National Survey of Recent College Graduates (NSRCG) has been conducted biennially since 1974. For the 2001 cycle, a sample of individuals who have recently earned bachelor's and master's degrees in science and engineering from U.S. institutions will be surveyed. The purpose of the study is to provide national estimates describing the relationship between education and employment for bachelor's and master's recipients in science and engineering. The study is one of three components of the Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System (SESTAT), which produces national estimates of the size and characteristics of the nation's science and engineering population.

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as subsequently amended, includes a statutory charge to “* * * provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources, and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal Government.” The National Survey of Recent College Graduates is designed to comply with these mandates by providing information on the supply and utilization of scientists and engineers at the bachelor's and master's degree level. Collected data will be used to produce estimates of the characteristics of these individuals. They will also provide necessary input into the SESTAT labor force data system, which produces national estimates of the size and characteristics of the country's science and engineering population. The Foundation uses this information to prepare congressionally mandated reports such as Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering and Science and Engineering Indicators. A public release file of collected data, designed to protect respondent confidentiality, is expected to be made available to researchers on CD-ROM and on the World Wide Web.

The Survey will be primarily conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews (CATI). Questionnaires will be mailed only to those individuals who are unwilling to provide information over the telephone but willing to complete a mail questionnaire. CATI interviewing will begin in April 2001 and is estimated to end in December 2001. The survey will be collected in conformance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and the individual's response to the survey is voluntary. NSF will insure that all information collected will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research or statistical purposes, analyzing data, and preparing scientific reports and articles.

We will sample approximately 27,500 graduates with bachelor's and master's degrees in science and engineering from U.S. academic institutions

The amount of time to complete the questionnaire may vary depending on an individual's circumstances; however, on average it will take approximately 30 minutes to complete the survey. We estimate that the total annual burden will be 13,750 hours during the year.

Special Areas for Review: NSF request special review and comments in the following areas:

(a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Foundation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the Foundation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.

Under section 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, a single-employer pension plan may terminate voluntarily only if it satisfies the requirements for either a standard or a distress termination. Pursuant to ERISA section 4041(b), for standard terminations, and section 4041(c), for distress terminations, and the PBGC's termination regulation (29 CFR part 4041), a plan administrator wishing to terminate a plan is required to submit specified information to the PBGC in support of the proposed termination and to provide specified information regarding the proposed termination to third parties (participants, beneficiaries, alternate payees, and employee organizations). In the case of a plan with participants or beneficiaries who cannot be located when their benefits are to be distributed, the plan administrator is subject to the requirements of ERISA section 4050 and the PBGC's missing participants regulation (29 CFR part 4050).

The PBGC estimates that 1,564 plan administrators will be subject to the collection of information requirements in the PBGC's termination and missing participants regulations each year, and that the total annual burden of complying with these requirements is 2,246 hours and $1,864,600. (Much of the work associated with terminating a plan is performed for purposes other than meeting these requirements.)

Comments on these collection of information requirements may address (among other things)—

• Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the PBGC, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of the PBGC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193 (hereinafter PRWORA), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208 (IIRIRA), include significant provisions affecting the eligibility of aliens in the United States for public benefits. (See HHS Notice, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA); Interpretation of “Federal Public Benefit,” 63 FR 41658 (August 4, 1998)). Section 401 of PRWORA generally provides that, with some exceptions, only “qualified aliens” (in addition to U.S. citizens and nationals) are eligible to receive Federal public benefits. PRWORA and IIRIRA also include significant provisions specifically limiting the eligibility of qualified aliens for certain specified Federal programs, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under Title XVI of the Social Security Act. Finally, section 403 of PRWORA limits the eligibility of qualified aliens for certain “Federal means-tested public benefits.” (See Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Federal Means-Tested Public Benefits, 63 FR 36653 (July 7, 1998); HHS, Office of the Secretary, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA); Interpretation of “Federal Means-Tested Public Benefit,” 62 FR 45256 (August 26, 1997); SSA, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Federal Means-Tested Public Benefits Paid by the Social Security Administration, 62 FR 45284 (August 26, 1997).

Section 404 of PRWORA, as amended by section 5564 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, requires each entity or type of entity specified in that statute to report to the Service, at least four times annually, any individual who the entity, under certain specified programs, “ knows is not lawfully present in the United States” (emphasis supplied). Entities required to report under this provision in the course of administering certain specified programs are as follows: (1) Any State agency that administers a block grant under part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Welfare-to-Work); (2) SSA (with respect only to the SSI program under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. ); (3) any State agency responsible for an SSI Optional State Supplementation under the SSI program if the State has entered into an agreement with SSA for Federal administration of payments under that program pursuant to section 1616(a) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1382e(a); (4) HUD (with respect only to the Public and Assisted Housing Program provided under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. ); and, (5) any public housing agency that enters into a contract for assistance under section 6 or 8 of Title I of the United States Housing Act 1937, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq. No other entity is required to report under the provisions of Title IV of PRWORA.

Section 404 of PRWORA is not explicit with respect to the meaning of the term “knows.” After consultation, the responsible Federal agencies have determined that, for purposes of the requirement under section 404 that an entity report four times annually, an entity will “know” that an alien is not lawfully present in the United States only when the unlawful presence is a finding of fact or conclusion of law that is made by the entity as part of a formal determination that is subject to administrative review on an alien's claim for any of the statutorily specified programs set out above. In addition, that finding or conclusion of unlawful presence must be supported by a determination by the Service or the Executive Office of Immigration Review, such as a Final Order of Deportation. A Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) response showing no Service record on an individual or an immigration status making the individual ineligible for a benefit is not a finding of fact or conclusion of law that the individual is not lawfully present. Equating “knowing” under section 404 of PRWORA with the formal determination described above under any of the statutorily specified programs affected by section 404 gives rational substance to an arguably ambiguous term and is not inconsistent with the legislative history of this provision.

This notice is not meant to suggest that a benefit granting agency is required to make a determination as to an applicant's lawful presence if that determination is not otherwise necessary in order to determine whether the applicant is eligible for the benefit. Nor is it meant to suggest that a finding or conclusion as to immigration status made by a benefit granting agency has any weight outside the context of the alien's eligibility for that particular benefit. Determinations of status for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act are the responsibility of the Department of Justice, not of any other agency.

At least four times annually, the reporting entity that knows of the unlawful presence of any alien as specified above must make a report to the Service. The entity will make the report within 45 days after the close of the appropriate calendar year quarter. The report must include the name, address, and other identifying information in the entity's possession regarding the individual who the reporting entity knows is not lawfully present in the United States. In order to reduce unnecessary administrative burden, the reporting entity is not required to submit reports to the Service unless it has knowledge of an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States as specified above. The reports will be sent to the Service at the following address: Director, Policy Directives and Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street NW, Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536, Att'n: INS No. 2070-00.

The FAA has established an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator, through the Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification, on the full range of the FAA's rulemaking activities with respect to aviation-related issues. This includes obtaining advice and recommendations on the FAA's commitment to harmonize Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) with its partners in Europe and Canada.

This notice is to inform the public that the FAA has asked ARAC to provide advice and recommendation on the following harmonization tasks:

Ground Loads: Review 14 CFR part 25, specifically § 25.471, Ground Loads: General, (through § 25.519), for adequacy for both conventional and unconventional gear configurations as well as for unusually heavy airplanes. This should include the review and implementation of existing special conditions for center gear configurations. Review the distribution of loads between the gear during the landing event as well as the distribution and magnitude of loads during ground handling events such as pivoting, turning, and braking.

Schedule: As a result of this review, develop a report recommending revisions to rules (including cost estimates) and advisory material as deemed necessary. The report and advisory material shall be submitted to the FAA within 18 months after the date of this notice.

Towing Loads: Review of § 25.509, Towing loads, for adequacy for conventional airplanes as well as unusually heavy airplanes, and establish adequate limit design towing loads for all transport category airplanes taking into account all recognized means of towing, including towbarless towing vehicles.

Schedule: As a result of this review, develop a report recommending revisions to the rules (including cost estimates) and advisory material as deemed appropriate. The report and advisory material shall be submitted to the FAA within 24 months after the date of this notice.

Landing Descent Velocity Measurement: Review the results of recent and ongoing landing descent velocity measurements and make recommendations in regard to the adequacy of the existing limit decent velocity requirements in § 25.473, Landing load conditions and assumptions, for conventional as well as usually heavy airplanes.

Schedule: As a result of this review, develop a report recommending revisions to the rules (including cost estimates) and advisory material as deemed necessary. The report and advisory material shall be submitted to the FAA within 24 months after the notice of the task is published.

If notices of proposed rulemaking and notices of proposed advisory circulars are published for public comment as a result of the recommendations in these reports, ARAC may be further asked to review all comments received, and provide the FAA with a recommendation for disposition of public comments for each project.

ARAC has accepted the tasks and has chosen to assign the tasks to the Loads and Dynamics Harmonization Working Group of the ARAC Transport Airplanes and Engine Issues Group. The working group will serve as staff to ARAC to assist in the analysis of the assigned tasks. Working group recommendations must be reviewed and approved by ARAC. If ARAC accepts the working group's recommendations, it forwards them to the FAA as ARAC recommendations.

The Loads and Dynamics Harmonization Working Group is expected to comply with the procedures adopted by ARAC. As part of the procedures, the working group is expected to:

1. Recommend a work plan for completion of the tasks, including the rationale supporting such a plan, for consideration at the meeting of ARAC to Transport Airplane and Engines held following publication of this notice.

2. Give a detailed conceptual presentation of the proposed recommendation, prior to proceeding with the work stated in item 3 below.

3. For each task, draft appropriate documents with supporting economic and other required analyses, and/or any other related guidance material or collateral documents the working group determines to be appropriate, or, if new or revised requirements or compliance methods are not recommended, a draft report stating the rationale for not making such recommendations.

4. Provide a status report at each meeting of ARAC held to consider Transport Airplane and Engine issues.

The Secretary of Transportation has determined that the formation and use of ARAC are necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

Meetings of ARAC will be open to the public. Meetings of the Loads and Dynamics Harmonization Working Group will not be open to the public, except to the extent that individuals with an interest and expertise and selected to participate. No public announcement of working group meetings will be made.

The South Jersey Transportation Authority (SJTA) has completed a master plan update and an environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed future development projects at Atlantic City International Airport. Because the potential for significant environmental impacts was determined during the EA process, the EA was not approved and the FAA determined that preparation of an EIS was necessary.

The proposed airport development actions involve numerous airside and landside improvements to be developed over several years, such that some projects will be implemented upon completion of the EIS, while others will be implemented as demand necessitates. Major airside projects identified for analysis include, but are not limited to, the following: Runway and taxiway extension, taxiway relocation, high-speed taxiway exits, runway and taxiway pavement rehabilitation, airfield lighting electrical improvements, a deicing facility, and a Category II Instrument Landing System (CAT II ILS).

Major landside projects identified for analysis include, but are not limited to, the following: Passenger terminal and terminal apron expansion, a multi-level parking garage, surface parking improvements, a new access roadway, a rent-a-car service center, a hotel/conference facility, general aviation hangars with apron, a snow-removal equipment storage building, and an aircraft cargo/maintenance complex.

The airport is located in the Pinelands National Reserve, an internationally important ecological region that is 1.1 million acres in size and occupies 22 percent of New Jersey's land area. The environmental issues of concern for evaluation in the EIS are anticipated to be very similar to those evaluated in the EA process, including water quality, threatened and endangered species, biotic communities, wetlands, air quality, secondary impacts and cumulative impacts. Other issues that will be addressed in the EIS include potential impacts to flood plains, noise, cultural resources, utilities, hazardous materials, and environmental justice.

With regard to project alternatives, the EIS will include an analysis of a variety of alternatives considered during project planning. In addition to the proposed action and the no action alternatives, the analysis will include individual project site locations, mitigation alternatives, and other alternatives that may arise from the scoping process.

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

On September 6, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Milwaukee County was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 5, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

PFC application number: 06-00-C-00-MKE.

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: June 1, 2004.

Proposed charge expiration date: July 1, 2006.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $22,667,375.00.

Brief description of the proposed projects:

Impose and use General Mitchell: Rehabilitate taxiway A and A3, reconstruct perimeter road, rehabilitate runway 7R/25L, C concourse stem and 6 gate expansion (design), acquire flight information display and paging system, master plan update, terminal apron joint repair, seal coating runway 71/25R and runway 13/31, conduct electrical master plan study, rehabilitate taxiway B from R to G, construct abrasive storage building, upgrade security system, install runway 1L/19R centerline and touchdown zone lighting, C concourse taxiway expansion, baggage claim remodeling (design), rehabilitate taxiway M at B, construct maintenance storage building, construct hush house noise suppressor structure (design). Impose and use Lawrence J. Timmerman: pavement rehabilitation. Impose only General Mitchell: C concourse stem and 6 gate expansion (construction).

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA form 1800-31.

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

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

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

On September 14, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Monterey Peninsula Airport District was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 14, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of the application No. 00-06-C-00-MRY.

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.

Proposed charge effective date: March 1, 2001.

Proposed charge expiration date: October 1, 2001.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $362,895.

Brief description of the proposed projects: Rehabilitate Terminal Storm Drain, Expand Safety Building, Reconstruct SE Hangar Pavement, Y2K Assessment/Upgrade Security Access Control, South Ramp Security Fence, Taxiway D Reconstruction, SE Water Main Extension, Upgrade Airfield Lighting System, South Ramp Storm Drain Extension, Environmental Study for 10R/28L Service Road, Environmental Study for Airport Road Extension, Phases 2 and 3, North Side Perimeter Fence Replacement, Upper Mezzanine Elevator, Fire Apparatus Pump Upgrade and Vegetation/Wildlife Management Plan.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Unscheduled/intermittent part 135 Air Taxi/commercial operators.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Division located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Monterey Peninsula Airport District.

This notice announces the following policy statement, ACE-00-23.561-01. The purpose of this statement is to address methods of approval for retrofit shoulder harness installations in small airplanes.

The FAA is presenting this information as a set of guidelines suitable for use. However, we do not intend that this policy set up a binding norm; it does not form a new regulation and the FAA would not apply or rely on it as a regulation.

The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO's) and Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO's) that certify changes in type design and approve alterations in normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes should try to follow this policy when appropriate. Applicants should expect the certificating officials would consider this information when making findings of compliance relevant to retrofit shoulder harness installations.

As with all advisory material, this statement of policy identifies one way, but not the only way, of compliance.

A retrofit shoulder harness installation in a small airplane may receive approval by Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), Field Approval, or as a minor change. An STC is the most rigorous means of approval and offers the highest assurance the installation meets all the airworthiness regulations. A Field Approval is a suitable method of approval for a shoulder harness installation that needs little or no engineering. Shoulder harness installations may receive approval as a minor change in certain cases. In such cases, the FAA certificated mechanic who installs the shoulder harness records it as a minor change by making an entry in the maintenance log of the airplane.

The FAA does not encourage the approval of retrofit shoulder harness installations as minor changes. The preferred methods of approval are Supplemental Type Certificate or Field Approval. However, the FAA should not forbid the approval of a retrofit shoulder harness installation as a minor change in:

• The front seats of those small airplanes manufactured before July 19, 1978, and

• In other seats of those small airplanes manufactured before December 13, 1986.

A retrofit shoulder harness installation may receive approval as a minor change in these small airplanes if:

• The installation requires no change of the structure (such as welding or drilling holes).

• The certification basis of the airplane is 14 CFR part 23 before Amendment 23-20, part 3 of the Civil Air Regulations, or a predecessor regulation.

In addition, a minor change installation should follow the guidance for hardware, restraint angles, and attachment locations provided in:

• Advisory Circular (AC) 43.13-2A, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices Aircraft Alterations.

• AC 21-34, Shoulder Harness—Safety Installations.

• AC 23-4, Static Strength Substantiation of Attachment Points for Occupant Restraint System Installations.

Installations approved as a minor change may not provide the occupant with the protection required by regulation (Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 3.386 or 14 CFR part 23, 23.561). However, a properly installed retrofit shoulder harness installation is a safety improvement over occupant restraint by seat belt alone.

In January 1997, the Anchorage Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) Manager requested the Small Airplane Directorate to study the issue of retrofit shoulder harness installations in small airplanes. The Anchorage ACO specifically requested guidance for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) project to install shoulder harness in Piper PA-18 series airplanes. Shoulder harnesses are approved under Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C114 Torso Restraint Systems, or by other acceptable means appropriate to the certification basis of the airplane in which they will be installed. This policy statement addresses the approval of the shoulder harness installation only.

During 1998, the Small Airplane Directorate took part in the Aviation Safety Program to increase the use and effectiveness of occupant restraint systems in general aviation airplanes. This program supports the occupant survivability element of the Administrator's Safety Agenda for general aviation. The FAA has a goal of significantly reducing the number of fatal accidents over a ten-year period. Most of the content of this policy was presented in a paper at the August 19, 1998, meeting of this Aviation Safety Program.

The Manager of the Aircraft Maintenance Division of Flight Standards, AFS-300, has reviewed and agrees with this policy.

We issued a notice of policy statement, request for comments. This proposed policy appeared in the Federal Register on June 14, 2000 (65 FR 37449) and the public comment period closed July 14, 2000.

The FAA encouraged interested people to join in making this proposed policy. We received comments from 12 different commenters. Commenters included pilots, operators, individuals, manufacturers, and organizations representing these groups. Most of the commenters were supportive of the proposed policy.

Commenters praised the proposed policy for promoting safety, especially on older airplanes. We will discuss the general comments and concerns then we will discuss comments that are more specific.

One individual wrote, “I would like to give my support to the opportunity for minor changes to allow shoulder harness installations in older aircraft.” Another commenter noted, “This is indicative of a long overdue recognition that better is the enemy of the good, and people need to make these reasonable improvements even if they cannot be of the standard of current regulations for new aircraft. Well done!” A commenter representing an organization wrote that they had reviewed the policy memorandum proposal on retrofit shoulder harness on small airplanes and agree.

A pilot wrote, “Having actually been in an aircraft crash situation, I feel quite strongly that shoulder harnesses in all aircraft seating positions should be mandatory.”

Removing many of the barriers associated with installing retrofit shoulder harnesses will allow owners of older aircraft to have them installed in their aircraft. With the removal of these barriers, it is not necessary to place an additional regulatory burden on aircraft owners. The policy statement does not form a new regulation and the FAA will not apply or rely on it as a regulation.

An operator and pilot commented, “Many of the racing industries commonly available four and five point safety harnesses are tested to standards and loads that easily exceed the FAA's 1,500 pound failure limit load. These very affordable harnesses, much less expensive shoulder and lap harnesses could be easily installed with over the counter hardware aviation hardware and would be a highly positive safety enhancement.” Similarly, a manufacturer wrote that minor change installations of retrofit shoulder harnesses should include those produced under a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), harnesses that meet military specification requirements, and harnesses that meet Society of Automotive Engineers aircraft restraint system requirements.

We agree that removing many of the barriers associated with the installation of retrofit shoulder harnesses will allow owners of certain small aircraft to increase the level of safety in their aircraft. We also agree that we should allow minor change installations that use non-TSO-C114 harnesses. However, apart from TSO-C114 harnesses, we will accept only those harnesses that meet the Society of Automotive Engineers Aerospace Standard 8043, harnesses produced under a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) or harnesses that meet aircraft military specification requirements. We have revised the policy statement to include these other harnesses.

The same manufacturer also suggested that:

• FAA allow attachments to unsupported tube elements as minor changes;

• The unsupported tube issue needs more study;

• Companion guidance materiel to the retrofit shoulder harness policy statement should address restraint attachment points; and

• FAA develop guidance regarding replacement and maintenance of existing seat belts and shoulder harness installations.

We disagree. The FAA will study this suggestion in further detail but we are unwilling to change existing guidance on methods of attachment. We agree that we should develop companion guidance that addresses the restraint points and replacement and maintenance.

A second manufacturer wrote concerning the policy that we address:

• Appropriate attachment methods in the policy,

• Production material variability, and

• Improper installation and attachment.

We agree with these comments and address them in the policy statement.

This manufacturer also wants to see the policy address the loading, level of safety, head impact injury criteria, and strength requirements of 14 CFR part 23, § 23.561.

The FAA disagrees. Installation of shoulder harnesses may be accomplished without FAA approval if the installation is a minor change to the airplane design. If the installation is a major change, a Supplemental Type Certificate or Field Approval must be obtained.

For aircraft type certificated before the effective date of Amendment 23-20, the shoulder harnesses need not meet the requirements of 14 CFR 23.561, and its predecessor regulations, if the installation of the harness is not essential to the operation of the airplane. A shoulder harness installed as a minor change does not have to provide the level of safety required in 14 CFR 23.561. The head impact injury criteria and strength requirements of the harnesses, including fitting factors, do not have to be met for minor change installations.

1. Advisory Circular (AC) 21-34, Shoulder Harness—Safety Belt Installations, June 4, 1993.

2. AC 23-4, Static Strength Substantiation of Attachment Points for Occupant Restraint System Installations, June 20, 1986.

3. AC 43.13-2A, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices—Aircraft Alternations, Revised 1977.

4. Order 8300.10, Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook, Change 12, December 14, 1999, Volume II.

5. Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C114, Torso Restraint Systems, March 27, 1987.

6. Technical Standard Order C-22f, Safety Belts, May 1, 1972.

1. Front seat shoulder harnesses required. Section 23.785 of 14 CFR part 23 as amended by Amendment 23-19 effective July 18, 1977, required all normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes for which application for type certificate was made on or after July 18, 1977, to have an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. Section 91.205(b)(14) requires all small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, to have an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. The shoulder must be designed to protect the occupant from serious head injury when the occupant experiences the ultimate inertia forces specified in § 23.561(b)(2). The inertia force requirements are discussed in paragraph 3 below.

2. Shoulder harnesses required at all seats. Section 91.205(b)(16) requires all normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with a seating configuration of 9 or less, excluding pilot seats, manufactured after December 12, 1986, to have a shoulder harness, for forward-facing and aft-facing seats, that meets the requirements of § 23.785(g) [which requires that the occupant be protected from the ultimate inertia forces specified in § 23.561(b)(2)]. Section 23.785(g) also provides: “For other seat orientations, the seat and restraint means must be designed to provide a level of occupant protection equivalent to that provided for forward and aft-facing seats with safety belts and shoulder harnesses installed.” The above part 91 operating rule stems from § 23.2, Special retroactive requirements, Amendment 23-32, effective December 12, 1985.

3. Belts or harnesses provided for in the design. Civil Air Regulation (CAR) 3.386 and part 23, § 23.561, Amendments 23-0 through 23-34, effective February 17, 1987, require occupant protection from serious injury during a minor crash landing when “proper use is made of belts or harnesses provided for in the design,” when the occupants are subjected to the following ultimate inertia forces:

With Amendment 23-36, effective September 14, 1998, the text of § 23.561 quoted above was changed to read: “proper use is made of seats, safety belts, and shoulder harnesses provided for in the design.” Section 23.785(b) was also changed to read:

“Each forward-facing or aft-facing seat/restraint system in normal, utility, or acrobatic category airplanes must consist of a seat, safety belt, and shoulder harness that are designed to provide the occupant protection provisions required in § 23.562 of this part. Other seat orientations must provide the same level of occupant protection as a forward-facing or aft-facing seat with a safety belt and shoulder harness, and provide the protection provisions § 23.562 of this part.”

The emergency landing ultimate inertia load factors have remained unchanged from Amendment 23-36 through Amendment 23-52, effective April 30, 1997. Amendment 23-52 is the latest amendment level to part 23.

For inertia force requirements for occupant protection preceding CAR 3, refer to Table 1 in AC 21-34 which lists the requirements for the regulations dating from Bulletin 7-A to the original part 23.

1. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). An STC is the most desirable and most rigorous approval. The STC offers the highest assurance that all of the airworthiness regulations have been met. The STC approvals are issued by the FAA Aircraft Certification Offices (ACOs). STC approvals are usually obtained by a shoulder harness installation kit supplier for multiple airplane installations in an airplane model or model series.

AC's 21-34 and 23-4 (References 1 and 2) provide guidance and acceptable means of compliance for shoulder harness and seat belt installations. AC 23-4 specifically addresses part 23 installations. These AC's are also applicable to installations in airplanes having a certification basis of predecessor regulations (for example, CAR 3).

An applicant for an STC may use a salvaged airplane fuselage to substantiate the strength of the fuselage and the shoulder harness attachment fittings by structural tests, since the shoulder harness attachment structural test may damage an airworthy fuselage. It may be problem that the available test airframe may be stronger than the lowest strength production airframe. This may be a problem in steel tube airframes.

During many years of producing such airframes, various specification materials may have been used. For example, many CAR 3 (and predecessor regulations) airplanes were originally produced from 1025 steel tubing and later constructed from higher strength 4130 steel. In one case studied, two different specification 1025 steel tubings were used which may have an ultimate tensile strength (UTS) ranging from 55,000 to 79,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The UTS for 4130 steel is 90,000 to 95,000 psi.

The test article should be representative of the lowest strength production airframe. This may be accomplished by a conformity inspection using the production drawings. The strength of materials of parts affected by the modification needs to be verified by the airframe manufacturer's process and production records. The serial number of the test article needs to be verified.

An alternative course of action would be to determine, by appropriate tests (for example, chemical analysis, hardness tests, strength tests), the strength of the parts of the test article affected by the modification. Follow with testing to a conservatively higher load that accounts for the difference in strengths of the test article and the lowest strength production article. Determination of the higher applied test load should take into account any uncertainty in the test(s) used to determine the strength of the material.

Another alternative course of action may be to conduct the harness pull test on the available test airframe. The applicant may then substantiate the strength of other tubing specifications by a combination of test results and analysis.

AC 23-4 provides an acceptable means of compliance for static strength substantiation of attachment points for occupant restraint system installations. A test block is described to apply the 9.0-g forward inertia load. The safety belt installation alone is tested to 100 percent of the load. The shoulder and safety belt combined load is distributed 40 percent to the shoulder harness and 60 percent to the seat belt.

In airplanes having side-by-side seats, the pull test may need to be applied simultaneously to the harness fittings for both seats. However, this depends on the type of harness and where the upper ends are anchored. Normally, this would not be necessary for a single diagonal belt shoulder harness attached to the outboard fuselage side or wing spar root end.

In the case of a pull test for a retrofit shoulder harness installation in the tandem seated tubular steel PA-18 fuselage, the forward inertia load was applied simultaneously for both harnesses. This was done for convenience in applying and reacting the loads. It was found, that due to the tube geometry, the load at the aft harness attachment caused a tension in the rear spar carrythrough tube. The front seat shoulder harness upper end was attached to the rear spar carrythrough tube. This enabled the front seat harness attachment to test to a higher load than if the pull test was done to each harness individually. In such a case, the test loads for each harness should be done individually.

Part 21, § 21.50(b) requires the holder of an STC to furnish Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, prepared in accordance with § 23.1529.

An STC can not be used to modify an aircraft without the permission of the STC holder. FAA Notice 8110.69 dated June 30, 1997, requires the STC holder to provide the customer (installer or airplane owner) with a signed permission statement that includes the following:

• Product (aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance) to be altered, including serial number of the product;

• The STC number; and

• The person(s) who is being given consent to use the STC.

The permission statement needs to be kept as part of the aircraft records. The requirement for this permission statement originated in the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264). This provision was put into law to try to stop the pirating of STC's.

2. Field Approval. A shoulder harness installation in a small airplane may receive a Field Approval (FAA Form 337) granted by a Flight Standards Aviation Safety Inspector. Field Approvals are appropriate for alterations that involve little or no engineering. If the installation requires structural modifications, an Aircraft Certification Office will need to assist in the Field Approval process by approving the structural aspects of the installation. A Field Approval constitutes a change to type design and must meet the same regulatory requirements as an STC.

AC 43.13-2A (Reference 3) contains methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator for use in altering civil aircraft. Chapter 9 covers shoulder harness installations. Section 3 covers attachment methods. Shoulder harnesses installed under Field Approval must meet the same regulatory requirements as an STC. Therefore, the applicant should demonstrate by test 9.0-g forward load capability. The test load should be 814 pounds for Normal Category or 910 pounds for Utility or Acrobatic Category, in accordance with AC 23-4.

Reference 4, Chapter 1, Perform Field Approval of Major Repairs and Major Alterations, Section 1, paragraph 5.D(2) states: “Acceptable data that may be used on an individual basis to obtain approval are:

• AC's 43.13-1A and 43.13-2A, as amended*

• Manufacturer's technical information (for example, manuals, bulletins, kits, and so on)

• FAA Field Approvals”

When using a previous Field Approval as acceptable data, the pull test need not be done if it can be determined that a previous pull test applied 814 pounds for Normal Category or 910 pounds for Utility or Acrobatic Category. Field Approvals for shoulder harness installations should not be done by referencing a previous Field Approval and deleting the pull test, unless the attachment parts have a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), or other FAA approval. If the attachment parts have no FAA approval, the strength is not known or assured, since they have not been manufactured to an FAA approved quality control system.

Shoulder harness installations attaching to the center of an unsupported wing carrythrough tube, or other unsupported member, should not receive a Field Approval without a design approval from an Aircraft Certification Office. Applying the test load in such cases may cause damage or permanent set to the affected structure.

Existing FAA guidance, including AC 43.13-2A and AC 21-34, recommend against attachment to the center of unsupported members. Figure 9-16 in AC 43.13-2A shows typical shoulder harness attachments to tubular members. These are all at tube intersections and not at the center of unsupported tubes.

Figure 9-12 shows a typical wing carrythrough member installation. This appears to be in the center of the carrythrough member that is a hat section as found in metal skinned airplanes. Part of the figure shows that the hat section is riveted to sheet metal skin (which would provide longitudinal support).

Personnel performing the Field Approval must ensure that both the harness and belt are compatible and have a TSO approval.

Flight Standards Information Bulletin for Airworthiness (FSAW) 98-03, dated January 30, 1998, (Reference 4) requires that a Field Approval include Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared (in the case of part 23 airplanes) under § 23.1529. The Instructions will be documented on FAA Form 337, and become a part of either the inspection or maintenance program of the aircraft, or both.

3. Minor change. Part 21 § 21.93(a), Classification of changes in type design, states: “A minor changes is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness of the product.”

Information provided to us by the Anchorage ACO indicates that some shoulder harness installations, that provide known safety improvements, have been approved as a minor change. In these situations, the FAA certificated mechanic who installs it makes an entry in the maintenance log of the airplane.

One shoulder harness installation kit supplier uses this process (no FAA approvals) to install shoulder harnesses in PA-18 airplanes. The installation does not require modification of the airframe. The front seat harness attaches to the center of the rear wing spar carrythrough tube. However, it may not meet the 9.0-g forward inertia load required by CAR 3.386. The kit supplier stated that some airplane owners who had accidents reported that the harness installation had saved their lives.

In general, shoulder harness installations should not use the center of an unsupported wing carrythrough tube or other unsupported member as an attachment point. This type of attachment may pose a risk to the structural integrity of the airplane. Although the attachment may be a clamp-on fitting that does not alter the existing airframe, the installation may result in a major change in the type design. This is because the shoulder harness attachment may introduce new loading conditions into the carrythrough tube.

It is acceptable for the carrythrough structure to be damaged in an emergency landing. However, it is unacceptable for the tube to fail in-flight. Carrythrough tubes, highly loaded in compression, may experience a beam-column buckling failure if the occupant applies a load to the shoulder harness attachment. In some cases, very small loads on the shoulder harness attachment may cause beam-column buckling failures.

Some shoulder harnesses that have been installed by minor change do not have a TSO approval. TSO-C114, Torso Restraint Systems, was issued March 27, 1987. Torso restraint systems manufactured before that date did not have to meet the prescribed Society of Automotive Engineers standard, Aerospace Standard 8043, Aircraft Torso Restraint System, dated March 1986. AC 43.13-2A and AC 21-34 provide guidance for acceptable harnesses. Acceptable harnesses for minor change installations include:

• Harnesses that meet TSO-C114 or Military Specification (MIL-SPEC) requirements,

• Harnesses that have been produced under a Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA), or

• Other harnesses appropriate to the certification basis of the aircraft.

We have studied the circumstances and legality of shoulder harness installations done by minor change. An airplane owner may wish to install shoulder harnesses, but an STC or prior Field Approval is not available for his airplane. In this case, it is not likely that an individual airplane owner would apply for an STC or a Field Approval. This is because of the costs involved in hiring an engineering consultant to perform the structural test and any associated structural analysis. Also, there is a possibility that the airframe may be damaged during the pull test. In such installations, a pull test would not be done and there is no assurance that the installation will provide occupant protection to the ultimate inertia force requirements (particularly the 9.0-g forward force) of § 23.561 or CAR 3.386.

Concerning the legality of shoulder harness installation by minor change, we conclude: Since CAR 3.386 and § 23.561(b)(1) before Amendment 23-36 (which became effective September 14, 1988) state that “proper use is made of belts or harnesses provided in the design,” the previously approved seat belt installation alone must meet the prescribed ultimate inertia forces.

Civil Air Regulation 3.652, Functional and installational requirements, states: “Each item of equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane shall be found by the Administrator to perform adequately the functions for which it is to be used, shall function properly when installed, and shall be adequately labeled as to its identification, function, operational limitations, or any combination of these, whichever is applicable.”

Before Amendment 23-20 (which became effective September 1, 1977), § 23.1301 contained essentially the same requirement as CAR 3.652. Amendment 23-20 deleted the words “essential to safe operation” and made the provisions of § 23.1301 applicable to “each item of installed equipment.”

Regarding these rules we conclude that if a shoulder harness is not required equipment, it is not essential to the safe operation of the airplane. Therefore, CAR 3.652 and § 23.1301, before Amendment 23-20, should not be used as a basis to prohibit shoulder harness installation by minor change. These rules should be applied to shoulder harness installations made by STC and Field Approval.

The mechanic making such installations should consult AC 43.13-2A, Chapter 9, for information on restraint systems, effective restraint angles, attachment methods, and other details of installation.

Section 104(d) of the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4703(d)) established the Community Development Advisory Board (the “Advisory Board”). The charter for the Advisory Board has been filed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The function of the Advisory Board is to advise the Director of the Fund (who has been delegated the authority to administer the Fund) on the policies regarding the activities of the Fund. The Fund is a wholly owned corporation within the Department of the Treasury. The Advisory Board shall not advise the Fund on the granting or denial of any particular application for monetary or non-monetary awards. The Advisory Board shall meet at least annually.

It has been determined that this document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and therefore regulatory impact analysis is not required. In addition, this document does not constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

The next meeting of the Advisory Board, all of which will be open to the public, will be held at the Treasury Executive Institute, located at 1255 22nd Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC, on Thursday, October 19, 2000 at 10 a.m. The room will accommodate 30 members of the public. Seats are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Participation in the discussions at the meeting will be limited to Advisory Board members and Department of the Treasury staff. Anyone who would like to have the Advisory Board consider a written statement must submit it to the Fund, at the address of the Fund specified above in the For Further Information, Contact section, by 4 p.m., Monday, October 16, 2000.

The meeting will include a report from the Director on the activities of the CDFI Fund since the last Advisory Board meeting, including programmatic, fiscal and legislative initiatives for the years 2000 and 2001.