FSMIP is authorized under Section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). The program is a matching fund program designed to assist State Departments of Agriculture or other appropriate State agencies in conducting studies or developing innovative approaches related to the marketing of agricultural products. Other organizations interested in participating in this program should contact their State Department of Agriculture's Marketing Division to discuss their proposal.

Mutually acceptable proposals are submitted by the State Agency and must be accompanied by a completed Standard Form (SF)-424 with SF-424A and SF-424B attached. FSMIP funds may not be sued for advertising or, with limited exceptions, for the purchase of equipment or facilities. Guidelines may be obtained from your State Department of Agriculture or the above AMS contact.

Funds can be requested for a wide range of marketing research and marketing service activities, including projects aimed at:

(1) Developing and testing new or more efficient methods of processing, packaging, handling, storing, transporting, and distributing food and other agricultural products;

(2) Assessing customer response to new or alternative agricultural products or marketing services and evaluating potential opportunities for U.S. producers, processors and other agribusinesses, in both domestic and international markets; and

(3) Identifying problems and impediments in existing channels of trade between producers and consumers of agricultural products and devising improved marketing practices, facilities, or systems to address such problems.

While all proposals which fall within the FSMIP guidelines will be considered, States are encouraged to submit proposals in the following areas, which correspond with ongoing national initiatives in support of:

(1) Small farms—to increase the base of marketing research and marketing services of particular importance to small-scale, limited-resource farmers and rural agribusinesses, with emphasis on projects aimed at identifying and improving producers' abilities to participate in alternative domestic and export markets;

(2) Direct marketing—to identify and evaluate opportunities for producers to respond directly to new or expanding consumer demands for products and value-adding services, with emphasis on projects which concurrently address the needs of presently under served consumers; and

(3) Sustainable agriculture—to encourage the development of marketing channels and methods consistent with maintaining or improving the environment, with emphasis on projects aimed at expanding consumers' choices with regard to the environmental impact of alternative production and marketing technologies.

Copies of the FSMIP guidelines may be obtained by contacting the person listed as the contact for further information. FSMIP is listed in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” under number 10.156 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all Federally assisted programs.

Surplus commodities donated for distribution under TEFAP are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) commodities determined to be available for donation by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, 7 U.S.C. 1431 (section 416) and commodities purchased under the surplus removal authority of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, 7 U.S.C. 612c (section 32). The types of commodities typically made available under section 416 include dairy, grains, oils, and peanut products. The types of commodities purchased under section 32 include meat, poultry, fish, vegetables, dry beans, juices and fruits. Donations of surplus commodities were initiated in 1981 as part of the Department's efforts to reduce stockpiles of government-owned commodities, such as cheese, flour, butter, and cornmeal, which had been acquired under section 416. These donations responded to concern over the costs to taxpayers of storing large quantities of foods, while at the same time there were persons in need of food assistance. Because of changes in the agricultural commodity loan programs which have brought supply and demand into better balance, and accelerated donations and sales, the supply of surplus commodities has been reduced from the early 1980s. However, this trend reversed itself beginning in FY 1997. In FY 2000, the Department purchased over $159.5 million worth of surplus commodities. Most of these were purchased with Section 32 funds. The authority to donate surplus commodities for distribution through TEFAP is currently codified in Section 202 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 7 U.S.C. 7502 (EFAA).

In FY 2001, the Department anticipates that there will be sufficient quantities of nonfat dry milk available for donation under section 416, and raisins and frozen lamb under section 32, to support the distribution of these commodities through TEFAP in FY 2001. The Department would like to point out that commodity acquisitions are based on changing agricultural market conditions; therefore, the availability of commodities is subject to change. Approximately half of the surplus commodities purchased in FY 2000 will be delivered in FY 2001. These commodities include frozen lamb roasts, frozen sausage, trail mix, dried cranberries, dried and frozen cherries, frozen strawberries, frozen and canned peaches, fresh and canned pears, figs, almonds, and the following canned items: cranberry sauce, applesauce, apricots, grape juice, cranapple juice, apple juice, and tomato products.

In addition to the surplus commodities the Department expects to make available under sections 416 and 32, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-224, makes $200 million available for use in purchasing specialty crops that experienced low prices during the 1998 and 1999 crop years. These include apples, black-eyed peas, cherries, citrus crops, cranberries or cranberry products, onions, melons, peaches, and potatoes. Section 816 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Activities Appropriation Act of 2001 (Public Law 106-387) requires that not less than $30 million of the total $200 million be used for cranberry products. A significant amount of these commodities will be made available for distribution through TEFAP in FY 2001.

Congress responded to the reduced availability of surplus commodities with section 104 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, Public Law 100-435, which added sections 213 and 214 to the EFAA. Those sections require the Secretary to purchase commodities for distribution to States in addition to those surplus commodities which otherwise might be provided to States for distribution under TEFAP. Under section 871(d) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104-193, Congress repealed the authorization of funds for food purchases under section 214 of the EFAA. However, section 871(g) added a new section 27 to the Food Stamp Act of 1977, 7 U.S.C. 2011, et seq. (FSA), under which the Secretary is required to use $100 million from the funds made available to carry out the FSA for each of FYs 1997 through 2002 to purchase a variety of nutritious and useful commodities and distribute the commodities to States for distribution through TEFAP. In addition to the $100 million, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Activities Appropriation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 106-387), provides a separate administrative funding appropriation of $45 million that is allocated among States in the same manner as commodities. At the discretion of each State, any funds remaining after the State has met the EFAA requirement that at least 40 percent of all funds received must be provided to cover the direct expenses of emergency feeding organizations may be used by the Department to purchase additional commodities for TEFAP (7 U.S.C. 7508).

For FY 2001, the Department anticipates purchasing the following commodities for distribution through TEFAP: Dehydrated potatoes, corn syrup, egg mix, blackeye beans, great northern beans, kidney beans, lima beans, pinto beans, prunes, raisins, bakery mix, lowfat bakery mix, egg noodles, white corn grits, macaroni, oats, peanut butter, rice, spaghetti, vegetable oil, rice cereal, corn flakes, corn squares, oat cereal, frozen ground beef, frozen chicken, frozen turkey roast, and the following canned items: Green beans, refried beans, vegetarian beans, cream corn, whole kernel corn, sliced potatoes, spaghetti sauce, tomatoes, tomato sauce, tomato soup, vegetarian soup, apple juice, grapefruit juice, orange juice, pineapple juice, tomato juice, peaches, pineapples, applesauce, pears, plums, beef, beef stew, chicken, pork, tuna, and roasted peanuts. In addition, the Department expects to purchase the following new items: Frozen ham, bran flakes, canned carrots, and cranapple juice. The amounts of each item purchased will depend on the prices the Department must pay, as well as the quantity of each item requested by the States. Changes in agricultural market conditions may result in the availability of additional types of commodities or the non-availability of one or more types listed above. State officials will be responsible for determining how to allocate the commodities each State receives among eligible organizations. States have full discretion in determining the amount of commodities that will be made available to organizations for distribution to needy households for use in home-prepared meals or for providing prepared meals to the needy at congregate feeding sites.

On November 15, 2000, the Department of Commerce published the amended final results of administrative reviews of the antidumping duty orders on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. The classes or kinds of merchandise covered by these reviews are ball bearings and parts thereof, cylindrical roller bearings and parts thereof, and spherical plain bearings and parts thereof. The period of review is May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994.

In our notice of amended final results, we stated that all litigation pertaining to the results of the reviews was final and conclusive. This statement was erroneous; one matter relating to the administrative reviews of the orders on antifriction bearings and parts thereof from Germany remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This matter concerns the final results of review for one respondent, FAG Kugelfischer Georg Schaefer AG (FAG Germany). Hence, the results for FAG Germany that we published in our notice of amended final results do not reflect the final results for this company. We will not instruct the U.S. Customs service to liquidate entries for this company until all final and conclusive action has been taken on the pending matter and after we have published amended final results of review for this respondent.

The amended final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on antifriction bearings (other than tapered roller bearings) and parts thereof from Germany that we published in a notice of amended final results of review on November 15, 2000, do not reflect the final results for the respondent-company FAG Germany.

This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a) of the Tariff Act.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department) regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).

The Department published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2000 (65 FR 49962) a “Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan. On August 31, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of this order with respect to Nippon and Kawasaki. Also, on August 31, 2000, Dana requested an administrative review for merchandise produced by Daido and imported by Dana, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. section 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR section 351.213(b)(3). On October 2, 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 (65 FR 58733). On October 3, 1999, the Department issued questionnaires to Nippon, Kawasaki, and Daido.

On November 8, 2000, Kawasaki submitted section A of its questionnaire response. On December 6, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to Kawasaki. Petitioners were the only party requesting the review and their request for withdrawal was made within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. The Department is therefore rescinding the review with respect to Kawasaki in accordance with that regulation.

On October 31, 2000, Nippon submitted section A of its questionnaire response. On December 6, 2000, petitioners requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to Nippon. Petitioners were the only party requesting the review and their request for withdrawal was made within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR section 351.213(d)(1). The Department is therefore rescinding the review with respect to Nippon in accordance with that regulation.

On November 21, 2000, U.S. importer Dana withdrew its request for administrative review of Daido. Dana was the only party requesting the review and its request for withdrawal was made within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation in accordance with 19 CFR section 351.213(d)(1). The Department is therefore rescinding the review with respect to Daido in accordance with that regulation.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR section 351.213(d)(4).

The OCNMS Advisory Council was originally established in August 1995 and has a broad representation consisting of 19 members. The Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the state and federal management agencies, Native American tribes, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts for management and protection of natural and cultural resources of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary.

The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Superintendent and is instrumental in helping produce annual operating plans and reports by identifying education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection and revenue enhancement priorities. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Superintendent by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Superintendent in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in India and exported during the period January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2001 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In addition, a document published in the Federal Register on December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70219) announced the extension of the suspension of the Group II restriction for rayon filament yarn in HTS number 5403.31.0040 in Category 606 from India for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000. Also see 62 FR 60826, published on November 13, 1997.

The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has decided to extend the suspension for an additional twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2001 and extending through December 31, 2001. A visa is still required for this product.

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2001 limits and extend the suspension of the Group II restriction. The 2001 limits for certain categories have been reduced for carryforward applied to the 2000 limits.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 64 FR 71982, published on December 22, 1999. Information regarding the 2001 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

Advanced scientific computing will be a key contributor to scientific research in the 21st Century. Within the Office of Science (SC), scientific computing programs and facilities are already essential to progress in many areas of research critical to the nation. Major scientific challenges exist in all SC research programs that can best be addressed through advances in scientific supercomputing, e.g., designing materials with selected properties, elucidating the structure and function of proteins, understanding and controlling plasma turbulence, and designing new particle accelerators. To help ensure its missions are met, SC is bringing together advanced scientific computing and scientific research in an integrated program entitled “Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing.”

Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade have set the stage for a major advance in scientific computing. Within the next five to ten years, computers 1,000 times faster than today's computers will become available. These advances herald a new era in scientific computing. Using such computers, it will be possible to dramatically extend our exploration of the fundamental processes of nature ( e.g., the structure of matter from the most elementary particles to the building blocks of life,) as well as advance our ability to predict the behavior of a broad range of complex natural and engineered systems ( e.g., the earth's climate or an automobile engine).

To exploit this opportunity, these computing advances must be translated into corresponding increases in the performance of the scientific codes used to model physical, chemical, and biological systems. This is a daunting problem. Current advances in computing technology are being driven by market forces in the commercial sector, not by scientific computing. Harnessing commercial computing technology for scientific research poses problems unlike those encountered in previous supercomputers, in magnitude as well as in kind. As noted in the 1998 report  1 from the NSF/DOE “National Workshop on Advanced Scientific Computing” and the 1999 report  2 from the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, this problem will only be solved by increased investments in computer software—in research and development on scientific simulation codes as well as on the mathematical and computing systems software that underlie these codes.

To meet the challenge posed by the new generation of terascale computers, SC will fund a set of coordinated investments as outlined in its long-range plan for scientific computing, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing, 3 submitted to Congress on March 30, 2000. First, it will create a Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure that bridges the gap between the advanced computing technologies being developed by the computer industry and the scientific research programs sponsored by the Office of Science. Specifically, the SC effort proposes to:

• Create a new generation of Scientific Simulation Codes that take full advantage of the extraordinary computing capabilities of terascale computers.

• Create the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software to enable the Scientific Simulation Codes to effectively and efficiently use terascale computers.

• Create a Collaboratory Software Environment to enable geographically-separated scientists to effectively work together as a team and to facilitate remote access to both facilities and data.

These activities are supported by a Scientific Computing Hardware Infrastructure that will be tailored to meet the needs of its research programs. The Hardware Infrastructure is robust, to provide the stable computing resources needed by the scientific applications; agile, to respond to innovative advances in computer technology that impact scientific computing; and flexible, to allow the most appropriate and economical resources to be used to solve each class of problems. Specifically, the SC proposes to support:

• A Flagship Computing Facility, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), to provide the robust, high-end computing resources needed by a broad range of scientific research programs.

• Topical Computing Facilities to provide computing resources tailored for specific scientific applications and to serve as the focal point for an application community as it strives to optimize its use of terascale computers.

• Experimental Computing Facilities to assess the promise of new computing technologies being developed by the computer industry for scientific applications.

Both sets of investments will create exciting opportunities for teams of researchers from laboratories and universities to create new revolutionary computing capabilities for scientific discovery.

The Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, along with the upgrades to the hardware infrastructure, will enable laboratory and university researchers to solve the most challenging scientific problems faced by the Office of Science at a level of accuracy and detail never before achieved. These developments will have significant benefit to all of the government agencies who rely on high-performance scientific computing to achieve their mission goals as well as to the U.S. high-performance computing industry.

This solicitation addresses the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software Environment element of the SciDAC Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure. ISIC envisions a comprehensive, integrated, scalable, and robust high performance software infrastructure, which overcomes difficult technical challenges to enable the effective use of terascale systems by SciDAC applications. ISIC addresses needs for: New algorithms which scale to parallel systems having thousands of processors; methodology for achieving portability and interoperability of complex high performance scientific software packages; operating systems tools and support for the effective management of terascale and beyond systems; and effective tools for feature identification, data management and visualization of petabyte-scale scientific data sets. ISIC provides the essential computing and communications infrastructure for support of SciDAC applications. The ISIC effort encompasses a multi-discipline approach with activities in:

• Algorithms, methods, and libraries—Algorithms, methods and libraries that are fully scalable to many thousands of processors with full performance portability.

• Program development environments and tools—Component-based, fully integrated, terascale program development and runtime tools, which scale effectively and provide maximum utility and ease-of-use to developers and scientific end users.

• Operating system software and tools—Systems software that scales to tens of thousands of processors, supports high performance application-level communication and provides the highest levels of fault tolerance, reliability, manageability, and ease of use for system administrators, tool developers and end users.

• Visualization and data management systems—Scalable, intuitive systems fully supportive of SciDAC application requirements for moving, storing, analyzing, querying, manipulating and visualizing multi-petabytes of scientific data and objects.

The complexity of these challenges and the strong emphasis on scalability, interoperability and portability requires novel approaches in the proposed technical research and the research management structure. ISIC emphasizes the formation of Enabling Technologies Centers (ETC) as an organizational basis for successful applications. An ETC is a virtual multi-institution, multi-disciplinary team which will:

• Create mathematical and/or computing systems software to enable scientific simulation codes to take full advantage of the extraordinary capabilities of terascale computers;

• Work closely with application teams and other SciDAC teams to ensure that the most critical computer science and applied mathematics issues are addressed in a timely and comprehensive fashion; and

• Address all aspects of the successful research software lifecycle including transition of a research code into a robust production code and long term software evolution and maintenance and end user support.

This notice is one of several that addresses the initial requirements of the SciDAC program. The focus is on four topics: (1) Algorithms, methods and libraries; (2) program development environments and tools; (3) operating systems software and tools; and (4) visualization and data management. Responses to this notice may propose work in one or more of these areas and may be single institution efforts or partnerships that involve many organizations. It is expected that most, if not all, of the proposed activities will be organized as ETCs. Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following examples listed for each subtopic:

(a) Mesh generation and discretization technology. Tools to facilitate the generation and partitioning of all types of meshes (structured, unstructured, and chimera (overlapping)) designed for many thousands of processors.

(b) Mathematical analysis and scalable numerical algorithms. Mathematical methods to help SciDAC applications achieve high performance on hierarchical memory terascale computers such as multiscale analysis, multilevel methods, and fast transforms capable of spanning multiple spatial and temporal scales. Resultant algorithms must be deployed in component-based mathematical software and made available to a broad range of DOE mission areas.

(a) High Performance Component Architectures. Component technology that builds upon and extends commercial component architectures to support high performance parallel components, low-latency, high bandwidth communication among components, and efficient data and work redistribution.

(b) Code Design and Development Tools. Scaling methodology to deploy existing parallel code development environments on multi-teraflops SciDAC systems. Support for multi-language applications including C, C++, UPC, Fortran, Co-Array Fortran, Python and Java; parallel programming libraries, such as MPI, OpenMP, thread libraries, the Global Array library; and multi-level hierarchical memory programming models.

(c) Code Correctness and Validation. Debugging tools that implement emerging community standards in parallel debuggers and automated data dependency analysis. Relative debugging methodology for comparing at run time the execution of two versions of a code.

(d) Performance Tools. Evaluation of existing research and commercial performance analysis tools, both tracefile-based and dynamic, for scalability and suitability for SciDAC applications. Performance metrics and benchmarks which enable reliable and credible performance predictions of application codes on terascale and larger systems. Tools which link hardware counters to meaningful terascale system performance characteristics and application performance.

(a) Terascale System Resource Management. Modular infrastructure for resource management on terascale clusters including resource scheduling, meta-scheduling, node daemon support, comprehensive usage accounting and user interfaces that also emphasizes portability to terascale vendor operating systems.

(b) Terascale System Support. Scalable checkpointing and improved runtime steering for early deployment. Methodology for analyzing tradeoffs between fault tolerance and peak performance. Support for robust runtime job management and I/O systems that are tolerant of component failure. Scalable tools for system administration including initial system boot, system updates, job launch and system utilities.

(c) High Performance Communication. Operating system support for application level communication which scales to thousands of processors, provides minimum latency and maximum bandwidth between parallel application processes. Innovative approaches to terascale operating system architectures including non-uniform kernel support for computational, service, interactive and i/o nodes.

(a) Data Management Systems. Data exchange methods and standardizations that facilitate collaborative applications. Innovative Database Management Systems (DBMS) approaches for high throughput parallel I/O and complex queries of large scientific databases. Hierarchical data storage systems involving tertiary storage media that are sequential. Agent methodology for feature extraction and complex query operations. Tools for user-driven and automatic clustering, reclustering or replication of objects to maximize retrieval efficiency. Collaborations with the DBMS and tertiary storage vendor industry are encouraged.

(b) Visualization. Vector/tensor field visualization in 3-D. Modes of visualization for interpretation and understanding of large datasets. Remote and collaborative visualization methods. Characterization of simulation, experimental and visualization errors/uncertainties. Adaptive, multiresolution, parallel and scalable visualization algorithms. Innovative techniques for exploring multi-dimensional, multi-discipline data sets.

Collaborations with the high performance hardware and software vendor industry are encouraged wherever appropriate.

Responses to this notice should cover the full range of activities from basic research to development of software that can be deployed to the SciDAC applications communities. It is critical that these submissions demonstrate effective strategies for coupling with requirements from applications researchers and ensuring that software developed will interoperate with software developed by other ISIC activities and be effectively deployed to SciDAC computing facilities and applications groups.

ISIC envisions a fully integrated software environment that provides both robustness and ease of use to the end user application scientist. Implementation of this vision will be coordinated through a participatory management process with input from ISIC teams and other key participants of SciDAC. As component and tool implementations mature, each team will be expected to develop the necessary technology to fully and smoothly incorporate their software tools into the ISIC environment.

ISIC activities play a critical cross-cutting role in the SciDAC. ISIC goals require significant interactions, ranging from the joint development and deployment of tools and technologies into the applications community, to the incorporation of needed capabilities into new products and systems. ISIC researchers will need to interact closely with diverse groups including: applications scientists, vendor providers, the DOE ASCI program, and other federal agency programs addressing complementary goals. To support and facilitate the maximum impact of the SciDAC Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, high emphasis will be placed on ensuring that source code is fully and freely available for use and modification throughout the scientific computing community.

This solicitation is focused on larger ETC efforts in support of the SciDAC program. Applications to the OASCR base program through the Continuing Solicitation for all Office of Science Programs Notice 01-01, found at ­http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html, which may have the potential for contributing to the ISIC software infrastructure, should so indicate.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as: universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to include cost sharing wherever feasible. Additional information on collaboration is available in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available via the Internet at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html.

It is anticipated that up to $7 million annually will be available for multiple awards for these components of the ISIC program. Initial awards will be made in FY 2001 in the categories described above, and applications may request project support for up to five years. All awards are contingent on the availability of funds, research progress, and programmatic needs. Annual budgets for successful ISIC projects are expected to range from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 per project. Annual budgets may increase in the out-years but should remain within the overall annual maximum guidance. Any proposed effort that exceeds the annual maximum in the out-years should be separately identified for potential award increases if additional funds become available.

Preapplications are strongly encouraged but not required prior to submission of a full application. However, notification of a successful preapplication is not an indication that an award will be made in response to the formal application. The preapplication should identify on the cover sheet the institution, Principal Investigator name(s), address(s), telephone, and fax number(s) and E-mail address(es), title of the project, and the field of scientific research. A brief (one-page) vitae should be provided for each Principal Investigator. The preapplication should consist of a two to three page narrative describing the research project objectives, the approach to be taken, and a description of any research partnerships. Preapplications will be reviewed by DOE relative to the scope and research needs of the ISIC program.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria listed in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project,

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach,

3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources,

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

The evaluation of applications under item 1, Scientific and Technical Merit, will pay particular attention to:

(a) The potential of the proposed project to make a significant impact in the effectiveness of SciDAC applications researchers;

(b) The demonstrated capabilities of the applicants to perform basic research related to ISIC and transform these research results into software that can be widely deployed;

(c) The likelihood that the algorithms, methods, mathematical libraries, and software components that result from this effort will have impact on science disciplines outside of the SciDAC applications projects;

(d) Identification and approach to software integration and long term support issues, including component technology, documentation, test cases, tutorials, end user training, and quality maintenance and evolution.

The evaluation under item 2, Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach, will also consider the following elements related to Quality of Planning:

(a) Quality of the plan for effective coupling to applications researchers;

(b) Quality of plan for ensuring interoperability and integration with software produced by other ISIC and SciDAC efforts;

(b) Viability of plan for deployment of software to SciDAC facilities and applications groups;

(c) Knowledge of and coupling to other efforts in high performance scientific computing software such as the DOE ACTS program, the DOE ASCI program and the NSF ITR program;

(d) Quality and clarity of proposed work schedule and deliverables.

Note that external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution. Reviewers will be selected to represent expertise in the technology areas proposed, applications groups that are potential users of the technology, and related programs in other Federal Agencies or parts of DOE, such as the Advanced Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) within DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration.

Information about the development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluation, selection process, and other policies and procedures including detailed procedures for submitting proposals from multi-institution partnerships may be found in 10 CFR part 605, and in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program. Electronic access to the Guide and required forms is made available via the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. The Project Description must be 20 pages or less, including tables and figures, but exclusive of attachments. The application must contain an abstract or project summary, letters of intent from collaborators, and short vitae.

Advanced scientific computing will be a key contributor to scientific research in the 21st Century. Within the Office of Science (SC), scientific computing programs and facilities are already essential to progress in many areas of research critical to the nation. Major scientific challenges exist in all SC research programs that can best be addressed through advances in scientific supercomputing—designing materials with selected properties, elucidating the structure and function of proteins, understanding and controlling plasma turbulence, and designing new particle accelerators. To help ensure its missions are met, SC is bringing together advanced scientific computing and scientific research in an integrated program entitled “Scientific Discovery Through Advanced Computing.”

Extraordinary advances in computing technology in the past decade have set the stage for a major advance in scientific computing. Within the next five to ten years, computers that are 1,000 times faster than today's computers will become available. These advances herald a new era in scientific computing. Using such computers, it will be possible to dramatically extend our exploration of the fundamental processes of nature ( e.g., the structure of matter from the most elementary particles to the building blocks of life) as well as advance our ability to predict the behavior of a broad range of complex natural and engineered systems ( e.g., the earth's climate or an automobile engine).

To exploit this opportunity, these computing advances must be translated into corresponding increases in the performance of the scientific codes used to model physical, chemical, and biological systems. This is a daunting problem. Current advances in computing technology are being driven by market forces in the commercial sector, not by scientific computing. Harnessing commercial computing technology for scientific research poses problems unlike those encountered in previous supercomputers, in magnitude as well as in kind. As noted in the 1998 repor t 1 from the NSF/DOE “National Workshop on Advanced Scientific Computing” and the 1999 report  2 from the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, this problem will only be solved by increasing investments in computer software—in research and development on scientific simulation codes as well as on the mathematical and computing systems software that underlie these codes.

To meet the challenge posed by the new generation of terascale computers, SC will fund a set of coordinated investments as outlined in the long plan for scientific computing, Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing, 3 submitted to Congress on March 30, 2000. First, it will create a Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure that bridges the gap between the advanced computing technologies being developed by the computer industry and the scientific research programs sponsored by the Office of Science. Specifically, the SC effort proposes to:

• Create a new generation of Scientific Simulation Codes that take full advantage of the extraordinary computing capabilities of terascale computers.

• Create the Mathematical and Computing Systems Software to enable the Scientific Simulation Codes to effectively and efficiently use terascale computers.

• Create a Collaboratory Software Environment to enable geographically separated scientists to effectively work together as a team and to facilitate remote access to both facilities and data.

These activities will be supported by a Scientific Computing Hardware Infrastructure that has been tailored to meet the needs of its research programs. The Hardware Infrastructure is robust, to provide the stable computing resources needed by the scientific applications; agile, to respond to innovative advances in computer technology that impact scientific computing; and flexible, to allow the most appropriate and economical resources to be used to solve each class of problems. Specifically, the SC proposes to support:

• A Flagship Computing Facility, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), to provide the robust, high-end computing resources needed by a broad range of scientific research programs.

• Topical Computing Facilities to provide computing resources tailored for specific scientific applications and to serve as the focal point for an application community as it strives to optimize its use of terascale computers.

• Experimental Computing Facilities to assess the promise of new computing technologies being developed by the computer industry for scientific applications.

Both sets of investments will create exciting opportunities for teams of researchers from laboratories and universities to create new revolutionary computing capabilities for scientific discovery.

The Scientific Computing Software Infrastructure, along with the upgrades to the hardware infrastructure, will enable laboratory and university researchers to solve the most challenging scientific problems faced by the Office of Science at a level of accuracy and detail never before achieved. These developments will have significant benefit to all of the government agencies who rely on high-performance scientific computing to achieve their mission goals as well as to the U.S. high-performance computing industry.

The current core programs in ASCR are intended to enhance the Department's ability to satisfy mission requirements through advanced technologies such as distributed computing, national collaboratories, high performance networks, remote access to facilities, and remote access to petabyte-scale datasets with complex internal structure. Within this context, the National Collaboratories and High Performance Networks Programs provide a coordinated program of technology research and development that leverages the strengths of computer and computational science research programs and partners with science application pilot projects. Likewise, these programs support the Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing by enabling integration of multi-institutional, geographically-dispersed researcher into effective, efficient teams and by providing distributed computing environments and tools to support the use of remote computers and access to data and facilities.

Advances in high performance network capabilities and collaboration technologies are making it easier for large geographically dispersed teams to collaborate effectively. This is especially important for the teams using the major computational resources, data resources, and experimental facilities supported by DOE. With leadership from DOE, these geographically distributed laboratories or collaboratories have begun to play an important role in the Nation's scientific enterprise. The importance of collaboratories is expected to increase in the future. However, significant research questions must be addressed if collaboratories are to achieve their potential: namely, to enable remote access facilities that produce petabytes/year; to provide remote users an experience that approaches the same as “being there;” to provide remote visualization of terabyte to petabyte data sets from computational simulation; and to enable effective remote access to advanced scientific computers.

Solving the challenging network and distributed computing problems calls for new modalities of scientific research. Many scientific applications when deployed on existing networks fail to meet the end-to-end expectations for performance. This is especially true for distributed high-end applications such as remote visualization and high capacity data transfer. Recent advances in optical networks brought about by Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) are resulting in unprecedented increases for bandwidth in the core networks. However, many challenging protocol engineering, traffic engineering, and high-performance middleware problems must be addressed before complex scientific high-end applications and collaboratories can benefit from this increase in bandwidth. Harnessing this bandwidth at the application level poses some important and challenging problems.

Research is needed to understand what services collaboratories require and how these services should be integrated with the large number of network devices and network-attached devices that must work together. Examples of the components and services that need to be integrated include: data archives on tape, high performance disk caches, visualization and data analysis servers, authentication and security services, directory services, network resources, and computational systems including the computer on a scientist's desk. All of these physical and software services must be tied together by common software framework building blocks or “middleware” to enable the collaboratories of the future to succeed.

Further, at the network level, research is needed for advanced services to develop advanced network services and tools to deliver high end-to-end performance to distributed scientific applications. There are several areas that can contribute to improving the end-to-end performance for secure multi-gigabits/sec transport that some of DOE's advanced scientific applications require. These include: enhancement of existing transport protocols, the development of accurate measurement and analysis techniques, and the network services that can provide online performance predictions.

These challenges will be addressed through an integrated program of fundamental research in high performance networking and collaboratory technologies in partnership with key scientific disciplines that provide the applications—the research may be focused for short-term results (within three years) or long term (five-years and greater). This announcement seeks applications in three areas:

1. Middleware: research and development projects that will address individual technology elements to enable universal, ubiquitous, easy access to remote resources or that will contribute to the ease with which distributed teams work together. Enabling high performance for scientific applications is an important consideration.

2. Collaboratory Pilots: research and development of enabling technologies that is integrated with and required by distributed scientific applications. An example of such a distributed application is the real-time data acquisition, reduction and visualization for macromolecular crystallography using a high intensity X-ray light source facility remotely. Another distributed application could be an extensive network measurement and analysis infrastructure employed to diagnose and predict end-to-end performance.

3. High Performance Network Engineering: research, development, and testing of advanced network protocols, traffic engineering, and network services that can significantly improve capabilities, end-to-end performance, and controllability of networks infrastructures designed to support distributed scientific applications.

To the extent that software and/or infrastructure development is involved, all applications to this notice should address the issues that characterize a successful research lifecycle. That is, technology transfer strategies should be provided for the transition of research code and/or infrastructure into robust production. Long term software evolution and maintenance and end user support should also be considered.

Integration of work efforts across all projects funded under this notice will occur following the awards, to preclude duplication of effort and to maximize leveraging and coordination. Projects are expected to work closely with other SciDAC teams, where identified during this integration. Coordination through a participatory management process will continue for the life of the projects.

1. Middleware technology research and development projects are to have certain characteristics. Products of this research and development are expected to provide services that interoperate and feature common interfaces. It should be easy to learn and use the tools. Applications in response to this notice should delineate an effective strategy for coupling with requirements from the scientific applications of the potential collaboratories. Applications in response to this notice should also provide a plan for software maintenance and support.

Middleware technology research and development projects that enable collaboration may focus on providing a broad set of tools or toolkits to support, but are not limited to, the following areas of interest:

• Collaborative Visualization.

• Collaborative Problem Solving Environments.

• Real-time Analysis.

• Group Collaboration.

• Data Management.

• Science Portals.

• On-line Instrumentation.

• Data Grids.

In addition, middleware technology research and development projects may address standard services and protocols that are needed to enable persistent, universal, and ubiquitous access to networked resources, such as, but are not limited to, the following:

• Directory Services.

• Authentication/Authorization Services.

• Co-scheduling Distributed Resources.

• Multicast and efficient broadcast capabilities.

• Automatic resource discovery protocols.

• Remote data access services.

• Network-attached memory and storage systems.

• Communications services.

For middleware technology research and development projects, it is estimated that between four and eight awards could be made in FY 2001, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. The scope of a single-focus project is expected to range from $150K to $500K.

Collaboratory pilots should have certain characteristics. The project should:

• Address a problem of national scientific or engineering significance clearly related to the mission of DOE and have high visibility.

• Involve geographically separated groups of personnel and/or facilities that are inherently required to collaborate or be used remotely for success of the project.

The project may:

• Focus on developing and providing a set of middleware services needed by a broad set of applications requiring distributed computing capabilities.

• Focus solely on advanced network development and testing such as a measurement and analysis infrastructure to accurately measure, calibrate, diagnose performance related problems, and predict the end-to-end performance of operational high-speed networks.

All responses to this notice must provide a plan for transition to sustaining activities and services for end users on completion of the project. The scope of a collaboratory pilot is expected to be about $0.5M to $2.5M total per year. This is the total for all the institutions participating and it is expected that a single institution would be funded at a level of no more than $600K. It is estimated that three to five awards will be made for this area during FY 2001.

It is also possible for middleware technology research and development projects and/or collaboratory pilots to address an element for evaluating systems and their impact on the process of science, namely identifying factors that facilitate or impede the adoption of technology.

2. High Performance Network Engineering is key to the DOE vision of collaborative scientific research environments in which geographically distributed research teams and computing resources are interconnected to form a virtual computing research environment. Emerging high-end scientific applications, when deployed on existing networks, fail to meet the expected end-to-end performance, latency, security, and guaranteed quality of service required for complex scientific investigations. The high-performance network program addresses these challenges in the current announcement by focusing in three major research areas of high performance network engineering:

• Network Measurement and Analysis: Focuses on the fundamental issues of end-to-end performance through measurement and analysis.

• High-performance Transport Protocols: Addresses the performance and security enhancement issues of traditional protocols operating in high-speed, high-performance networks.

• Advanced Traffic Engineering Tools And Services: Deals with advanced tools and service for managing, differentiating, and controlling network traffic in order to satisfy the end-to-end performance objectives.

(a) Network Measurement and Analysis: Applications may address innovative scalable network measurement and analysis infrastructures, tools, services, etc., that can be used to accurately measure, calibrate, diagnose performance related problems, and predict the end-to-end performance of operational high-speed network networks. This may involve passive and active measurement, SNMP derived data, or a combination and may include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Bandwidth estimation techniques for high-speed links (OC-12, OC-48).

• Measurement infrastructures to collect, store, and analyze traffic traces.

• Distributed agent architecture for network measurement and analysis.

• On-line analysis and data mining of measured data.

• Dynamic end-to-end path selection based on online analysis.

• Measurement and calibration of transport protocol performance.

Applications focusing on measurement and analysis infrastructures are expected to work in close collaboration with DOE's Energy Science Network (ESnet) in the deployment measurement facilities. A network research testbed facility has been established, with the cooperation of ESnet, for experimental network research activities. Researchers requiring the use of this experimental facility are encouraged to work closely with the ESnet Research Support Subcommittee (ESRSC) chartered to coordinate the activities of the testbed. A complete description of this experimental facility can be found at http://www.es.net.

(b) High-Performance Transport Protocols: The performance expectation for the delivery of multi-gigabits/sec throughput to distributed scientific applications far exceeds the capability of current networks. This performance expectation raises some fundamental questions concerning the capability of conventional routing protocols optimized for low-speed, best-effort traffic. The current announcement addresses transport protocol performance issues by seeking innovative approaches that may include but are not be limited to the following:

• Transport protocol measurement, tuning, and calibration tools.

• Adaptive extensions of transport protocols for high-speed networks.

• High-performance network traffic characterization.

• Transport protocol parallelization at high-speed.

The objective is to reduce the contribution of transport protocol on end-to-end congestion. Potential applications must provide a sound mathematical analysis of the proposed enhancements when subjected to high-end scientific applications that potentially exercise its important features.

(c) Advanced Traffic Engineering Tools and Services: Addresses the resource and performance optimization of high-performance and high-speed networks, including advanced traffic management and control strategies, services, and tools that can be used for traffic differentiation and for steering traffic. Applications may focus on, but are not limited to, the following:

• QoS-based routing and source routing.

• Dynamic routing and traffic control.

• Congestion notification and avoidance.

• Bandwidth brokering services.

• Advanced traffic management tools and services.

• Simulation of large traffic flows.

Applications addressing these and other related issues should concentrate on those activities that lead to a significant improvement in end-to-end performance of applications running across high performance networks.

The high-performance network research program anticipates funding projects in these three areas in FY 2001. It should also be noted that a collaboratory pilot (as discussed under section 2.) may focus solely on advanced network development and testing such as a measurement and analysis infrastructure to accurately measure, calibrate, diagnose performance related problems, and predict the end-to-end performance of operational high-speed networks. The scope of a single project is expected to range from $150K to $500K.

Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a brief preapplication that consists of two to three pages of narrative describing the research objectives and technical approach(s). Preapplications will be reviewed relative to the scope and research needs of the ASCR National Collaboratories and High Performance Networks Programs, as outlined in the summary paragraph and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. The preapplication should identify, on the cover sheet, the title of the project, the institution, principal investigator name, telephone, fax, and e-mail address. The focus element (Middleware Technology, Collaboratory Pilots, or High Performance Network Engineering) for the preapplication should also be clearly identified. A response to each preapplication discussing the potential programmatic relevance of a formal application will be communicated to the Principal Investigator within 7 to 14 days of receipt.

Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with researchers in other institutions, such as: universities, industry, non-profit organizations, federal laboratories and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including the DOE National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to include cost sharing wherever feasible. Additional information on collaboration is available in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program that is available via the Internet at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/Colab.html.

It is anticipated that up to $6 million will be available for all National Collaboratories and High Performance Networks Programs awards in Fiscal Year 2001; from ten to as many as fifteen awards are anticipated, contingent on availability of appropriated funds in FY 2001 and the size of the awards. Multiple year funding is expected, also contingent on availability of funds and progress of the research.

Awards are expected to be at most $500,000 per year for individual middleware technology and network engineering R&D projects. Awards for collaboratory pilots are expected to be at most $2.5 million per year. Since pilots are expected to be multi-institution projects, awards under this notice would range from $200,000 to $600,000 for participation in a pilot. The term for projects can be from one to three years.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

(1) Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project;

(2) Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach;

(3) Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources;

(4) Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

The evaluation under item 1, Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project, will also consider the following elements:

(a) The potential of the proposed project to make a significant impact in the effectiveness of SciDAC applications researchers.

(b) The degree to which an application area can benefit from collaborative technology.

(c) The extent to which the project will test important collaborative technologies.

(d) The extent to which the results of the project are extensible to other program or discipline areas.

The evaluation under item 2, Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach, will also consider the following elements:

(a) The degree to which the project adheres to the management philosophy of incorporating collaboration into the project execution.

(b) The quality of the plan for ensuring interoperability and integration with software produced by other SciDAC efforts.

(c) The extent to which the project incorporates broad community (industry/academia/other federal programs) interaction.

(d) Quality and clarity of proposed work schedule and deliverables.

(e) Knowledge of and coupling to previous efforts for collaborative technologies such as DOE 2000.

The evaluation will include program policy factors such as the relevance of the proposed research to the terms of the announcement and the agency's programmatic needs. Note, external peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. Non-federal reviewers will often be used, and submission of an application constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) and the submitting institution.

The Project Description must be 20 pages or less, exclusive of attachments. It must contain an abstract or project summary on a separate page with the name of the applicant, mailing address, phone, FAX and E-mail listed. The application must include letters of intent from collaborators (briefly describing the intended contribution of each to the research), and short curriculum vitaes for the applicant and any co-PIs.

To provide a consistent format for the submission, review and solicitation of grant applications submitted under this notice, the preparation and submission of grant applications must follow the guidelines given in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program, 10 CFR Part 605. Access to SC's Financial Assistance Application Guide is possible via the World Wide Web at: http://www.science.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html.

Electronic Copies: Electronic copies of this document are available from the EPA Home Page under the link “Laws and Regulations” at the Federal Register —Environmental Documents entry (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr).

Saputo Cheese USA, Inc., a cheese manufacturing company incorporated in the State of Delaware and located at 25 Tri-State International Office Center, Suite 250, Lincolnshire, Illinois 60069 failed to prepare SPCC plans for four facilities. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. disclosed, pursuant to the EPA “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations' (“Audit Policy”), 60 FR 66,706 (December 22, 1995), that it failed to prepare SPCC plans for four facilities where it stored diesel oil in above ground storage tanks, in violation of the CWA section 311(b)(3) and 40 CFR Part 112, and that it failed to prepare and implement SWPPP plans for ten facilities, in violation of the CWA section 301(a) and 40 CFR Part 122, and CWA section 402(a) and 40 CFR Parts 122.1 and 122.26. EPA determined that Saputo met the criteria set out in the Audit Policy for a 100% waiver of the gravity component of the penalty. As a result, EPA waived the gravity based penalty ($58,825.00) and proposed a settlement penalty amount of nine thousand and eight hundred dollars ($9,800.00). This is the amount of the economic benefit gained by Saputo, attributable to their delayed compliance with the SPCC and NPDES/SWPPP regulations. Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. has agreed to pay this amount in civil penalties. EPA and Saputo negotiated and signed an administrative consent agreement, following the Consolidated Rules of Procedure, 40 CFR section 22.13, on November 21, 2000 ( In Re: Saputo Cheese USA, Inc., Docket No. MM-HQ-2001-005). This consent agreement is subject to public notice and comment under CWA section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. section 1321(b)(6) and CWA section 309(g)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(A).

Under CWA section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b)(6)(A), any owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of the CWA section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to $137,500 by EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA section 311(b)(6) are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 22.

Under CWA section 309(g)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1319 (g)(1)(A), any person found in violation of any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under the CWA section 402(a), 33 U.S.C. 1342, or the CWA section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to $125,000 by EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA section 309(g)(1)(A) are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 22.

The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed Class II penalty order, or participate in a Clean Water Act Class II penalty proceeding, are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting public comment on this proposed final order is January 18, 2001. All comments will be transferred to the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) of EPA for consideration. The powers and duties of the EAB are outlined in 40 CFR 22.04(a).

Pursuant to CWA section 311(b)(6)(C) and CWA section 309(g)(4)(A), EPA will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the public comment period.

The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many requests from fire service organizations and the general public for information related to fire departments, including total number of departments, number of stations per department, population protected, and number of firefighters. The USFA also has a need for this information to guide programmatic decisions, produce mailing lists for USFA publications, and serve as a baseline from which to eventually sample fire loss data. Recommendations for the creation of the fire department database came out of a Blue Ribbon Panel's review of the USFA—initiated by FEMA Director James Lee Witt in the spring of 1998. The report included a review of the structure, mission and funding of the USFA, future policies, programmatic needs, course development and delivery, and the role of the USFA to reflect changes in the fire service. The panel included 13 members of the U.S. fire community. As a result of those recommendations, the USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States to develop and populate a national database that will include information related to demographics, capabilities and activities of fire departments Nationwide.

Title. National Fire Department Census.

Type of Information Collection . New.

Abstract . Many data products and reports exist that contain fragmented or estimated information about fire department demographics, and capabilities, but there is no single reference source today that aggregates this data to provide a complete and accurate profile of fire departments in the United States. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many requests for information related to fire departments, including total number of departments, number of stations per department, population protected, apparatus and equipment status. The USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States to develop and populate a national database that will include information related to demographics, capabilities and activities. The database will be used by USFA to guide programmatic decisions, provide the Fire Service and the public with information about fire departments, to produce mailing lists for USFA publications and other materials, and serve as a baseline from which to sample fire loss data.

Affected Public : Federal, State, local government, volunteer, and industrial fire departments.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours .

Estimated Cost . The estimated costs to the government will be contracted direct labor and associated overhead costs of $433,500. There would be no costs to the respondent other than the minimal direct labor cost of a single firefighter or emergency service worker taking a small amount of time to complete the survey and this would be applicable only to those fire departments and emergency service agencies with career employees. The majority of the respondents will be from volunteer fire departments for which no direct labor costs will be incurred. The estimate of respondent costs for those career departments is computed as follows: Estimated number of surveys multiplied by the national average hourly rate of a firefighter of $18.65 multiplied by .42 (representing the estimated 25 minutes it takes to complete the survey) and multiply that by .25 which represents the percentage of respondents who are career (paid) personnel. Using this equation, total estimated costs to respondents of $64,622 is derived (33,000 estimated surveys × $18.65 = $615,450 × .42 = $258,489 × .25 = $64,622). The average cost per survey is a minimal $1.96. The respondents are under no obligation to complete the survey and may refuse to do so or stop at any time so the average cost to the respondent of $1.96 could easily not be incurred by refusing to fill out the survey.

Comments : Written comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Comments should be received within 60 days of the date of this notice.

Notice is hereby given that the cost share arrangement concerning Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121, et seq. , as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1552 (2000) and the Insular Areas Act (48 U.S.C. 1469a (d) for the Public Assistance program is adjusted at 100 percent Federal funding. This adjustment applies to eligible costs associated with Categories A and B (debris removal and emergency protective measures) under the Public Assistance program. All other cost sharing adjustments under FEMA-1193-DR remain the same.

You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)

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

You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)

The purpose of this notice is to inform recipients of federal financial assistance from HHS that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will require recipients with fewer than 15 employees to provide auxiliary aids where the provision of aids would not significantly impair the ability of the recipient to provide its benefits or services, and will investigate complaints against health and social services providers with fewer than 15 employees for failure to provide auxiliary aids to individuals with disabilities under Section 504. Determinations of whether the provision of an auxiliary aid or service would impose an undue burden on a small provider will be made on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the provision of any particular auxiliary aid would result in an undue burden does not relieve the provider from the duty to furnish an alternative auxiliary aid, if available, that would not result in such a burden.

OCR has concluded that, in the interest of uniformity and consistent administration of law, Section 504's auxiliary aids requirement should be applied to covered entities with fewer than 15 employees, as is the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Title III of the ADA specifies that no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. 12182. The term “public accommodation” includes professional offices of health care providers, hospitals, pharmacies, and other service establishments. Under Title III of the ADA, privately operated public accommodations are obligated to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, regardless of their size, where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, unless they can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of their program, services or activities, or would result in an undue burden. See 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). The ADA requires public accommodations, including health and social service providers, to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities without the imposition of a surcharge to cover the cost of such measures.

OCR believes that exercising its authority under 45 CFR 84.52(d)(2) is consistent with Congress' intent to ensure consistency between Section 504 and the ADA. 42 U.S.C. 2117(b) of the Americans with Disabilities Act addresses coordination between agencies with enforcement authority under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Consistent with that provision, agencies must ensure that administrative complaints filed under both the ADA and Section 504 are dealt with in a manner that prevents the imposition of inconsistent or conflicting standards for the same requirements. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. ss. 12117(b), 12134(b) and 12201(a). Other evidence of Congress' desire for consistent enforcement standards can be found in several amendments to Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For example, Section 102(f) of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. 102-569, incorporated the exclusions from the term “individual with disability” that are set forth in the ADA. Also, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 by adding a new subsection to clarify that the standards used for determining whether Section 504 has been violated in a complaint alleging employment discrimination are the same standards applied under the ADA.

As noted above, Title III of the ADA does not require a public accommodation to provide auxiliary aids and services if it can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the services being offered or result in an undue burden. The undue burden defense established under the ADA evidences that Congress favored a case-by-case approach for determining a public accommodation's obligation to provide auxiliary aids rather than a broad exemption for small providers. OCR believes that requiring recipients with fewer than 15 employees to provide auxiliary aids under the Section 504 regulation at 45 CFR 84.52(d)(2), where the provision of such aids would not significantly impair the ability of the recipient to provide its benefits or services, is consistent with the legislative scheme intended by Congress under the ADA.

Most of the entities that receive federal financial assistance from HHS are also subject to the effective communication requirements established under the ADA. OCR is confident that the enforcement of Section 504's auxiliary aids requirement can be applied in a manner that will not unduly burden small providers.

OCR will enforce Section 504 as it applies to recipients' responsibilities under the notice through procedures provided for in the Section 504 regulations. These procedures include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary compliance and technical assistance. OCR will always provide recipients with a complete opportunity to come into voluntary compliance with Section 504 prior to initiating formal enforcement proceedings, and will provide technical assistance to help entities resolve complaints in a collaborative fashion with OCR.

The President established the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) on October 3, 1995 by Executive Order 12975 as amended. The mission of the NBAC is to advise and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, its Chair, the President, and other entities on bioethical issues arising from the research on human biology and behavior, and from the applications of that research.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Labeling OTC Human Drug Products—Submitting Requests for Exemptions and Deferrals.” This is one of a series of guidances intended to help manufacturers, packers, and distributors implement the final rule establishing standardized format and content requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products. Once finalized, these guidances will supersede all other statements, feedback, and correspondence provided by the agency on these matters since the issuance of the final rule.

In the Federal Register of March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13254), FDA published a final rule establishing standardized format and content requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products, including drug-cosmetic products. This rule is intended to standardize labeling for all OTC human drug products to help consumers read and understand the product labeling and use these products safely and effectively.

This draft document is intended to provide guidance on the format and procedures for submitting requests for exemptions and deferrals from the requirements of the rule.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on exemptions and deferral procedures related to the labeling of OTC human drug products (21 CFR part 201). It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public.

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

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Labeling OTC Human Drug Products Using a Column Format.” This is one of several guidances the agency is developing to help manufacturers, packers, and distributors implement the recently issued final rule establishing standardized content and format requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products. Once finalized, these guidances will supersede all other statements, feedback, and correspondence provided by the agency on these matters since the issuance of the final rule.

In the Federal Register of March 17, 1999 (64 FR 13254), FDA published a final rule establishing standardized content and format requirements for the labeling of all OTC drug products, including drug-cosmetic products (products that consist of both drug and cosmetic components or a single component marketed for both drug and cosmetic uses). This rule is intended to standardize labeling for all OTC drug products so consumers can easily read and understand OTC drug product labeling and use these products safely and effectively.

The regulation for this new standardized labeling requires manufacturers to present OTC drug and drug-cosmetic labeling information in a prescribed order and format.

The agency received a number of inquiries about the use of columns in OTC drug product labeling under the new regulation. To address those inquiries, in the Federal Register of December 1, 1999 (64 FR 67291), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Labeling Over-the-Counter Human Drug Products Using a Column Format,” which would make recommendations about how to use columns in OTC drug product labeling in a way that is consistent with the regulation. The notice invited interested persons to submit comments on the draft guidance by January 31, 2000. In response, the agency received four comments from national trade associations representing manufacturers and distributors of OTC drug and drug-cosmetic products and from manufacturers of OTC drug products.

In addition to allowing two or more Drug Facts boxes on the same side of a package (as stated in the draft guidance), the comments requested that FDA: (1) Allow the use of columns within a single Drug Facts box or, at a minimum, within headings (e.g., the “Warnings” section of the labeling); (2) eliminate the “Drug Facts (continued)” requirement from the top of the second (and additional, if present) Drug Facts boxes on the same side of a package and eliminate the use of an arrow leading to the next panel; (3) if columns are allowed within a single Drug Facts box, eliminate the requirement that subsequent columns begin with a heading or subheading; (4) replace “Drug Facts (continued)” at the top of a second (or subsequent) column with the previous heading or subheading that appears in the labeling and add “(continued)” when information continues from one column to another; (5) eliminate the recommendation in the draft guidance that multiple columns should be approximately the same size; and (6) provide an alternate way to present active ingredient and purpose information on narrow panels e.g., active ingredient information on one line and the purpose directly below it).

As a general matter, the requests go beyond what the final rule provides for in labeling OTC drug products. In particular, the proposed use of “columns within columns” would represent a significant departure from the overall look and format of the final rule. The agency also believes it is important to maintain the current requirements regarding the use of “signals” to show the continuation of the required labeling from one column or panel to the next. The use of such signals is important for the continuous flow of information on the “Drug Facts” label. These signals provide a valuable visual cue for introducing the next column of information, without unnecessarily distracting or confusing the reader.

The agency also will continue to recommend that multiple columns on the same side of a package be uniform in size to make it easier for consumers to follow and read the labeling information. The agency believes that the use of different size columns could be distracting and cause consumers to miss important labeling information. Finally, although the final rule requires that the active ingredient and purpose be stated on the same line, this final guidance clarifies that the final rule permits the dosage unit information to be stated directly underneath the active ingredient.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on using a column format in the labeling of OTC human drug products (21 CFR part 201). It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and has expressed its commitment to seek scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for the development of pharmaceutical products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce the differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

FDA has actively participated in the ICH for several years to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.

The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the: European Commission; European Medicines Evaluation Agency; European Federation of Animal Health; U.S. FDA; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Animal Health Institute; Japanese Veterinary Pharmaceutical Association; Japanese Association of Veterinary Biologics; and Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.

Two observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from the Government of Australia/New Zealand, and one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the Confederation Mondiale de L'Industrie de la Sante Animale (COMISA). A COMISA representative also participates in the VICH Steering Committee meetings.

The VICH Steering Committee held a meeting on June 14 through 16, 2000, and agreed that the draft guidance entitled “Safety Studies for Veterinary Drug Residues in Human Food: Reproduction Studies” (VICH GL22) should be made available for public comment.

This draft guidance is intended to provide harmonized guidance on the core recommendation for a multigeneration study for the safety evaluation of veterinary drug residues in human food. The current draft guidance is one of a series of guidances developed to facilitate the mutual acceptance of safety data necessary for the determination of acceptable daily intakes for veterinary drug residues in human food by the relevant regulatory authorities. The guidance on the overall strategy for the safety evaluation of veterinary residues in human food (VICH Guidance on General Testing Approach) will be made available at a later time. VICH GL22 was developed after consideration of the existing ICH guidance for pharmaceuticals for human use on “Detection of Toxicity to Reproduction for Medicinal Products” and its addendum, “Toxicity to Male Fertility,” in conjunction with the current practices for evaluating veterinary drug residues in human food in the European Union, Japan, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. (Information collection is covered under OMB Control Nos. 0910-0117 and 0910-0032).

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). For example, the documents have been designated “guidance” rather than “guideline.” Because guidance documents are not binding, unless specifically supported by statute or regulation, mandatory words such as “must,” “shall,” and “will” in the original VICH documents have been substituted with “should.” Similarly, words such as “requirement” or “acceptable” have been replaced by “recommendation” or “recommended” as appropriate to the context.

This draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on reproduction safety studies for veterinary drug residues in human food. This draft guidance does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative method may be used as long as it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations. Comments about the draft guidance documents will be considered by FDA and the VICH Safety Working Group. Ultimately, FDA intends to adopt the VICH Steering Committee's final guidances and publish them as future guidances.

This draft guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only and is not intended for implementation at this time. Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this draft guidance. Submit written comments to ensure adequate consideration in preparation of the final guidance by February 20, 2001. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Department will submit 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 of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Admission To, and Occupancy of, Public Housing: Admission and Tenant Selection Policies, Verification, Notification, Preference, Waiting List, Exemption of Police Officers.

OMB Control Number: 2577-0220.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Statute requires HUD to ensure the low-income character of public housing projects and to assure sound management practices will be followed in the operation of the project. Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) entered into an Annual Contribution Contract (ACC) with HUD to assist low-income tenants. HUD regulations, Part 960, provide policies and procedures for PHAs to administer the low-income public housing program for admission and occupancy. PHAs must develop and keep on file admission and occupancy policies including the plan for eligibility of police officers which is approved by HUD. PHA compliance will support the statute; HUD can ensure that the low-income character of the project and that sound management practices will be followed.

Agency form number: None.

Members of affected public: State, Local government; Resident Organizations.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: 3,300 respondents, 1 response per respondent, 3,300 total responses, 344,800 (3.300x10.4 hours) total burden hours.

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

The Department will submit 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 of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Public Housing Development and Mixed-Finance Development of Units; Proposal, Financial Feasibility, Site Information, Turnkey Method, Evidentiary Materials.

OMB Control Number: 2577-0033.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) must provide information to HUD before a proposal can be approved for development or mixed-finance development. The information on HUD-prescribed forms provides HUD with sufficient information to enable a determination that funds should or should not be reserved or a contractural commitment made. For mixed-finance development, HUD must ensure that the Federal investment of funds in a public housing project is secure and that proposed public housing units are made available only to eligible low-income families. This information collection is necessary for HUD to conduct a subsidy layering analysis pursuant to Section 102(d) of the HUD Reform Act of 1989.

Agency form number: HUD-52483-A, HUD-52482, HUD-51971-I, HUD-51971-II, HUD-52651-A, HUD-52485.

Members of affected public: State or Local Government.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: 334 respondents, annually, 23 hours average per response; total annual reporting burden 7,595 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension, without change.

This Notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, an information collection package with respect to a proposed Notice of Funding Availability for the HUD Urban Scholars Fellowship Program. HUD seeks to implement this initiative as soon as possible.

The HUD Urban Scholars Fellowship Program seeks to encourage recent Ph.D.s to undertake research now, and throughout their careers, on research topics of interest to HUD. Approximately 10 fellows will be selected with Fiscal Year 2000 funds.

Submission of the information required under this information collection is mandatory in order to compete for and receive the benefits of the program. All materials submitted are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and can be disclosed upon request. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by a separate notice in the Federal Register .

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):

(1) Title of the information collection proposal:

Application Kit—HUD Urban Scholars Fellowship Program

(2) Summary of the collection of information:

Each applicant for this program would be required to submit current information, as listed below as:

(A) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. Include the name and address of the person authorized to execute the grant agreement in Block 5. Include the institution's tax ID number in Block 6. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the program is 14.518. The form should be signed by the appropriate university official.

(B) Applicant information including:

(1) Title of the research project;

(2) Applicant's name, university and home addresses, university and home telephone and facsimile numbers, and email address;

(3) Applicant's university name, department, mailing address, telephone and facsimile numbers.

(4) Applicant's advisor's name, address, telephone and facsimile number;

(5) Applicant's mentor's name, address, telephone and facsimile number;

(6) Graduate and post-graduate education.

(C) A letter from the chair of the applicant's department that he/she has met all the eligibility criteria.

(D) A letter from the appropriate official that describes the support from the applicant's university.

(E) A letter from the applicant's mentor stating his/her qualifications to be the applicant's mentor and his/her proposed role in the research project.

(F) A one-page abstract of the research project.

(G) A narrative of the proposed research, not to exceed 10 double-spaced typed pages. This narrative must include the following in the following order:

(1) Statement of the problem;

(2) Research design and methodology;

(3) Policy relevance of the research;

(4) How the research will add to the current knowledge base.

(H) A working bibliography of the proposed project.

(I) An annotated bibliography, e.g., a two- or three-sentence annotation for ten to twelve key sources in the working bibliography.

(J) List of the applicant's publications: books, refereed journal articles, chapters contributed to books, articles in published proceedings, and any other articles.

(K) List of presentations made and posters exhibited during the last five years.

(L) Grants and awards received during the last five years.

(M) Teaching load during the last five years.

(N) Four to six letters of reference.

(O) A proposed budget.

(3) Description of the need for the information and its proposed use:

To appropriately determine which applicants should be awarded HUD Urban Scholars Fellowships, certain information is necessary about the applicant's research project and qualifications.

(4) Description of the likely respondents, including the estimated number of likely respondents, and proposed frequency of response to the collection of information:

Respondents will PhDs with academic appointments at institutions of higher education. Fellows will also be expected to prepare and submit progress reports half-way through their fellowships and a final report.

The estimated number of respondents submitting applications is 100. The proposed frequency of the response to the collection of information is one-time. The application need only be submitted once. The estimated number of respondents to the monitoring requirements is 10.

(5) Estimate of the total reporting burden that will result from the collection of information:

Reporting Burden: Number of respondents: 100 for applicants; 10 for monitoring requirements.

Total burden hours: 32 hours per respondent for applications; 12 hours a year per respondent for monitoring requirements.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 3,320.

This program provides grants to Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) to eliminate drugs and drug-related crime in American Indian and Alaskan Native communities.

The FY 2000 awards announced in this Notice were selected for funding in a competition announced in a NOFA published in the Federal Register on Thursday, May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30502). Applications were scored and selected for funding based on the selection criteria in that Notice and a national competition.

The amount appropriated in FY 2000 to fund IHDEP was $22 million in FY 1999 ($11 million) and FY 2000 ($11 for million) in funds was awarded to tribes and TDHEs under the IHDEP. In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 57 awards made under the national competition in appendix A to this document.

Representatives from the Service, the Service's Migratory Bird Regulations Committee, and Flyway Council Consultants will meet on January 24, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. to identify preliminary issues concerning the 2001-02 migratory bird hunting regulations for discussion and review by the Flyway Councils at their March meetings.

In accordance with Departmental policy regarding meetings of the Service Regulations Committee attended by any person outside the Department, these meetings are open to public observation. Members of the public may submit written comments on the matters discussed to the Director.

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transaction in Indian country. The Campo Band of Mission Indians Liquor Control Ordinance, Resolution No. 26-03-00-01, was duly adopted by the Campo General Council on March 26, 2000. The Campo Band of Mission Indians, in furtherance of its economic and social goals, has taken positive steps to regulate retail sales of alcohol and use revenues to combat alcohol abuse and its debilitating effects among individuals and family members within the Campo Band of Mission Indians.

This notice is being published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.

I certify that by Resolution No. 26-03-00-01, the Campo Band of Mission Indians Liquor Control Ordinance was duly adopted by the Campo Band General Council on March 26, 2000.

The Campo Band of Mission Indians Liquor Control Ordinance, Resolution No. 26-03-00-01, reads as follows:

Be It Enacted by the General Council of the Campo Indian Reservation, Campo Band of Mission Indians, sometimes referred to as the Campo Band of Mission Indians (hereinafter, “Campo Band”) as follows:

This ordinance shall be known as the Campo Liquor Control Ordinance.

This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953 (Pub. L. 83-277, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. 1161) and Article IV of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Campo Band of Mission Indians.

The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate and control the possession and sale of liquor on the Campo Indian Reservation, and to permit alcohol sales by tribally owned and operated enterprises, and at tribally approved special events, for the purpose of the economic development of the Campo Band. The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sales on the Campo Indian Reservation will increase the ability of tribal government to control Reservation liquor distribution and possession, and will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government, the economic viability of tribal enterprises, and the delivery of tribal government services. This Liquor Control Ordinance is in conformity with the laws of the State of California as required by 25 U.S.C. § 1161, and with all applicable federal laws.

This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of its publication in the Federal Register .

The introduction or possession of alcoholic beverages shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Campo Indian Reservation; provided that such introduction or possession is in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

(1) The sale of alcoholic beverages by business enterprises owned by and subject to the control of the Campo Band shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Campo Indian Reservation; provided that such sales are in conformity with the laws of the State of California.

(2) The sale of alcoholic beverages by the drink at special events authorized by the Campo Band shall be lawful within the exterior boundaries of the Campo Indian Reservation; provided that such sales are in conformity with the laws of the State of California and with prior approval by Resolution of the General Council of the Campo Band.

The drinking age within the Campo Indian Reservation shall be the same as that of the State of California, which is currently 21 years. No person under the age of 21 years shall purchase, possess or consume any alcoholic beverage. At such time, if any, as California Business and Profession Code § 25658, which sets the drinking age for the State of California, is repealed or amended to raise or lower the drinking age within California, this Article shall automatically become null and void, and the Tribal Council shall be empowered to amend this Article to match the age limit imposed by state law.

The Campo Band, through its Tribal Council and duly authorized security personnel, shall have the authority to enforce this ordinance by confiscating any liquor sold, possessed or introduced in violation hereof. The Tribal Council shall be empowered to sell such confiscated liquor for the benefit of the Campo Band, and to develop and approve such regulations as may become necessary for enforcement of this ordinance.

Any prior tribal laws, resolutions or ordinances which are inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent they are inconsistent with this ordinance. An ordinance legalizing the introduction, sale, or possession of intoxicants on the Campo Indian Reservation, California, was published in the Federal Register of February 6, 1968 (33 FR 2612).

Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to, nor does in any way, limit, alter, restrict, or waive the sovereign immunity of the Campo Development Corporation, from unconsented suit or action of any kind.

If any provision of this ordinance is found by any agency or court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be unaffected thereby.

This ordinance may be amended by majority vote of the General Council of the Campo Band at a duly noticed General Council meeting.

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transaction in Indian country. The Jamul Indian Village's Liquor Ordinance, Resolution No. 96-16, was duly adopted by the Jamul Indian Village General Council on July 20, 1996. The Jamul Indian Village, in furtherance of its economic and social goals, has taken positive steps to regulate retail sales of alcohol and use revenues to combat alcohol abuse and its debilitating effects among individuals and family members within the Jamul Indian Village.

This notice is being published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 Departmental Manual 8.

I certify that by Resolution No. 96-16, the Jamul Indian Village's Liquor Ordinance was duly adopted by the Jamul Indian Village General Council on July 20, 1996.

The Jamul Indian Village's Liquor Ordinance, Resolution No. 96-16, reads as follows:

101. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the “Liquor Ordinance of the Jamul Indian Village.”

102. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, (Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 588, 18 U.S.C. 1161) and Article VIII of the Constitution of the Jamul Indian Village.

103. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate and control the possession and sale of liquor on the Jamul Reservation. The enactment of a tribal ordinance governing liquor possession and sale on the reservation will increase the ability of the tribal government to control reservation liquor distribution and possession, and at the same time will provide an important source of revenue for the continued operation and strengthening of the tribal government and the delivery of tribal government services.

201. As used in this ordinance, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

202. Alcohol means that substance known as ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or spirit of wine which is commonly produced by the fermentation or distillation of grain, starch, molasses, or sugar, or other substances including all dilutions of this substance.

203. Alcoholic Beverage is synonymous with the term “Liquor” as defined in section 208 of this chapter.

204. Bar means any establishment with special space and accommodations for sale by the glass and for consumption on the premises of beer, as herein defined.

205. Beer means any beverage obtained by the alcoholic fermentation of an infusion or decoction of pure hops, or pure extract of hops and pure barley malt or other wholesome grain of cereal in pure water containing not more than 4 percent of alcohol by volume. For the purposes of this title, any such beverage, including ale, stout, and porter, containing more than 4 percent of alcohol by weight shall be referred to as “strong beer.”

206. Committee means the Business Committee of the Jamul Indian Village.

207. General Council means the general council of the Jamul Indian Village which is composed of the voting membership of the Tribe as a whole.

208. Liquor includes the four varieties of liquor herein defined (alcohol, spirits, wine and beer), and all fermented spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor or combination thereof, and mixed liquor, or otherwise intoxicating; and every liquid or solid or semisolid or other substance, patented or not, containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and all drinks or drinkable liquids and all preparations or mixtures capable of human consumption and any liquid, semisolid, solid, or other substances, which contain more than 1 percent of alcohol by weight shall be conclusively deemed to be intoxicating.

209. Liquor Store means any store at which liquor is sold and, for the purposes of this ordinance, including stores only a portion of which are devoted to sale of liquor or beer.

210. Malt Liquor means beer, strong beer, ale stout, and porter.

211. Package means any container or receptacle used for holding liquor.

212. Public Place includes state or county or tribal or federal highways or roads; buildings and grounds used for school purposes; public dance halls and grounds adjacent thereto; soft drink establishments; public buildings, public meeting halls, lobbies, halls and dining rooms of hotels, restaurants, theaters, gaming facilities, entertainment centers, store garages, and filling stations which are open to and/or are generally used by the public and to which the public is permitted to have unrestricted access; public conveyances of all kinds and character; and all other places of like or similar nature to which the general public has unrestricted right of access, and which are generally used by the public. For the purposes of this ordinance, “Public Place” shall also include any establishment other than a single family home which is designed for or may be used by more than just the owner of the establishment.

213. Reservation means land held in trust by the United States Government for the benefit of the Jamul Indian Village (see also Tribal Land).

214. Sale and Sell include exchange, barter, and traffic; and also include the selling or supplying or distributing by any means whatsoever, of liquor, or of any liquid known or described as beer or by any name whatsoever commonly used to describe malt or brewed liquor or wine by any person to any person.

215. Spirits mean any beverage, which contains alcohol obtained by distillation, including wines exceeding 17 percent of alcohol by weight.

216. Tribe means the Jamul Indian Village.

217. Tribal Land means any land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation which is held in trust by the United States for the Tribe as a whole, including such land leased to other parties.

218. Trust Account means the account designated by the tribal treasurer for deposit of proceeds from the tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages.

219. Trust Agent means the tribal Chairperson or a designee of the Chairperson.

220. Wine means any alcoholic beverage obtained by fermentation of fruits (grapes, berries, apples, etc.) or other agricultural product containing sugar, to which any saccharine substances may have been added before, during or after fermentation, and containing not more than 17 percent of alcohol by weight, including sweet wines fortified with wine spirits such as port, sherry, muscatel, and angelica, not exceeding 17 percent of alcohol by weight.

301. Powers. The Committee, in furtherance of the ordinance, shall have the following powers and duties:

(a) To publish and enforce the rules and regulations governing the sale, manufacture, and distribution of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation;

(b) To employ managers, accountants, security personnel, inspectors, and such other persons as shall be reasonably necessary to allow the Committee to perform its functions. Such employees shall be tribal employees;

(c) To issue licenses permitting the sale or manufacture or distribution of liquor on the Reservation;

(d) To hold hearing on violations of this ordinance or for the issuance or revocation of licenses hereunder;

(e) To bring suit in the appropriate court to enforce this ordinance as necessary;

(f) To determine and seek damages for violation of this ordinance;

(g) To make such reports as may be required by the General Council;

(h) To collect taxes and fees levied or set by the Committee, and to keep accurate records, books and accounts; and

(i) To exercise such other powers as delegated by the General Council.

302. Limitation on Powers. In the exercise of its powers and duties under this ordinance, the Committee and its individual members shall not accept any gratuity, compensation or other thing of value from any liquor wholesaler, retailer, or distributor or from any licensee.

303. Inspection Rights. The premises on which liquor is sold or distributed shall be open for inspection by the Committee at all reasonable time for the purposes of ascertaining whether the rules and regulations of this ordinance are being complied with.

401. Licenses Required. No sales of alcoholic beverages shall be made within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, except at a tribally-licensed or tribally-owned business operated on tribal land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation.

402. Sales Only on Tribal Land. All liquor sales within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation shall be on Tribal Land, including leases thereon.

403. Sales for Cash. All liquor sales within the Reservation boundaries shall be on a cash only basis and no credit shall be extended to any person, organization, or entity, except that this provision does not prevent the use of major credit cards.

404. Sale for Personal Consumption. All sales shall be for the personal use and consumption of the purchaser. The resale of any alcoholic beverage purchased within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation is prohibited. Any person who is not licensed pursuant to this ordinance who purchases an alcoholic beverage within the boundaries of the Reservation and sells it, whether in the original container or not, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance and shall be subjected to paying damages to the Tribe as set forth herein.

501. Application for Tribal Liquor License—Requirements. No tribal license shall be issued under this ordinance except upon a sworn application filed with the Committee containing a full and complete showing of the following:

(a) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is or will be duly licensed by the State of California.

(b) Satisfactory proof that the applicant is of good character and reputation among the people of the Reservation and that the applicant is financially responsible.

(c) The description of the premises in which the intoxicating beverages are to be sold, proof that the applicant is the owner of such premises, or lessee of such premises, for at least the term of the license.

(d) Agreement by the applicant to accept and abide by all conditions of the tribal license.

(e) Payment of a $100.00 fee as prescribed by the Committee.

(f) Satisfactory proof that neither the applicant nor the applicant's spouse has ever been convicted of a felony.

(g) Satisfactory proof that notice of the application has been posted in a prominent, noticeable place on the premises where intoxicating beverages are to be sold for at least 30 days prior to consideration by the Committee and has been published at least twice in such local newspaper serving the community that may be affected by the license. The notice shall state the date, time, and place when the application shall be considered by the Committee pursuant to section 502 of this ordinance.

502. Hearing on Application for Tribal Liquor License. All applications for a tribal liquor license shall be considered by the Committee in open session at which the applicant, his/her attorney, and any person protesting the application shall have the right to be present, and to offer sworn oral or documentary evidence relevant to the application. After the hearing, the Committee, by secret ballot, shall determine whether to grant or deny the application based on:

(a) Whether the requirements of section 501 have been met;

(b) Whether the Committee, in its discretion, determines that granting the license is in the best interest of the Tribe, and

(c) In the event that the applicant is a member of the General Council, or a member of the immediate family of a General Council member, such member shall not vote on the application or participate in the hearings as a Committee member.

503. Temporary Permits. The Committee or their designee may grant a temporary permit for the sale of intoxicating beverages for a period not to exceed 3 days to any person applying for the same in connection with a tribal or community activity, provided that the conditions prescribed in section 504 of this ordinance shall be observed by the permittee. Each permit issued shall specify the types of intoxicating beverages to be sold. Further, a fee of $25.00 will be assessed on temporary permits.

504. Conditions of the Tribal License. Any tribal license issued under this title shall be subject to such reasonable conditions as the Committee shall fix, including, but not limited to the following:

(a) The license shall be for a term not to exceed 2 years.

(b) The license shall at all times maintain an orderly, clean, and neat establishment, both inside and outside the licensed premises.

(c) The licensed premises shall be subject to patrol by the tribal police department, and such other law enforcement officials as may be authorized under federal, California, or tribal law.

(d) The licensed premises shall be open to inspection by duly authorized tribal officials at all times during the regular business hours.

(e) Subject to the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, no intoxicating beverages shall be sold, served, disposed of, delivered, or given to any person, or consumed on the licensed premises except in conformity with the hours and days prescribed by the laws of the State of California, and in accordance with the hours fixed by the Committee, provided that the licensed premises shall not operate or open earlier or operate or close later than is permitted by the laws of the State of California.

(f) No liquor shall be sold within 200 feet of a polling place on tribal election days, or when a referendum is held by the people of the tribe, and including special days of observation as designated by the Committee.

(g) All acts and transactions under authority of the tribal liquor license shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California, and shall be in accordance with this ordinance and any tribal license issued pursuant to this ordinance.

(h) No person under the age permitted under the laws of the State of California shall be sold, served, delivered, given, or allowed to consume alcoholic beverages in the licensed establishment and/or area.

(i) There shall be no discrimination in the operations under the tribal license by reason of race, color, or creed.

505. License Not a Property Right. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, a tribal liquor license is a mere permit of a fixed duration of time. A tribal liquor license shall not be deemed a property right or vested right of any kind, nor shall the granting of a tribal liquor license give rise to a presumption of legal entitlement to the granting of such license for a subsequent time period.

506. Assignment or Transfer. No tribal license issued under this ordinance shall be assigned or transferred without the written approval of the Committee expressed by formal resolution.

601. Sales or Possession With Intent to Sell Without a Permit. Any person who shall sell or offer for sale or distribute or transport in any manner, any liquor in violation of this ordinance, or who shall operate or shall have liquor in his/her possession with intent to sell or distribute without a permit, shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

602. Purchases From Other Than Licensed Facilities. Any person within the boundaries of the Reservation who buys liquor from any person other than at a properly licensed facility shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

603. Sales to Persons Under the Influence of Liquor. Any person who sells liquor to a person apparently under the influence of liquor shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

604. Consuming Liquor in Public Conveyance. Any person engaged wholly or in part in the business of carrying passengers for hire, and every agent, servant or employee of such person who shall knowingly permit any person to drink any liquor in any public conveyance shall be guilty of an offense. Any person who shall drink any liquor in a public conveyance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance.

605. Consumption or Possession of Liquor by Persons Under 21 Years of Age. No person under the age of 21 years shall consume, acquire or have in his/her possession any alcoholic beverage. No person shall permit any other person under the age of 21 to consume liquor on his/her premises or any premises under his/her control except in those situations set out in this section. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a separate violation of this ordinance for each and every drink so consumed.

606. Sales of Liquor to Persons Under 21 Years of Age. Any person who shall sell or provide liquor to any person under the age of 21 years shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance for each sale or drink provided.

607. Transfer of Identification to Minor. Any person who transfers in any manner an identification of age to a minor for the purpose of permitting such minor to obtain liquor shall be guilty of an offense; provided, that corroborative testimony of a witness other than the minor shall be a requirement of finding a violation of this ordinance.

608. Use of False or Altered Identification. Any person who attempts to purchase an alcoholic beverage through the use of false or altered identification which falsely purports to show the individual to be over the age of 21 years shall be guilty of violating this ordinance.

609. Violations of This Ordinance. Any person guilty of a violation of this ordinance shall be liable to pay the Tribe a penalty not to exceed $500 per violation as civil damages to defray the Tribe's cost of enforcement of this ordinance. In addition to any penalties so imposed, any license issued hereunder may be suspended or canceled by the Committee for the violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance, or of the tribal license, upon hearing before the Committee after 10 days notice to the licensee. The decision of the Committee shall be final.

610. Acceptable Identification. Where there may be a question of a person's right to purchase liquor by reason of his/her age, such person shall be required to present any one of the following issued cards of identification which shows his/her correct age and bears his/her signature and photograph:

(a) Driver's license of any state or identification card issued by any State Department of Motor Vehicles;

(b) United States Active Duty Military identification; or

(c) Passport.

611. Possession of Liquor Contrary to This Ordinance. Alcoholic beverages which are possessed contrary to the terms of this ordinance are declared to be contraband. Any tribal agent, employee, or officer who is authorized by the Committee to enforce this section shall have the authority to, and shall seize, all contraband.

612. Disposition of Seized Contraband. Any officer seizing contraband shall preserve the contraband in accordance with applicable law. Upon being found in violation of the ordinance by the Committee, the party shall forfeit all right, title and interest in the items seized which shall become the property of the Tribe.

701. Sales Tax. There is hereby levied and shall be collected a tax on each sale of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation in the amount of 1 percent of the amount actually collected, including payments by major credit cards. The tax imposed by this section shall apply to all retail sales of liquor on the Reservation and shall preempt any tax imposed on such liquor sales by the State of California.

702. Payment of Taxes to Tribe. All taxes from the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation shall be paid over to the agent of the Tribe.

703. Taxes Due. All taxes for the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation are due within 30 days of the end of the calendar quarter for which the taxes are due.

704. Reports. Along with payment of the taxes imposed herein, the taxpayers shall submit an accounting for the quarter of all income from the sale or distribution of said beverages as well as for the taxes collected.

705. Audit. As a condition of obtaining a license, the licensee must agree to the review or audit of its books and records relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation. Said review or audit may be done annually by the Tribe through its agents or employees whenever, in the opinion of the Committee, such a review or audit is necessary to verify the accuracy of reports.

801. Disposition of Proceeds. The gross proceeds collected by the Committee from all licensing provided from the taxation of the sales of alcoholic beverages on the Reservation shall be distributed as follows:

(a) For the payment of all necessary personnel, administrative costs, and legal fees for the operation and its activities; and

(b) The remainder shall be turned over to the account of the Tribe.

901. Severability. If any provision or application of this ordinance is determined by review to be invalid, such adjudication shall not be held to render ineffectual the remaining portions of this title or to render such provisions inapplicable to other persons or circumstances.

902. Prior Enactments. All prior enactments of the Committee which are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby rescinded.

903. Conformance with California Laws. All acts and transactions under this ordinance shall be in conformity with the laws of the State of California as that term is used in 18 U.S.C. 1161.

904. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective on such date as the Secretary of the Interior certifies this ordinance and publishes the same in the Federal Register .

1001. This ordinance shall be adopted and may be amended by a majority vote of the General Council at a duly called meeting of the General Council.

1101. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended to, nor does in any way limit, alter, restrict, or waive the Tribe's sovereign immunity from unconsented suit or action.

5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires BLM to provide 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning a collection of information contained in regulations in 43 CFR Part 4130 to solicit comments on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. BLM will receive and analyze any comments sent in response to this notice and include them with its request for approval from the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315, 315 et seq., ) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ), and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. ) provide the authority for the BLM to administer the livestock grazing program consistent with land-use plans, multiple-use objectives, sustained yield, environmental values, economic considerations, and other factors. BLM administers the grazing program generally by issuing grazing permits or leases that specify allowable livestock use by location, number and period. BLM recognizes that to sustain and conserve resources, minor annual adjustments of grazing terms and conditions as specified on a multi-year term permit or lease are needed to balance actual grazing use with available forage and water. Therefore, rather than relying solely upon the terms and conditions of the permit or leases as a record of the use made during any one year, BLM can require submission of information that more accurately reflects the grazing use. Sections 3 and 15 of the TGA and regulations in 43 CFR 4130.3-2(d) provide that BLM may require permittees or lessees to furnish a record of their actual grazing use. The regulations at 43 CFR 4130.8-1(e) provide for a grazing fee payment after the grazing season under specified circumstances.

BLM uses this information for two specific purposes:

a. To calculate the fees due for the grazing use completed. Fees are due the United States upon issuance of a billing notice and must be paid in full prior to grazing use, except when an allotment management plan (AMP) provides for delayed payment and has been incorporated into a grazing permit or lease. In this latter situation, BLM will issue a billing notice based upon the actual grazing use completed at the end of the grazing period or year (43 CFR 4130.8-1(e)). BLM uses the information collected to bill for grazing use or to makeup a part of the allotment monitoring records. The permittee and lessee must keep accurate and current records for the period of time covered by his/her permit or lease. The information collected includes allotment and pasture location of the grazing, the date and numbers of livestock permitted on or removed from the range, and the kind or class of livestock grazed.

b. To obtain information needed to monitor and evaluate livestock grazing use. The purposes of the information are to determine if adjustments in the amount of use are needed, or if other management actions could achieve the desired effects. Knowledge of actual livestock grazing use is essential in the monitoring and the evaluation of the livestock grazing management program. Information on the specific use is essential for an accurate and complete analysis and evaluation of the effects of livestock grazing during particular periods of time, as interrelated with other factors such as climate, growth characteristics of the vegetation, and utilization levels on the plants. Failure to collect this information would result in BLM having unsatisfactory data and a reduced capability to make adjustments in grazing use or management.

Without this information, the BLM could not fulfill its responsibility to manage uses of the public land as required by law. The required information is only available form the grazing operators. Because the actual grazing use that occurs is not constant from year to year, BLM requires information for each grazing season for which grazing use is sought.

Based on BLM's experience administering the activities described above, the public reporting burden for the information collected estimates to average 25 minutes per response. Because of the variations in size and complexity of range livestock operations, some of the 15,000 responses may take a few minutes in one recording session to complete the form, while others may take up to 60 minutes combined through several sessions during the grazing year, with each requiring a few minutes to enter the required data. The respondents include permittees and lessees required to furnish a record of the actual grazing use. The frequency of response is annually. The estimated number of responses per year is 15,000. The estimated total annual burden is 6,250 hours. BLM specifically requests your comments on its estimate of the amount of time that it takes to prepare a response.

BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The project configuration, as proposed and including measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on the environment, is being considered along with a “No Project” and “Utility Corridor” alternative. The BLM has been asked to issue rights-of-way for portions of this fiber optic system that cross public lands.

The California portion of this Project, which as proposed includes an exception to the CDCA Plan to construction portions along existing roads instead of within designated utility corridors, begins at the Point of Presence (POP) in Blythe, California, and would travel in a southwesterly direction along Highway 78 and Old Highway 80 through the following city jurisdictions: Blythe, Brawley, El Centro, El Cajon, La Mesa, and San Diego. From San Diego north to Los Angeles the route would primarily parallel the coast traversing the U.S. Marine Corps Camp Pendleton. In addition, the route would pass through large portions of unincorporated areas in Riverside, Imperial and San Diego Counties, and besides public lands administered by the BLM, it would also cross the Descanso Ranger District of Cleveland National Forest, the USMC's Camp Pendleton, as well as the La Posta and Campo Indian Reservations. It would require an urban build through San Diego and Los Angeles, terminating at the POP in Los Angeles, California.

The fiber optic telecommunications system project entails the design and construction of a six-duct conduit system and ancillary facilities to accommodate digital broadband Internet Protocol. Ancillary facilities would include: regeneration stations and Optical Amplification (Op Amp) Stations spaced an average of 50 miles; buried splice boxes placed at 2,500-foot intervals; and marker poles placed 500 feet apart. The Project, as described in the EA, should contribute small to no additional impact to the environment and would operate entirely within previously disturbed and routinely maintained road rights-of-way.

The BLM and the State of Montana are co-leads for the effort. The BLM's planning area is BLM-administered oil and gas in the Powder River and Billings RMP areas. The Powder River RMP area consists of Treasure, Rosebud, Powder River, Carter, and portions of Custer and Big Horn counties. The Billings RMP area consists of Wheatland, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Sweet Grass, Stillwater, Yellowstone, Carbon, and a portion of Big Horn counties. The State of Montana will evaluate the effects of further permit applications in BLM's planning area and other areas around the state including portions of Blaine, Park and Gallatin counties. BLM and the state have drafted a Memorandum of Understanding to conduct a joint EIS. The joint EIS will analyze impacts to resources as a result of oil and gas, including coal bed methane, development.

The Powder River and Billings RMPs, as amended by BLM's 1994 “Oil and Gas Amendment of the Billings, Powder River and South Dakota RMPs” support limited conventional oil and gas development and coal bed methane exploration and production. Numerous conventional oil and gas wells are located on state and federal minerals in the planning area. An October 18, 2000 meeting of the Coal Bed Methane Coordination Group indicates that industry projects drilling approximately 10,000 coal bed methane wells in the Montana portion of the Powder River Basin over the next 10 years, in addition to an unspecified number of conventional oil and gas wells. In order to analyze an increased interest in oil and gas activity, an EIS and RMP amendment is being prepared.

The public is asked to assist the BLM and the State with identification of issues related to oil and gas development, including coal bed methane. Examples of potential issues (problems, concerns) are: Water (surface and ground), socioeconomics, soils, water, Air, vegetation and wildlife.

Alternatives will be developed to present a range of feasible management actions. The “No Action Alternative” will be included in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(d) and represent the continuation of current management.

Development of this RMP Amendment will require involvement of professionals from these disciplines: Air quality, cultural resources, economics, hazardous materials, hydrology, lands, realty, minerals, geology, paleontology, recreation, sociology, soils, vegetation, and wildlife.

Planning criteria help guide the development of the Amendment and EIS by focusing efforts where they are needed, providing direction for the plan, and identifying legal, policy, or regulatory constraints that direct or limit BLM's ability to resolve issues. After taking into consideration the public's comments on the criteria, they will be finalized to help guide the plan.

The public will be provided the opportunity to review and comment on issues identified by BLM and the State, identify new issues, and comment on the Draft Planning Criteria. A mailing list is being developed and will be used to communicate with and solicit comments from local, state and federal agencies, Native American tribes, the Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council, and the public at large that may be affected by the plan. As the planning process proceeds, these publics will be encouraged to participate.

Public information will be available at scoping meetings to be held at Broadus, Miles City, Ashland, Billings and Helena, Montana from January 4 through January 11, 2001. See DATES and ADDRESSES sections for specific meeting information.

The BLM and the State are seeking information from individuals, organizations, and agencies that may be affected by the plan. Specifically, we request any issues, concerns or alternatives that should be addressed in the plan amendment.

This notice meets the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2(c).

On November 28, 2000, the Forest Service filed an application to withdraw the following-described National Forest System land from location and entry under the United States mining laws, but not the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights:

In addition, any non-federal lands within the boundary described above, if acquired by the United States, would become subject to the terms and conditions of this withdrawal.

For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the Forest Supervisor, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, at the address indicated above.

Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the Forest Supervisor at the address indicated above within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR part 2300.

For a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the land will be segregated as specified above unless the application is denied or canceled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. The temporary land uses which may be permitted during this segregative period include all activities currently consistent with applicable Forest plans and those related to exercise of valid existing rights, including public recreation and other activities compatible with preservation of Lemhi Pass National Historic Landmark and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail.

The Commission instituted this investigation on October 5, 2000, based on a complaint filed by Rambus Inc. of Mountain View, California. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on infringement of claims of three U.S. patents (U.S. Letters patent 6,038,195, U.S. Letters Patent 5,953,263, and U.S. Letters Patent 6,034,918) owned by complainant. The respondents named in the investigation were Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd. of Korea and Hyundai Electronics America of San Jose, California (collectively “Hyundai”). The investigation was assigned to Administrative Lay Judge Sidney Harris. 65 FR 60684. On October 6, 2000, complainant Rambus moved to withdraw its complaint and terminate the investigation. Rambus' motion was responded to by Hyundai and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”). On November 8, 2000, the ALJ issued an ID terminating the investigation based on Rambus' withdrawal of its complaint, but with the condition that, if the Commission institutes a subsequent investigation based on a complaint filed by Rambus involving one or more of the same patents, then such investigation should be assigned to the same ALJ, unless exceptional circumstances require assignment to another ALJ. The ALJ found that Rambus had engaged in impermissible judge shopping. Rambus and the IA petitioned for review of the ID.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.43(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.43(d).

Copies of the ID and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Copies of these documents may also be downloaded from the Commission's Internet server at http://www/usitc.gov.

Section 306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires that the Attorney General establish aggregate production quotas for each basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedules I and II. This responsibility has been delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by Section 0.100 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Administrator, in turn, has redelegated this function to the Deputy Administrator, pursuant to Section 0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The 2001 aggregate production quotas represent those quantities of controlled substances that may be produced in the United States in 2001 to provide adequate supplies of each substance for: The estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States; lawful export requirements; and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks (21 U.S.C. 826(a) and 21 CFR 1303.11). These quotas do not include imports of controlled substances for use in industrial processes.

On October 4, 2000, a notice of the proposed initial 2001 aggregate production quotas for certain controlled substances in Schedules I and II was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 59214). All interested persons were invited to comment on or object to these proposed aggregate production quotas on or before November 3, 2000.

Five companies commented on a total of twenty Schedules I and II controlled substances within the published comment period. The companies commented that the proposed aggregate production quotas for alfentanil, amphetamine, dextropropoxyphene, dihydrocodeine, dihydromorphine, fentanyl, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, hydrocodone (for sale), hydromorphone, levorphanol, methamphetamine (for conversion), methylphenidate, noroxymorphone (for conversion), opium, oxycodone (for conversion), oxymorphone and sufentanil were insufficient to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements and for the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. The companies also commented that the proposed aggregate production quotas for codeine (for conversion), hydrocodone (for conversion) and morphine (for conversion) could be reduced.

In addition, two comments were received after the published comment period had ended (dated November 6, 2000 and November 10, 2000). These comments requested that the aggregate production quotas for amphetamine, anileridine, methadone (for sale), methadone intermediate and methylphenidate be increased. These comments were taken into consideration in determining the established initial 2001 aggregate production quotas for these substances.

DEA has taken into consideration the above comments along with the relevant 2000 manufacturing quotas, current 2000 sales and inventories, 2001 export requirements and research and product development requirements. Based on this information, the DEA has adjusted the initial aggregate production quotas for alfentanil, dihydrocodeine, dihydromorphine, hydrocodone (for sale), hydrocodone (for conversion), levorphanol, methamphetamine (for conversion), noroxymorphone (for conversion), opium and sufentanil to meet the legitimate needs of the United States.

Regarding amphetamine, anileridine, codeine (for conversion), dextropropoxyphene, fentanyl, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, hydromorphone, methadone (for sale), methadone intermediate, methylphenidate, morphine (for conversion), oxycodone (for conversion) and oxymorphone, the DEA has determined that the proposed initial 2001 aggregate production quotas are sufficient to meet the current 2001 estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States.

Pursuant to section 1303 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Deputy Administrator of the DEA will, in early 2001, adjust aggregate production quotas and individual manufacturing quotas allocated for the year based upon 2000 year-end inventory and actual 2000 disposition data supplied by quota recipients for each basic class of Schedule I or II controlled substance.

Therefore, under the authority vested in the Attorney General by section 306 of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 826), delegated to the Administrator of the DEA by Section 0.100 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and redelegated to the Deputy Administrator pursuant to Section 0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Deputy Administrator hereby orders that the 2001 initial aggregate production quotas for the following controlled substances, expressed in grams of anhydrous acid or base, be established as follows:

The Deputy Administrator further orders that aggregate production quotas for all other Schedules I and II controlled substances included in sections 1308.11 and 1308.12 of title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations be established at zero.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that notices of aggregate production quotas are not subject to centralized review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not preempt or modify any provisions of state law; nor does it impose enforcement responsibilities on any state; nor does it diminish the power of any state to enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this action does not have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Order 13132.

The Deputy Administrator hereby certifies that this action will have no significant impact upon small entities whose interests must be considered under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The establishment of aggregate production quotas for Schedules I and II controlled substances is mandated by law and by international treaty obligations. The quotas are necessary to provide for the estimated medical, scientific, research and industrial needs of the United States, for export requirements and the establishment and maintenance of reserve stocks. While aggregate production quotas are of primary importance to large manufacturers, their impact upon small entities is neither negative nor beneficial. Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

This action meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform.

This action will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This action is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966. This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

The Drug Enforcement Administration makes every effort to write clearly. If you have suggestions as to how to improve the clarity of this regulation, call or write Frank L. Sapienza, Chief, Drug & Chemical Evaluation Section, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, D.C. 20537, telephone (202) 307-7183.

Copies of the master plan are available from the National Capital Planning Commission, 401 9th Street, NW, North Lobby, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20576. Individuals interested in testifying at the meeting should call the National Capital Planning Commission, 202-482-7200, no later than 12:00 Noon the day before the meeting to register in advance. Members of the public who wish to testify and have not signed up in advance may sign up at the meeting before the start of the session. Each testifier will be limited to five minutes, and will generally be scheduled on a first-come basis. Written comments may be submitted before, during, or after the public meeting. Comments may be mailed to the attention of Ron Wilson at the National Capital Planning Commission. Comments may also be sent by fax: 202-482-7272 or by e-mail: info@ncpc.gov. All comments should be received by the end of the comment period, January 31, 2001.

The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish one or more broadbanding systems covering all or any portion of the IRS workforce under the General Schedule (GS). Section 9509(b) of title 5, United States Code, directs OPM to prescribe criteria for IRS broadbanding systems and specifies certain principles that such criteria must follow, at a minimum. OPM publicized the interim criteria in the Federal Register on July 16, 1999, and requested comments.

OPM developed the criteria after conferring with the Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the National Treasury Employees Union. The criteria are broadly written to give IRS the flexibility to establish pay practices that support mission accomplishment, and to base pay decisions on performance. The criteria incorporate lessons learned from previous experience with broadbanding under personnel demonstration projects.

Before implementing any broadbanding system under this authority, IRS must develop written plans, policies, and implementing procedures that address each relevant criterion, including descriptions of broadbanding structure(s), classification criteria, positions covered, the method of pay progression within a band, pay-setting policies, policies for paying supervisors or management officials, and policies for converting positions into broadbanding systems.

Section 9509(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code, requires that employees covered by IRS broadbanding systems remain subject to the laws and regulations covering General Schedule employees ( e.g., locality payments, the aggregate limitation on pay, premium pay, and recruitment and relocation bonuses and retention allowances), except as otherwise provided in the criteria.

OPM made one change. We gave particular consideration to the unusual situation where an employee is moved out of the broadbanding system shortly after entering it. In this situation, we found that the regular conversion rules could produce an undesirable pay result. Therefore, we have modified the rules for converting employees back to the General Schedule pay system. The change affects only employees who move back to the General Schedule before any pay adjustment event ( e.g., any within-band increase, a promotion, or any systemwide pay adjustment) under the broadbanding system. The change ensures that these employees will not experience an unwarranted gain or an unwarranted loss in pay.

To make this change, we added one paragraph to Appendix B—Conversion into Broadbanding System, and revised Appendix C—Procedures for Converting Employees Back to the General Schedule Pay System.

OPM received comments from three individuals. The commenters were concerned that broadbanding could lead to fewer and/or smaller pay increases for employees, and that broadbanding created the potential for inequitable treatment of employees. The commenters suggested that broadbanding systems align with the IRS's employee retention strategies, and that OPM require IRS to collect and report data to permit demographic analysis of broadbanding's effects.

OPM believes that the final criteria and existing laws and requirements address the commenters' concerns and suggestions appropriately.

Section 9509 of title 5, United States Code, as added by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206), provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to establish one or more broadbanding systems covering all or any portion of the IRS workforce under the General Schedule (GS). Section 9509(b) directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to prescribe criteria for IRS broadbanding systems and specifies certain principles that such criteria must follow, at a minimum.

Section 9509(a) defines a “broad-banded system” as a system for grouping positions for pay, job evaluation, and other purposes that is different from the General Schedule pay and classification system established under chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code. Employees covered by IRS broadbanding systems are not covered by subchapter III of chapter 53 or by those provisions of chapter 51 that define General Schedule grades. However, selected provisions from those parts of law are used in applying parallel features to employees in IRS broadbanding systems, as provided in these criteria.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 9509(b)(3), employees covered by IRS broadbanding systems are to be treated as if they are General Schedule employees for the purpose of applying other laws and regulations governing General Schedule employees, except as otherwise provided in these criteria. Applicable laws and regulations include, but are not limited to: 5 U.S.C. 5304, authorizing locality-based comparability payments; 5 U.S.C. 5307, establishing a limitation on aggregate pay; 5 U.S.C. chapter 55, subchapter V, authorizing various forms of premium pay; and 5 U.S.C. 5753 and 5754, authorizing recruitment and relocation bonuses and retention allowances.

Employees in IRS broadbanding systems are not covered by the special salary rate program established under 5 U.S.C. 5305. However, IRS broadbanding systems may use a parallel authority to establish staffing supplements, which are linked to established special salary rates, as described in Appendix A.

These criteria apply only to broadbanding systems that cover General Schedule positions. Section 9509(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, with the prior approval of the Director of OPM, to include in a broadbanding system positions that otherwise would be subject to subchapter IV of chapter 53 (prevailing rate systems) or 5 U.S.C. 5376 (senior-level positions). Including such positions would require OPM's separate review and approval of a specific plan for that purpose. The criteria presented here are not intended to apply to broadbanding systems that include such positions.

Before implementing any broadbanding system under this authority, IRS must develop a written plan that includes policies and implementing procedures to address each criterion that is relevant to the broadbanding system, including descriptions of broadbanding structure(s), positions covered, classification criteria, the method of pay progression within a band, policies for setting and adjusting pay, policies for paying supervisors or managerial employees, and policies for converting positions into broadbanding systems.

Under these criteria—

Band means a pay level or work level within a career path containing one or more General Schedule grades and related ranges of pay.

Broadbanding system means a system for grouping positions for pay, job evaluation, and other purposes that is different from the General Schedule system established under chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, as a result of combining the grades and related ranges of pay for one or more occupational series.

Career path means a grouping of one or more occupational series into broad occupational families or career tracks for job evaluation, pay, or other purposes. A career path may contain one or more bands.

Employee means an individual who would otherwise be covered by chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, if not covered by a broadbanding system.

Supervisor and managerial employee have the meaning given those terms in OPM's General Schedule Supervisory Guide.

Criteria are provided below under the applicable principles listed in 5 U.S.C. 9509(b)(3)(A)-(F) (labeled A-F) and an additional principle (labeled G).

IRS broadbanding systems must—

1. Link to the General Schedule.

2. Assign occupations to career paths based on the nature of work performed, the qualifications required, the normal career and pay progression, and other characteristics of those occupations.

3. Combine General Schedule grades into bands following the criteria in B. The range of difficulty and responsibility of each band must be the same as the range of difficulty and responsibility of the band's constituent grades ( i.e., consistent with the grade level criteria in standards published by OPM in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5105) and must represent the normal range of work performed in the organization.

4. Place positions into bands within career paths in accordance with—

a. Classification standards published by OPM under 5 U.S.C. 5105; or

b. Any agency guidance which places a position within its correct band and career path (but which need not be sufficient to determine a position's correct General Schedule grade).

5. Not include law enforcement officers covered by special salary rates under section 403 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 in the same band as non-law enforcement officers when the maximum grade in the band is any one of grades 3 through 10.

6. Use established General Schedule rates of pay (including any applicable locality rates or special salary rates) for premium pay purposes under subchapter V of chapter 55 of title 5, United States Code, and 5 CFR part 550, subpart A ( i.e., for the purpose of determining the maximum hourly overtime rate and the biweekly premium pay limitation).

A band under an IRS broadbanding system may contain—

1. A minimum of one General Schedule grade.

2. A maximum of—

a. Eight General Schedule grades when grades 13, 14, and 15 are not included in the band.

b. Five General Schedule grades when grade 13 is included, but neither grade 14 nor 15 is included in the band.

c. Three General Schedule grades when grade 14 is included, but grade 15 is not included in the band.

d. Two General Schedule grades when grade 15 is included in the band.

1. The minimum rate of basic pay for each band must equal the minimum rate of basic pay payable under 5 U.S.C. 5332 for the lowest General Schedule grade in that band. The maximum rate of basic pay for each band must equal the maximum rate of basic pay payable under 5 U.S.C. 5332 for the highest General Schedule grade in that band.

a. Notwithstanding C1, preceding, the maximum rates of basic pay for bands covering law enforcement officers must equal the maximum special salary rates for grades 3 through 10 established under section 403 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990, where applicable.

b. The minimum and maximum rates of basic pay that define each band must be adjusted at the same time and in the same manner as adjustments are made in the corresponding minimum and maximum General Schedule rates of basic pay under 5 U.S.C. 5303 or similar provision of law.

2. The maximum rate of basic pay for any band may not exceed the maximum rate of basic pay for grade 15.

3. Employees in IRS broadbanding systems are not covered by the special salary rate authority in 5 U.S.C. 5305. However, IRS broadbanding systems may provide for the use of staffing supplements instead of special salary rates under Appendix A of these criteria. If special salary rates are not replaced with staffing supplements, special rate employees must be converted into a broadbanding system under the procedures established in Appendix B of these criteria.

4. Only employees receiving retained rates of pay under subchapter VI of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, as applied in the broadbanding system, or in an approved staffing supplement category may receive rates of pay that exceed the locality-adjusted band maximum rates.

1. IRS broadbanding systems must include—

a. Policies for adjusting the pay of an employee within a band, including—

(1) Adjustments made in accordance with paragraphs D2a and D3a; and

(2) Increases based on individual factors such as an employee's performance, skills, or competencies and/or time at pay level, except that such increases may not be based solely on time at pay level. Increases that advance an employee's relative position in a band ( i.e., exceed the adjustments made in accordance with paragraphs D2a and D3a) may be paid only to employees whose performance meets or exceeds retention standards.

b. Policies concerning which level of management will make pay adjustment decisions for employees.

c. Principles for managing pay progression and payroll costs associated with basic pay adjustments. IRS must provide funding for salary increases under its broadbanding systems. Because broadbanding systems provide more choices on how to distribute pay to employees, it is necessary to have an overall budget to manage the costs associated with such choices. At a minimum, the salary increase budget must include funds equal to the amounts that would be required for individual pay adjustments made at the time of schedule adjustments under 5 U.S.C. 5303 (or similar provision of law) and locality-based comparability payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304 (or similar provision of law). A salary increase budget must meet salary cost objectives and be consistent with policies and procedures for adjusting pay under a broadbanding system that are established to ensure equal pay for work of equal value.

2. IRS broadbanding systems must provide for—

a. Making adjustments in the rates of basic pay for all employees who are not supervisors or managerial employees equivalent to the annual adjustments provided to General Schedule employees under 5 CFR 531.205. Employees on pay retention must be granted 50 percent of the increase in the maximum rate of basic pay for their band.

b. The payment of locality-based comparability payments for employees covered by 5 U.S.C. 5304 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart F, and special geographic adjustments for law enforcement officers covered by section 404 of the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 and 5 CFR part 531, subpart C. (See Appendix A of these criteria for information on possible staffing supplements.)

3. IRS pay adjustment policies may provide for—

a. Determining the circumstances under which adjustments in rates of basic pay may be granted to supervisors or managerial employees up to the equivalent of the annual adjustments provided to General Schedule employees under 5 CFR 531.205. However, an employee's rate of basic pay may not fall below the minimum rate of his or her band as a result of receiving less than the full adjustment.

b. Reducing an employee's rate of basic pay within a band, but only for unacceptable performance, misconduct, or loss of supervisory status (if such loss results in reversal of a within-band adjustment granted at the time of placement in a supervisory position). Any reductions based on unacceptable performance or misconduct are adverse actions under 5 U.S.C. 7512.

c. Control points within bands. Control points are dollar points within bands that limit or restrict pay-setting or the movement of employees through the rate range of the band. If control points are used, IRS broadbanding systems must include policies on the number of control points within bands and how they are derived ( e.g., as a percentage of the rate range) and applied ( i.e., the circumstances under which an employee's rate of pay may be set or adjusted at, above, or below a control point).

1. IRS broadbanding systems may provide for a separate broadbanding system or career path for supervisors and managerial employees.

2. A supervisor's or managerial employee's rate of pay may not be based on the salaries of the employees he or she supervises or manages.

1. Conversion into a broadbanding system. IRS broadbanding systems must include policies for determining the career path, band, and pay rate for employees upon conversion into the system consistent with the provisions in Appendix B. IRS broadbanding systems may also include policies for making prorated within-grade increase or career-ladder promotion payments to employees as an adjustment in basic pay or a lump-sum payment upon conversion from the General Schedule to a broadbanding system consistent with the provisions in Appendix B.

2. Pay-setting policies. IRS broadbanding systems must include policies for determining an employee's career path, band, and rate of basic pay upon initial appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or placement in a different band or career path. The methods used to set pay must be consistent with the principle of equal pay for substantially equal work.

a. Pay must be set at least at the minimum rate and must not exceed the maximum rate of basic pay of the band to which assigned (unless pay retention applies).

b. Policies must specify the conditions under which pay may be set above the minimum rate of the band and the amount of any minimum or maximum pay increase upon promotion. The time-in-grade provisions in 5 CFR 300.601-605 do not apply to employees under a broadbanding system.

c. Upon movement to a different geographic area, locality-based comparability payments and special pay adjustments for law enforcement officers must be redetermined and paid in accordance with 5 CFR part 531, subparts F and C, respectively. Staffing supplements must also be redetermined consistent with the provisions in Appendix A of these criteria.

d. Movement of an employee to a band with a lower maximum rate of basic pay than the employee's former band is equivalent to a reduction in grade for the purpose of chapters 43 and 75 of title 5, United States Code.

3. Conversion to the General Schedule. Agencies must use the procedures in Appendix C of these criteria for determining an employee's GS equivalent grade and pay rate upon conversion from a broadbanding system to the General Schedule.

1. For provisions of chapter 51 that apply to the determination of General Schedule grades, other than sections 5104 and 5105, the term “grade” is deemed to mean “band within a career path”.

2. The provisions in these criteria related to grade and pay retention are based on the current grade and pay retention authority in subchapter VI of Chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, and 5 CFR part 536. When applying the grade and pay retention provisions, the term “band” has the same meaning as “grade” under the statute and regulations. Under 5 U.S.C. 9509(c), the Secretary of the Treasury may provide for variations from the grade and pay retention authority for employees who are covered by broadbanding systems with prior approval of the Director of OPM and in accordance with a plan for implementing such variations.

3. When applying paragraph (4) in the definition of “reasonable offer” in the severance pay provisions at 5 CFR part 550.703 to employees covered by IRS broadbanding systems, the term “band” has the same meaning as “grade”. When applying paragraph (4), IRS will also consider a position one band below the employee's current band level a “reasonable offer” in the case of a broadbanding system under which the next lower band comprises two or more grades.

Pursuant to section 73(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(1)); section 11B(b)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401b(b)(1)), as carried out under Executive Order 12924 of August 19, 1994 (hereinafter cited as the “Export Administration Act of 1979”); and Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993; a determination was made on November 17, 2000, that the following foreign persons have engaged in missile technology proliferation activities that require the imposition of the sanctions described in section 73(a)(2)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(B)) and Section 11B(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410b(b)(1)(B)(ii) on the following entities:

1. Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) (Iran) and its sub-units and successors; and

2. SANAM Industrial Group (Iran) and its sub-units and successors.

Accordingly, the following sanctions are being imposed on these entities:

(A) new individual licenses for exports to the entities described above of items controlled pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979 will be denied for two years;

(B) new licenses for export to the entities described above of items controlled pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act will be denied for two years; and

(C) no new United States Government contracts involving the entities described above will be entered into for two years.

With respect to items controlled pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, the export sanction only applies to exports made pursuant to individual export licenses.

These measures shall be implemented by the responsible agencies as provided in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993.

Pursuant to the authorities vested in the President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. ) (“IEEPA”), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq. ), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination was made on November 17, 2000, that it is in the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States to remove the restrictions imposed July 30, 1998, on the following Russian entities, their sub-units and successors, pursuant to Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the Executive Order: INOR Scientific Institute; and Polyus Scientific Production Association.

Executive Order 13141 builds on U.S. experience with written environmental reviews of previous trade agreements, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (1991-92 and 1993), the Uruguay Round Agreements (1994), and the proposed Accelerated Tariff Liberalization initiative with respect to forest products (1999). The Order institutionalizes the use of environmental reviews as an important tool to help identify potential positive and negative environmental effects of certain major trade agreements, and to facilitate consideration of appropriate responses where effects are identified. Pursuant to the Order, environmental reviews, along with a process of ongoing assessment and evaluation, should help shape trade agreements that contribute to the broader goal of sustainable development. The Order is available on USTR's internet web site at www.ustr.gov.

USTR and CEQ developed the Guidelines called for by the Order in consultation with interested agencies on the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC), including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Interior, Justice, State, Treasury and Transportation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The TPSC, established under section 242 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. section 1872), is the principal staff-level mechanism for interagency decisionmaking on U.S. trade policy. The current participants in the TPSC process for purposes of the Guidelines include agencies with relevant environmental, economic and foreign policy expertise. See Guidelines, Appendix A. 1

As part of the process for developing the Guidelines, USTR and CEQ sought to involve interested members of the public at significant stages. At the outset, USTR and CEQ requested public comment concerning issues the agencies should consider in developing the guidelines, and received twenty-two sets of written comments. 65 FR 9757 (Feb. 22, 2000). USTR and CEQ also requested comment on draft guidelines published in July, 2000, and received twenty-five sets of written comments. 65 FR 42,743 (July 11, 2000). Eight individuals and organizations presented testimony with regard to the draft guidelines at the August 2 public hearing. All written comments and a transcript of the hearing are available for public inspection in USTR's reading room located at 600 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20508.

USTR and CEQ also consulted extensively with the Trade and Environmental Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), as well as other interested advisory committees. TEPAC is part of the trade advisory committee system established by Congress to provide private sector information and advice on the priorities and direction of U.S. trade policy. TEPAC sponsored several workshops on the Guidelines for TEPAC members and other participants, which were open to the public. USTR, CEQ, and other interested agencies participated in the public workshops. TEPAC also submitted a divided recommendation prior to publication of the draft Guidelines, and USTR and CEQ consulted informally with interested TEPAC members throughout the development of the Guidelines.

In addition, USTR and CEQ drew upon agencies' experience gained to date in implementing the Executive Order in the review of the Jordan Free Trade Agreement negotiations, see 65 FR 58,342 (September 28, 2000), and in planning for the review of the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations. See 65 FR 75,763 (Dec. 4, 2000).

The views of the public played a significant role in shaping the final Guidelines. USTR and CEQ benefitted from numerous constructive comments provided by the public in written comments and at the August 2, 2000 hearing. Public views reflected many different perspectives, including those of environmental organizations, industry, and agriculture.

Public comments generally supported the overall goals of the Executive Order and Guidelines, and noted that the draft Guidelines represented a significant step forward toward achieving those goals. However, a number of commenters expressed concern that the draft Guidelines were insufficiently specific concerning how environmental considerations would actually be integrated into the development of U.S. trade negotiating objectives. Some of these commenters also advocated more robust consideration of alternatives than provided for in the draft Guidelines. Some commenters also favored more explicit provision for engaging the public early in the negotiating process to allow for a meaningful public role in shaping overall trade objectives and negotiating positions. In particular, these commenters emphasized that early public engagement would assist in identifying “win-win” opportunities where the opening of markets and reduction or elimination of subsidies may yield environmental benefits.

From another perspective, other commenters were concerned that the process outlined in the draft Guidelines was too prescriptive and inflexible, and could thus hamper trade negotiators. A number of commenters emphasized the need to ensure that reviews would be based on an objective, impartial analysis of environmental effects and sound scientific principles. They requested that the final Guidelines clarify that positive as well as negative impacts would be considered, and stressed that all government agencies with relevant expertise and all interested advisory committees should be involved in the reviews.

Commenters differed concerning the degree to which reviews should address global and transboundary environmental impacts. Several commenters favored creating a presumption in favor of reviewing such effects, while others argued that the reviews should normally be limited to impacts within the United States.

Several commenters requested that the final Guidelines provide for greater transparency in the negotiation process, including the release of draft negotiating texts. While acknowledging that confidentiality for some aspects of the negotiation might be appropriate, these commenters argued that non-disclosure should be kept to a minimum, and that cleared advisors should be used where confidentiality was unavoidable.

Concerning agency roles, a number of commenters contended that CEQ and environmental agencies should have a more prominent role in conducting the reviews, while others argued that their role should be less prominent. Several commenters criticized the way in which governmental resource constraints were reflected in the draft Guidelines and urged that reviews should not be conditioned on the availability of resources.

Finally, several commenters pointed out that the draft Guidelines omitted reference to possible implications of trade agreements for state and local (as well as federal) environmental regulatory authorities.

The final Guidelines have strengthened and clarified provisions pertaining to early and proactive integration of environmental and trade policy objectives. Specifically, Sections I and II of the Guidelines expressly acknowledge that the written environmental review process is not the sole means of integrating environmental concerns and goals into a proposed trade agreement, and make clear that public input will be sought even where no written environmental review is conducted (Section II.7). The final Guidelines also clarify that informal public outreach and consultations shall take place at an early stage in the review process, and that information received at this stage will be used to inform the development of U.S. negotiating objectives and positions (Section III, A and B).

The final Guidelines provide further clarification that reviews will consider positive as well as negative potential impacts of trade agreements ( see, e.g., Section IV.B.2, and Appendix C) and that analysis will be objective and scientific (Section V.A.2). Objectivity and balance in the reviews are further advanced through the active involvement of a broad range of government agencies (Section VIII.A.5) and relevant advisory committees ( see, e.g., sections VI.6 and IV.4). The final Guidelines also provide clarifications regarding possible state, local, and tribal governmental regulatory issues (Sections IV.B.2.b, V.B.1 and appendix C).

The final Guidelines make explicit (in a new Section IV.C) that the extent of the analysis shall be proportionate to the significance of anticipated environmental impacts. Where initial steps in the review process indicate that environmental impacts are likely to be de minimis, it will normally be appropriate to abbreviate the analysis.

Concerning global and transboundary impacts, the final Guidelines provide some additional clarification to ensure that potential global and transboundary impacts are appropriately identified in the scoping process (Section V.B.5). However, the general approach of the draft Guidelines has been retained in conformity with the Executive Order, which provides that the focus of the review should be on impacts in the United States, and examination of global and transboundary impacts may be included as appropriate and prudent.

The final Guidelines include a new provision concerning transparency and confidentiality in the review process (Section VI.6). This is a difficult and complex issue, which has implications beyond the scope of the Order and the Guidelines. The United States believes that transparency and openness are vital to ensuring public understanding and support for international trade policy, and is at the forefront of efforts to improve transparency in the world trading system. The United States is also committed to keeping the public informed about trade negotiations and engaging in regular dialogue with interested stakeholders. However, disclosure of certain information to foreign governments could compromise the ability of trade negotiators to obtain the best outcome for national interest. Therefore, it is important to maintain a degree of confidentiality concerning development of U.S. negotiating objectives and positions and the conduct of negotiations.

The final Guidelines endeavor to strike a balance between these goals. They state that sufficient information shall be provided to the public to facilitate understanding and involvement in a meaningful manner concerning U.S. negotiating objectives and the environmental review process. However, to the extent that disclosure would impair the United States' ability to develop negotiating objectives or conduct negotiations, or would compromise proprietary or confidential information, issues shall be addressed, where appropriate, through the advisory committee system of cleared advisors.

The final Guidelines make clear that CEQ and USTR shall jointly oversee the implementation of the Executive Order, including the Guidelines, and consult at the outset of each review (Section VIII.A.1, 5). The final Guidelines also modify references to the role of governmental resources (for example, the specific reference to resources in connection with consideration of global and transboundary effects is deleted, see Section V.B.5). However, because adequate resources are critical to the effective implementation of the Order and Guidelines, several provisions address the resource issue (Sections II.5, VIII.A.2 and 6). Additional language clarifies that agencies shall seek adequate resources to carry out their responsibilities within their planning budgets (Section VIII.A.6).

Finally, the Guidelines are intended to be a living document. CEQ and USTR retain the ability to revise the Guidelines, in consultation with other agencies, advisory committees and the public, as experience is gained with applying them to particular reviews (Section VIII.B.1). If CEQ and USTR conclude that revision is appropriate, the public shall be notified of the intent to revise and be given an opportunity to comment on significant revisions.

1. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issue these Guidelines pursuant to Executive Order 13141, Environmental Review of Trade Agreements (the Order). The purpose of the Guidelines is to implement the Order so as to ensure that consideration of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of trade agreements (both positive and negative), and identification of complementarities between trade and environmental objectives, are consistent and integral parts of the policymaking process.

2. The primary focus of the Order and these Guidelines is on the process for evaluating the environmental implications of certain major proposed trade agreements, which will be the subject of written environmental reviews (ERs). In addition, as recognized by the Order, the broader goal of sustainable development shall also be advanced through an ongoing process of assessment, evaluation and public consultation by responsible Federal agencies, even where no ER is conducted.

1. Section 4(a) of the Order identifies three categories of agreements for which an ER is mandated in light of their potential for significant environmental impacts: (1) comprehensive multilateral trade rounds; (2) bilateral or plurilateral free trade agreements; and (3) major new trade liberalization agreements in natural resource sectors.

2. Section 4(b) of the Order provides that agreements reached in connection with enforcement and dispute resolution actions are not covered by the Order.

3. Section 4(c) of the Order provides that ERs may also be warranted for other agreements. A decision to initiate the ER process for a Section 4(c) agreement shall be based on objective criteria.

4. The significance of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts shall be an essential factor in determining whether to conduct an ER for a section 4(c) agreement. The assessment of this factor shall include consideration of the following criteria:

a. The extent to which the agreement might affect environmentally sensitive media and resources and/or result in substantial changes in trade flows of products or services that could confer environmental harms or benefits;

b. The extent to which the agreement might affect U.S. environmental laws, regulations, policies, and/or international commitments;

c. The magnitude and scope of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts; and

d. The magnitude of anticipated changes in trade flows.

5. In certain circumstances, additional factors, such as negotiation timetables and the availability of relevant data, analytical tools and expertise, may be considered in decisions regarding section 4(c) agreements.

6. The Order anticipates that most sectoral liberalization agreements will not require an ER because it is expected that they are unlikely to result in significant environmental impacts.

7. A decision not to conduct an ER for a Section 4(c) agreement will not relieve the Federal government of the obligation to consider environmental issues under the process of ongoing consultations, assessment and evaluation applicable to the negotiation of all trade agreements. As part of that process, USTR shall facilitate identification of any relevant environmental issues by providing opportunities for engaging the public, as well as through the early initiation of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) process. 1

8. The decision not to conduct an ER for a Section 4(c) agreement may be reassessed as appropriate.

1. The overarching goal of the ER process is to ensure that, through the consistent application of principles and procedures, environmental considerations are integrated into the development of U.S. trade negotiating objectives and positions. The process is intended to provide timely information that will enable trade policymakers and negotiators to understand the environmental implications of possible courses of action.

2. The goals of the ER process shall be achieved through a variety of formal and informal means, flexible enough to accommodate the different types of trade agreements and negotiating timetables. Early in the negotiating process, public views on the broad objectives of the proposed agreement shall be sought through informal public outreach and consultation. As more is known about the shape of the proposed agreement, the process shall become more formal and analytical, leading to the issuance of the written ER documents.

3. Pursuant to Section 5 of the Order, while an ER shall be undertaken sufficiently early in the negotiating process to inform the development of negotiating positions, it shall not be a condition for the timely tabling of specific negotiating positions.

1. When negotiation of the prospective trade agreement is first under consideration, USTR, through the TPSC, shall seek information regarding potential environmental concerns and benefits associated with the commercial practices and trade policies under consideration. This shall be accomplished through an ongoing, flexible process of consultation with Congress, the interested public, and advisory committees, and, in the normal case, Federal Register notice(s) requesting public comment on environmental issues and other issues concerning the negotiations. See Appendix B.

2. By virtue of their relevant expertise, TPSC agencies play an important role in the development of trade policies and objectives. Accordingly, throughout the ER process they shall provide analytical expertise and shall bring important environmental issues to the attention of the relevant TPSC subcommittee(s) in a timely manner.

3. The environmental information developed in this early stage shall inform the development of U.S. negotiating objectives and positions.

1. USTR, through the TPSC, shall initiate the formal written ER process with a notice in the Federal Register as soon as possible once sufficient information exists concerning the scope of the proposed trade agreement, allowing for the meaningful evaluation of its potential environmental ramifications. See Appendix B.

2. Environmental issues shall be analyzed by the relevant TPSC subcommittee(s) or, as appropriate, by a working group under the subcommittee(s). For purposes of these Guidelines, the term Environmental Review Group (ERG) refers to any TPSC group tasked with the environmental review of trade agreements under these Guidelines.

3. In order to expedite the initiation of the ER process for a particular trade agreement, it may be desirable to analyze discrete aspects of the proposed agreement as sufficient information becomes available. In all cases, the final ER document should address identified environmental issues in a comprehensive manner.

4. For some agreements that fall under Section 4(c) of the Executive Order, the need for an ER may not be identified until after specific negotiating positions have been established or are under development. In such cases, the ER process shall be initiated as soon as feasible thereafter.

1. The scoping process involves the identification of significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the written ER, along with the elimination from detailed study of those issues which are not significant or have been covered by prior reviews.

2. The early involvement of agencies with relevant expertise and the public in the scoping process helps assure that analysis is adequate and that issues are identified in a timely manner.

3. Scoping includes consideration of the environmental dimensions of the commercial practices and trade policies at issue, including ways in which the potential trade agreement can complement U.S. environmental objectives.

4. USTR, through the TPSC, shall request public comment on the scope of the ER through the Federal Register Notice of Intent to Initiate Environmental Review, and shall seek the views of interested advisory committees, including the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC). See Section VI and Appendix B.

a. The scoping process for the ER has two principal components: (i) identification of issues; and (ii) selection and prioritization of issues for review. The first component focuses on soliciting input and determining the types of environmental impacts that could result from the proposed trade agreement. The second component focuses on selecting and prioritizing the significant issues that should be analyzed to determine the environmental consequences of the trade agreement, if any. The result of an effective scoping process is a targeted, analytical work plan.

b. Issue identification and prioritization is an iterative process. Negotiating positions are likely to undergo continual adjustment until the agreement is completed. The steps taken to establish the scope of the ER may, therefore, be revisited throughout the negotiations.

a. This step in the scoping process is meant to identify the range of possible environmental impacts (both positive and negative) associated with the trade agreement under consideration. However, not all issues identified will necessarily be analyzed in the ER. The second step in the scoping process, issue selection and prioritization (described below), will be used to select important issues warranting further analysis.

b. Solicitation of Information

(1) The scoping process shall draw upon the knowledge of any agency with relevant expertise in the subject matter under consideration, as well as the views of Congress, the public, and advisory committees.

(2) Where matters affecting state, local and tribal government regulatory authority may be at issue, USTR shall consult with the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee (IGPAC) and other appropriate sources of information.

a. Three types of information shall be considered when determining the scope of the ER:

(1) the scope and objectives of the proposed trade agreement;

(2) a realistic range of alternative approaches for accomplishing the broad objectives of the trade agreement; and

(3) types of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts.

b. Ascertaining the Scope of the Proposed Trade Agreement

(1) The scope of the ER is a function of the scope and objectives of the proposed trade agreement and the range of realistic approaches for achieving those objectives. Thus, there should be a close and interactive relationship between the ERG and the TPSC subcommittee(s) responsible for the negotiation.

(2) The ERG shall maintain continuing awareness of U.S. negotiating goals as they evolve and ensure that the scope of the ER properly reflects emerging environmental issues.

c. Ascertaining Options for Analysis

(1) Scoping shall be used to assist in identifying possible alternative negotiating approaches and options for accomplishing the broad objectives of the trade agreement, including approaches for achieving environmental benefits. Options may also include consideration of methods for addressing positive and negative environmental impacts.

(2) The scoping process shall be used to gain an understanding of options or approaches reflecting a realistic range of possible negotiating outcomes. However, the options analyzed during the ER process shall not constrain trade negotiators from considering others.

d. Ascertaining Reasonably Foreseeable Environmental Impacts

(1) During the initial stages of scoping, a range of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts (both positive and negative) should be considered for inclusion in the ER. See Appendix C. Later, as scoping progresses, some of the identified impacts may be eliminated from consideration through the process of prioritization and analysis described below.

(2) Domestic impacts are necessarily the primary concern and priority for an ER conducted under the Executive Order and these Guidelines. However, the scoping process shall also consider, pursuant to Section IV.B.5, whether it is appropriate and prudent to examine global and transboundary impacts.

(3) Consistent with existing legal requirements, the ERG may consult with academic, federal, state or local entities, and/or other interested groups that have relevant experience with economic and environmental analyses and modeling techniques.

a. Once environmental issues have been sufficiently identified, the ERG shall select and prioritize the issues and establish the scope of the ER.

b. Considerations for establishing ER scope include:

(1) the perceived significance of potential environmental impacts;

(2) the relative importance placed on a particular issue by governmental agencies, the public, and/or advisory committees;

(3) availability of analytical tools capable of assessing environmental impacts at an adequate level of detail;

(4) existence of opportunities for building on, or incorporating by reference, work already performed or being performed elsewhere in the interagency process, so that the ER is not duplicative of other efforts.

(1) The scoping process for every ER shall be used to identify whether reasonably foreseeable global and transboundary impacts might be associated with the proposed trade agreement.

(2) Evaluation of whether it is appropriate and prudent to analyze global and transboundary impacts in the ER shall include consideration of the following:

(a) scope and magnitude of reasonably foreseeable global and transboundary impacts;

(b) implications for U.S. interests, including international commitments and programs for international cooperation;

(c) availability of relevant data and analytic tools for addressing impacts outside the United States, including reviews performed by other countries involved in negotiations or by regional or international organizations; and

(d) diplomatic considerations.

1. Once the scoping process has identified and prioritized significant issues that warrant further analysis, the ERG shall plan how to proceed, taking into account that the analysis should be proportionate to the significance of anticipated impacts. Where initial steps in the ER process indicate that environmental impacts are likely to be de minimis, it will normally be appropriate to abbreviate the analysis.

1. Since trade agreements exhibit broad variation, it is likely that each ER will incorporate uniquely tailored analytical approaches. A different mix of analytical methodologies may be needed for different types of trade agreements.

2. The analysis shall entail an objective, rigorous assessment of the environmental issues under consideration, and shall be based on scientific information and principles, documented experience and objective data. Analysis shall normally be both qualitative and quantitative. The analytical process should take into consideration assumptions and/or uncertainty in the data and methodologies and document limitations due to those assumptions or uncertainties.

3. Agencies shall use best efforts to identify sources of data and analytical methodologies available within and outside of the U.S. government, which would then provide a foundation for subsequent specific environmental reviews. A list of such sources shall be created and made available to the public. The list may be updated over time, including on the basis of public comments.

1. The ER shall examine the extent to which the proposed trade agreement may have implications for U.S. environmental regulations, statutes and other obligations and instruments. The ER should also analyze, as appropriate, any implications that the agreement may have regarding the ability of state, local, and tribal authorities to regulate with respect to environmental matters.

2. Examples of possible regulatory implications include impacts on the ability to maintain, strengthen and enforce laws, regulations and policies on pollution control; control of toxic and hazardous wastes and materials; protection of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species; relevant product standards; control and regulation of pesticides; food safety; and the public's ability to obtain information regarding the environment.

1. The ER shall examine the extent to which positive and negative environmental impacts may flow from economic changes estimated to result from the trade agreement. See Appendix C.

2. Application of modeling techniques may provide a useful approach for estimating such environmental impacts. However, modeling and other economic analytical techniques, in and of themselves, are unlikely to provide an exclusive means for assessing areas of environmental concern. For example, prevailing tools for assessing the economic effect of comprehensive trade agreements rely on aggregation of resource sectors to estimate broad trends, while estimates of environmental impact generally benefit from a more local or regional analysis.

3. Environmental impacts shall be analyzed in comparison to a base or baseline scenario. A baseline comparison shall take into account those changes that are likely to occur in the economy and the environment even in the absence of the proposed trade agreement.

1. Key findings and supporting analysis of the ER shall be made widely available to trade negotiators of the proposed agreement, as well as to trade and environmental policymakers throughout the government.

2. Where significant regulatory and/or economically driven environmental impacts have been identified, there shall be an analysis of options to mitigate negative impacts and create or enhance positive impacts. Options may include changes to negotiating positions as well as environmental policy responses outside the trade agreement, such as seeking possible changes to relevant U.S. domestic and international environmental policies.

3. Where options that address identified impacts are described in the ER document, they may include options for post-agreement actions for agencies to consider, such as actions to assess the accuracy of the analysis.

1. Provision for public participation in the review and assessment of environmental impacts of trade agreements is an essential component of these Guidelines, and is meant to ensure that the public and the government benefit from an open and inclusive process of trade policy development.

2. In addition to the public, advisory committees and Congress shall regularly be consulted.

3. Procedures for public participation should be flexible, not excessively burdensome, and responsive to needs for expedited action and confidentiality. The period for public comment shall normally be forty-five days, unless a shorter or longer period is appropriate.

4. Requests for public comment shall be far enough in advance of critical junctures in the negotiation so that, to the extent practicable, the public has a reasonable opportunity to prepare and submit comments to be taken into account during the ER process. Appendix B provides guidance on the types and content of public notification and participation.

5. Public hearings, notices in relevant publications, website postings, and other mechanisms shall be employed as appropriate and feasible. When the negotiating timetable permits, a public hearing or hearings shall normally be conducted.

6. Consistent with the United States' commitment to transparency and openness in the conduct of trade negotiations, sufficient information shall be provided to the public to facilitate understanding and involvement in a meaningful manner concerning U.S. negotiating objectives and the ER process. To the extent that such disclosure would impair the United States' ability to develop negotiating objectives or conduct negotiations, or would compromise proprietary or confidential information, issues shall be addressed, where appropriate, through the advisory committee system of cleared advisors.

1. Documentation is important for memorializing the ER process and explaining the rationale for the conclusions reached. Documentation also provides opportunities for integrating environmental considerations into negotiating positions. To that end, the Draft ER document, along with public comments, shall serve as one key means of informing the negotiation process.

2. In addition to informing the public, Final ER documents should serve as points of reference for subsequent ERs so that lessons can be learned and information drawn from the effort.

3. In order to factor environmental considerations into the development of trade negotiations, relevant steps and work products in the ER process should be undertaken sufficiently early to be of benefit to U.S. trade negotiators in developing negotiating positions.