Marketing Order No. 945, as amended (7 CFR part 945), regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in certain designated counties in Idaho and Malheur County, Oregon. The marketing order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674).

AMS published in the Federal Register (63 FR 8014; February 18, 1999), its plan to review certain regulations, including Marketing Order No. 945, under criteria contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612). Because many AMS regulations impact small entities, AMS decided, as a matter of policy, to review certain regulations which, although they may not meet the threshold requirement under section 610 of the RFA, warrant review. The February 18 notice stated that AMS would list the regulations to be reviewed in AMS' regulatory agenda which is published in the Federal Register as part of the Unified Agenda. However, after further consideration, AMS has decided to announce the reviews in the Federal Register separate from the Unified Agenda. Accordingly, this notice and request for comments is made for Idaho-Eastern Oregon potatoes.

The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the Idaho-Eastern Oregon potato marketing order should be continued without change, amended, or rescinded (consistent with the objectives of the AMAA) to minimize the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS will consider the following factors: (1) The continued need for the marketing order; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the public concerning the marketing order; (3) the complexity of the marketing order; (4) the extent to which the marketing order overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the marketing order has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the marketing order.

Written comments, views, opinions, and other information regarding the potato marketing order's impact on small businesses are invited.

The information presented in this notice is included to help the reviewer determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed land management activities. The information presented in this notice is summarized. Those who wish to provide comments, or are otherwise interested in the project, are encouraged to obtain additional information from the contact identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Three preliminary issues have been identified:

1. Road Management—The Forest Service will complete a Roads Analysis, which will assess the benefits, problems and risks of the current road system within the project area and identify management opportunities. This analysis may identify road issues related to the proposal.

2. Even-Aged/Uneven-Aged Management—The Forest Plan specifies the primary silvicultural system to be used in each management area. Even-aged management is the system identified for most of the Project Area. Uneven-aged management is an option considered for inclusions such as riparian areas, wet soils, or visually sensitive areas.

The interdisciplinary team will develop and analyze at least one alternative emphasizing uneven-aged management.

3. Class A Trout Fishery—The Project Area includes Fourmile Run, which is a Class A trout fishery. Maintenance of fisheries values and water quality will be important considerations for management activities in the vicinity.

An Open House will be held to provide information on the Roads Analysis for this project and for other projects proposed on the Bradford Ranger District. This meeting will be held at the Bradford Ranger District Office on May 14, 2001, from 2 p.m.-7 p.m.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail to r9_allegheny_nf@fs.fed.us. Please reference the County Line—Fourmile Project on the subject line. Also, include your name and mailing address with your comments so documents pertaining to this project may be mailed to you.

Additional information concerning the proposal can be accessed on the internet in the “Projects” section of the Allegheny National Forest website, located at www.fs.fed.us/r9/allegheny.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public review by September 2001. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

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

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

Because of the above rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments are made available to the Forest Service at a time when they can be meaningfully considered and responded to in the final environmental impact statement. Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages, sections, or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments received will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in March 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the environmental impact statement, and applicable laws, regulations and policies in making a decision regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR part 215.

The responsible official is John R. Schultz, District Ranger, Allegheny National Forest, Bradford Ranger District, HC 1, Box 88, Bradford, PA 16701.

The NFMA planning for this project was initiated in the spring of 2001 with the Upper Middle Fork Payette River Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale (EAWS). A letter announcing plans to complete the EAWS and soliciting comments was mailed to interest individuals and/or groups in March of 2001.

Roughly 70 percent of the project area occurs within one of two inventoried roadless areas (IRA's). A portion of the Peace Rock IRA occupies an estimated 8,947 acres, and a section of the Stony Meadows IRA another 2,357 acres of the project area. A large portion of the project area also occurs within Management Area 43 (Peace Rock). The Proposed Action does not include any management activities within either IRA or within Management Area 43.

The Middle Fork Payette River originates within, and runs through the center of the project area. The Forest Plan discloses that that segment of the river from Railroad Pass to the Middle Fork Bridge on the #409 road is potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River system as a “wild” river. However, in June of 1991 the Forest Plan was corrected to show that this segment of the river is potentially eligible as a “recreational” river.

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

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the DEIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the FEIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1002 (9th Cir., 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the DEIS 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningful consider them and respond to them in the FEIS.

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

Responsible Official: Anne F. Archie, Acting Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest, 1249 South Vinnell Way, Boise, ID 83709.

In 1998, the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak grizzly Bear Subcommittee recommended new access management direction to aid in the recovery of the threatened grizzly bear within the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Zones. This direction was titled the “Interim Access Management Strategy”. Additional information was provided in an “Interim Access Management Rule Set.” This new direction is based on new information regarding grizzly bear habitat needs, including the need for core security areas. The purpose for the amendment is to update Forest Plan management direction to respond to the recommendations and new information presented by the Selkirk/Cabinet Yaak Grizzly Bear Subcommittee.

The Forest Supervisors are proposing to amend their respective Forest Plans regarding Forest Plan standards and monitoring requirements that respond to the recommendations of the Interim Access Management Strategy and Interim Access Management Rule Set. The decision to be made is whether to adopt the proposed action as designed, with different requirements, or not at all.

This amendment would result in a new appendix to the Idaho Panhandle and Lolo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans). It will be an addendum to the Kootenai National Forest, Forest Plan, Appendix 8.

The Interim Access Management Strategy and Interim Access Management Rule Set comprise a set of access related guidelines developed over the past few years by the Selkirk/Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). The guidelines address the following access management parameters: (1) Habitat security, (2) core area, (3) trial use of access related to habitat quality/season, (4) motorized access route density, (5) monitoring, and (6) coordination with state wildlife agencies. The Rule Set also clearly discloses definitions of terminology related to each specific parameter. The complete text of these two documents is available on the IGBC internet website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc/scy/main.htm. Copies may also be requested by contacting Rob Carlin, ID Team Leader, at 406-882-4451.

Some preliminary issues have already been identified and are listed below. These issues apply only to National Forest System lands on the units listed previously in this notice.

The interim access management strategy and rule set may affect the ability to use roads and trails, the construction of roads and trails, and the closure and decommissioning of roads and trails. This potentially influences activities such as timber harvest, recreation use, administrative management activities, and other uses associated with Forest Service roads and trails.

The interim access management strategy and rule set did not recommend standards for total and open motorized route density. Therefore, some people are concerned that the strategy and rule set do not fully address the habitat needs of grizzly bears.

The first public participation efforts involving the Interim Access Management Strategy and Rule Set began in the spring and summer of 1997 with a series of seven workshops held throughout Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Nearly 300 individuals either sent letters or asked to be placed on the project mailing list. The key public concerns identified at the workshops were: (1) The need to consider habitat needs in relation to timing of road access restrictions; (2) the need to consider hunting regulations and law enforcement; and (3) the need to consider access options to provide the public a reasonable level of access to the National Forests.

The Forest Supervisors are giving notice that the Idaho Panhandle, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests are beginning an environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposed action so that interested or affected people can participate in the analysis and contribute to the final decision. The Forest Service is seeking comments from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and Federal, State, and local agencies that are interested or may be affected by the proposed action. The public is invited to help identify issues that define the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental impact statement. The range of alternatives considered in the DEIS will be based on the issues and specific decisions to be made. Written comments identifying issues for analysis and the range of alternatives are encouraged.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the EPA and to be available for public review in the summer of 2001. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 90 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register.

The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by February 2002. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions [ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts [ Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)]. Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 90-day comment period so that substantive comments and objects are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

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

The plant will be located in the community of Rock Springs, in northwestern Cecil County, Maryland, at the intersection of Old Mill Road and U.S. Route 222. The plant comprises six, 170-megawatt, gas-fired General Electric Frame 7FA combustion turbines. Each combustion turbine will have a 75-foot exhaust stack. The entire plant will be situated on approximately 26 acres of the 93-acre site. No major natural gas pipeline or electric transmission line improvements will be needed beyond the proposed site boundaries. A short electric transmission line span will be constructed on a 5-acre parcel owned by Rock Springs Generation, LLC adjacent to the plant site to tie the plant to an existing 500 kilovolt transmission line located southwest of Old Mill Road.

Copies of the Finding of No Significant Impact are available from RUS at the address provided herein or from Mr. David Smith of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Insbrook Corporate Center, 4201 Dominion Boulevard; Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, telephone (804) 968-4045. Mr. Smith's e-mail address is dsmith@odec.com.

On December 1, 2000 and March 23, 2001 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 75241 and 66 FR 16174) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 29, 1995, the Department published the final results of its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain iron-metal castings from India for the period January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1990. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India, 60 FR 44,849 ( 1990 Iron-Metal Castings ). Subsequently, respondents challenged the final results before the CIT. The primary issue involved the calculation of the program rates for the subsidies provided under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act.

Under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal castings are eligible to claim tax exemptions based on their export profits. In 1990 Iron-Metal Castings, the Department calculated these subsidies without adjusting for other subsidies received under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) and India's Cash Compensatory Support Scheme (CCS). In Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 00-148 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court remanded the final results of the 1990 administrative review and directed the Department to recalculate these subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates and CCS rebates from taxable income before determining the benefit under section 80HHC. The Department's subsequent remand determination reflected the Court's instructions and was affirmed in Crescent Foundry Co. Pvt. Ltd, v. United States, Slip Op. 01-6 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001).

We recalculated the company-specific and all-other subsidy rates for the period January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1990. The amended final countervailing duty rates are as follows:

The Department has been enjoined from issuing any liquidation instructions to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) until the conclusion of litigation of this case. Litigation has been completed and, therefore, the Department will instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue liquidation instructions directly to Customs.

This amendment to the final results of countervailing duty administrative review notice is in accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 USC 1671d(d)) and section 351.210(c) of the Department's regulations. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

On August 29, 1995, the Department published the final results of its administrative review of the countervailing duty order on certain iron-metal castings from India for the period January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1991. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India , 60 FR 44,843 ( 1991 Iron-Metal Castings ). Subsequently, respondents challenged the final results before the CIT. The primary issue involved the calculation of the program rates for the subsidies provided under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act.

Under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act, exporters of iron-metal castings are eligible to claim tax exemptions based on their export profits. In 1991 Iron-Metal Castings , the Department calculated these subsidies without adjusting for other subsidies received under India's International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) and India's Cash Compensatory Support Scheme (CCS). In Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. United States , Slip Op. 00-147 (CIT Nov. 9, 2000), the court remanded the final results of the 1991 administrative review and directed the Department to recalculate these subsidies by subtracting IPRS rebates and CCS rebates from taxable income before determining the benefit under section 80HHC. The Department's subsequent remand determination reflected the Court's instructions and was affirmed in Kajaria Iron Castings Pvt. v. United States , Slip Op. 01-5 (CIT Jan. 24, 2001).

We recalculated the company-specific and all-other subsidy rates for the period January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1991. The amended final countervailing duty rates are as follows:

The Department has been enjoined from issuing any liquidation instructions to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) until the conclusion of litigation of this case. Litigation has been completed and, therefore, the Department will instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies with de minimis rates, the Department will instruct Customs to liquidate without regard to countervailing duties. The Department will issue liquidation instructions directly to Customs.

This amendment to the final results of countervailing duty administrative review notice is in accordance with section 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 USC 1671d(d)) and section 351.210(c) of the Department's regulations. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

On January 11, 2001, NIST published a document in the Federal Register announcing the availability of fiscal year 2001 funds for (1) Precision Measurement Grants; (2) Physics Laboratory (PL) 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (3) Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL) 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (4) Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (5) Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (6) Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL); 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (7) Electronics and Electrical Engineering (EEEL); 2001 Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships (SURF); (8) Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory (MSEL) Grants Program; (9) Fire Research Grants Program; (10) Physics Laboratory (PL) Grants Program; (11) Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory (CSTL) grants Program; (12) Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory (MEL) Grants program; and (13) Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory (EEEL) Grants Program (66 FR 2398, January 11, 2001). On January 24, 2001, NIST published a document in the Federal Register making minor corrections to the earlier publication (66 FR 7627, January 24, 2001). All information and requirements as published in the January 11, 2001 publication, as corrected by the January 24, 2001 publication, remain in effect.

NIST's fiscal year 2001 appropriation included funding for an initiative in the area of Nanotechnology, The initiative funds have now been allocated to the NIST laboratories that submitted successful proposals to the Acting NIST Director. Due to a combination of the timing of NIST's appropriation, the proposal review and selection process for distribution of the funding to the NIST laboratories, and a recent decision that financial assistance is an appropriate mechanism for carrying out the Nanotechnology programs selected, NIST now informs the public that under the MSEL Grants program, the PL Grants program, and the CSTL Grants program, priority will be given to proposals in the area of Nanotechnology, and a portion of the funding available for each of those programs will be allocated for awards in the area of Nanotechnology as described below. Applications submitted to these programs prior to publication of this notice in the area of Nanotechnology will be considered for the reserved funding and for the remaining funds announced in the January 11, 2001 notice, as described below.

Of the approximately $2,500,000 available in fiscal year 2001, approximately $300,000 will be allocated solely for funding awards in Nanotechnology in the area of Nanotechnology. The MSEL Grants Program may fund more than one award from this allocation. From the remaining $2,200,000, other highly rated proposals in the area of Nanotechnology may be funded.

Of the approximately $1,400,000 available in fiscal year 2001, approximately $210,000 will be allocated solely for funding awards in Quibit decoherence and moving quantum information over larger distances. The PL Grants Program anticipates funding one award from this allocation. From the remaining $1,190,000, other highly rated proposals in the area of Nanotechnology may be funded. Funding available for the PL Grants Program will remain at approximately $1,400,00 this fiscal year.

Of the approximately $1,000,000 available in fiscal year 2001, approximately $150,000 will be allocated solely for funding awards in Nanotechnology in the areas of Molecular Synthesis and/or Scanning-Probe Characterization. The CSTL Grants Program anticipates funding one award from this allocation. From the remaining $850,000, other highly rates proposals in the area of Nanotechnology may be funded.

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 12, 2001, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of records and discussion of Award applicant data, may be closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, since the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.

In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding with the Secretary of State, NMFS publishes, for public review and comment, summaries of applications received by the Secretary of State requesting permits for foreign fishing vessels to fish in the U.S. EEZ under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq .).

This notice concerns the receipt of an application from the Government of the Russian Federation requesting the stern trawler/processor KAPITAN GORBACHEV be authorized to receive Atlantic herring and Atlantic mackerel from U.S. vessels in joint venture operations in 2001.

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

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Moving Reading/English Language Arts Standards to the Classroom Study: The Impact of Systemic, Standards-based Reform on Instruction.

Frequency: One Time.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 2,320

 Burden Hours: 1,986

Abstract: The purpose of Moving Standards Reading is to understand the relationship between state-initiated standards-based reforms and student achievement. The study will assess the impact of grade 4 reading/English language arts content standards and instructional supports on teachers' classroom instructional practices. It will also assess the relationship between instruction aligned with standards and grade 4 student achievement on state-administered reading/English language arts assessments. The study is to be conducted in 4 states, 100 districts, and 400 schools. The results of the study will highlight the features of effective standards-based reform policies and practices. The results are also expected to inform future federal programs and state, district, and school policy development and implementation.

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

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

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Report of Children with Disabilities Unilaterally Removed or Suspended/Expelled for More Than 10 Days.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58

 Burden Hours: 149,350

Abstract: This package provides instructions and a form for States to report the number of children and youth and the number of acts involving students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) involving a unilateral removal by school personnel or long-term suspension/expulsion. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to monitor State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and for Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Part B, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Implementation of FAPE Requirements (SC).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58

 Burden Hours: 149,350

Abstract: This package provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report the settings in which children with disabilities served under IDEA-B receive special education and related services. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to monitor State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and for Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Report of Children with Disabilities Receiving Special Education under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58

 Burden Hours: 30,682

Abstract: This package provides instructions and a form necessary for States to report the number of children with disabilities served under IDEA-B that receive special education and related services. It serves as the basis for distributing federal assistance, monitoring, implementing, and Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Consolidated Data Collection on Students with Disabilities.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58

 Burden Hours: 18,312

Abstract: This package provides a file layout for States to use in reporting district and school level data on students receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended. If used by States, it will meet the reporting requirements of the Office of Special Education Programs, the Office for Civil Rights (for students with disabilities only) and the National Center on Education Statistics (for students with disabilities only).

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Report of Children with Disabilities Exiting Special Education During the School Year.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58.

 Burden Hours: 53,244.

Abstract: This package provides instructions and a form necessary for States to report the number of students aged 14 and older served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (IDEA-B) exiting special education. The form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to monitor State Education Agenices (SEAs) and for Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Report of Early Intervention Services on Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) Provided to Infants, Toddlers and Their Families in Accordance with Part C and Report of Number and Type of Personnel Employed and Contracted to Provide Early Intervention Services.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 57.

 Burden Hours: 5,187.

Abstract: This package provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report, by race and ethnicity, the number of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families receiving different types of Part C services, and the number of personnel employed and contracted to provide services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Data are obtained from state and local service agencies and are used to assess and monitor the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and for Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Personnel Employed to Provide Special Education and Related Services for Children with Disabilities.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 58

 Burden Hours: 7,685

Abstract: This package provides instructions and a form necessary for States to report Personnel serving children with disabilities served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Part B (IDEA-B). This form satisfies reporting requirements and is used by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) for monitoring, implementing IDEA, and Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Report of Infants and Toddlers Receiving Early Intervention Services and of Program Settings Where Services are Provided in Accordance with Part C, and Report on Infants and Toddlers Exiting Part C.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 57

 Burden Hours: 5,472

Abstract: This package provides instructions and forms necessary for States to report, by race and ethnicity, the number of infants and toddlers with disabilities who: (a) are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part C; (b) are served in different program settings; and (c) exit Part C because of program completion and for other reasons. Data are obtained from state and local service agencies and are used to assess and monitor the implementation of IDEA and for Congressional reporting.

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

Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The BPA Santiam-Bethel transmission line rebuild would cross the 100-year floodplain of North Santiam River (T9S, R1E, Section 22) and a tributary to the Pudding River (T7S, R2W, Section 25); a total of 14 wetlands were identified within the cleared right-of-way.

Maps and further information are available from BPA at the address above.

Following DOE Order Number RA 6120.2, Southwestern's Administrator prepared a FY 2001 Current Power Repayment Study (PRS) using the existing Integrated System rate schedules. The Current PRS showed that current revenues were insufficient to meet repayment criteria. The FY 2001 Revised PRS indicates that an increase in annual revenues of $1,876,231, or 1.8 percent would satisfy cost recovery requirements.

Southwestern generally defers an indicated rate adjustment that falls within Southwestern's plus-or-minus two percent rate adjustment threshold. The threshold was developed to minimize Southwestern's costs while still maintaining adequate rates and is consistent with cost recovery criteria within DOE Order Number RA 6120.2 regarding rate adjustment plans. As a result of the benefits of reduced Federal expense and rate stability obtained by a rate adjustment deferral, Southwestern's Administrator is proposing to extend the current Integrated System Rate Schedules (P-98D, NFTS-98D and EE-98). The rate schedules are to be effective for a one-year period beginning October 1, 2001, and extending through September 30, 2002.

Following review of the written comments (absent any substantive reasons to do otherwise), the Administrator will submit the rate extension proposal for the Integrated System to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for confirmation and interim approval.

The Integrated System's FY 2000 (last year's) PRS concluded that the annual revenues needed to be increased by 0.4 percent. At that time, it was determined prudent to defer the increase in accordance with the established threshold and the current rate schedule was continued for one year. It once again seems prudent to defer this potential rate adjustment in accordance with Southwestern's rate adjustment threshold and re-evaluate the ability of the existing rate to provide sufficient revenues to satisfy costs projected in the FY 2002 (next year's) PRS. In accordance with 10 CFR Sections 903.22(h) and 903.23(a)(3), the Deputy Secretary may extend existing rates on an interim basis beyond the period specified by the FERC.

The current rate schedules for the Integrated System were confirmed and approved by the FERC on a final basis on April 29, 1998, for a period that is to end September 30, 2001. Since initial FERC approval, specific provisions within rate schedules P-98A and NFTS-98 have been revised to address issues that have arisen from restructuring of the electric industry. Rate schedules were redesignated 98B, 98C and 98D with each revision. All subsequent revisions of the Integrated System rate schedules through 98C have been approved by FERC. Rate schedules P-98D and NFTS-98D are currently under FERC review for final approval. These revisions had no impacts on the initially established revenue requirements for Southwestern's Integrated System. In addition, no change was made to the expiration date, September 30, 2001. Consequently, the net result of the revenue requirements projected in the FY1997 Integrated System Power Repayment Studies, which provided the basis for the existing rate schedules, is not changed.

The U.S. Department of Energy was created by an Act of the U.S. Congress, Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, dated August 4, 1977, and Southwestern's power marketing activities were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Energy, effective October 1, 1977.

Southwestern markets power from 24 multiple-purpose reservoir projects with power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). These projects are located in the States of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern's marketing area includes these states plus Kansas and Louisiana. Southwestern's Integrated System is comprised of 22 of these projects interconnected through Southwestern's transmission system and exchange agreements with other utilities. The other two projects (Sam Rayburn and Robert Douglas Willis) are not interconnected with Southwestern's Integrated System. Their power is marketed under contracts through which two customers purchase the entire power output of each of the projects at the dams.

Opportunity is presented for customers and interested parties to receive copies of the study data for the Integrated System. If you desire a copy of this information, please submit your request to: Mr. James W. Sherwood, Division Director, Division of Rates and Repayment, Office of Corporate Operations, One West Third Street, Tulsa, OK 74103, call (918) 595-6673 or e-mail sherwood@swpa.gov.

The U.S. Department of Energy was created by an Act of the U.S. Congress, Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, dated August 4, 1977, and Southwestern's power marketing activities were transferred from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Energy, effective October 1, 1977.

Southwestern markets power from 24 multiple-purpose reservoir projects with power facilities constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These projects are located in the states of Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern's marketing area includes these states plus Kansas and Louisiana. Of the total, 22 projects comprise an Integrated System and are interconnected through Southwestern's transmission system and exchange agreements with other utilities. The Rayburn project, located in eastern Texas, is not interconnected with Southwestern's Integrated System hydraulically, electrically, or financially. Instead, the power produced by the Rayburn project is marketed by Southwestern as an isolated project under a contract through which the customer purchases the entire power output of the project at the dam. The Willis project, located on the Neches River downstream from the Rayburn, consists of two 4,000 kilowatt hydroelectric generating units. It, like the Rayburn project, is marketed as an isolated project under a contract through which the customer receives the entire output of the project for a period of 50 years as a result of funding the construction of the hydroelectric facilities at the project. A separate PRS is prepared for each project based on its isolated project determination.

Following Department of Energy Order Number RA 6120.2, the Administrator, Southwestern, prepared a Current PRS for the Rayburn project using the existing annual rate of $2,168,136. The study indicates that by maintaining the current rate, surpluses would result in FY 2018, the year the project investment is due, and in the 50th year of the study. This is primarily the result of reduced estimated replacement investment. The Revised PRS indicates that by decreasing revenues $90,504 (4.2 percent) annually, repayment criteria would continue to be met.

The Current PRS for the Willis project indicates that by maintaining the current rate, a revenue deficit is shown for the project. This is primarily a result of an increase in the Corps of Engineers estimated Operations and Maintenance costs. The Revised PRS for the Willis project shows that an increase of $12,816 (3.8 percent) annually will be sufficient to satisfy repayment criteria. This increase would change annual revenues produced by the Willis Project from $337,932 to $350,748 and satisfy the present financial criteria for repayment of the project.

Opportunity is presented for customers and interested parties to receive copies of the studies and proposed rate schedule for the Rayburn and Willis projects. If you desire a copy of the Repayment Study Data Package for these projects, please submit your request to: Mr. James W. Sherwood, Director, Division of Rates and Repayment, One West Third Street, Tulsa, OK 74103, (918) 595-6673 or e-mail sherwood@swpa.gov.

A Public Information Forum is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., central daylight time (C.D.T.) Thursday, June 14, 2001, in Southwestern's offices, room 1600, Williams Center Tower 1, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Forum is to explain to customers and interested parties the proposed rates and supporting studies. The Forum will be conducted by a chairperson who will be responsible for orderly procedure. Questions concerning the rates, studies and information presented at the forum may be submitted from interested persons and will be answered, to the extent possible, at the forum. Questions not answered at the Forum will be answered in writing, except the questions involving voluminous data contained in Southwestern's records may best be answered by consultation and review of pertinent records at Southwestern's offices. Persons interested in attending the Public Information Forum should indicate in writing by 4 p.m., C.D.T., Friday, June 8, 2001, their intent to appear at such Forum. Accordingly, if no one so indicates their intent to attend, no such Forum will be held.

A Public Comment Forum is scheduled to be held at 1:30 p.m., C.D.T., Thursday, July 18, 2001, at the same location established for the Public Information Forum. At the Public Comment Forum, interested persons may submit written comments or make oral presentations of their views and comments. This forum will also be conducted by a chairperson who will be responsible for orderly procedure. Southwestern's representatives will be present, and they and the chairperson may ask questions of speakers. The chairperson may allow others to speak if time permits. Persons interested in attending or speaking at the Public Comment Forum should indicate in writing by 4 p.m., C.D.T., Friday, July 13, 2001, their intent to appear at such Forum. Accordingly, if no one so indicates their intent to attend, no such Forum will be held.

A transcript of each Forum will be made. Copies of the transcripts may be obtained from the transcribing service. Copies of all documents introduced will be available from Southwestern upon request, for a fee. Written comments on the proposed rates for the Rayburn and Willis projects are due on or before 90 days from publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Written comments should be submitted to the Administrator, Southwestern Power Administration, U. S. Department of Energy, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Following review of the oral and written comments, the Administrator will submit the rate proposals and the Power Repayment Studies for the Rayburn and Willis projects, in support of the proposed rates, to the Deputy Secretary of Energy for confirmation and approval on an interim basis and then to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for confirmation and approval on a final basis. The FERC will allow the public an additional opportunity to provide written comments on the proposed rate adjustments before making a final decision.

Western published Final Post-2004 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures on August 29, 2000, at 65 FR 52419, to implement Subpart C—Power Marketing Initiative of the Program's Final Rule, 10 CFR part 905, published at 60 FR 54151. The Program, developed in part to implement section 114 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, became effective on November 20, 1995. The goal of the Program is to require planning and efficient electric energy use by Western's long-term firm power customers and to extend Western's firm power resource commitments. One aspect of the Program is to establish project-specific power resource pools and allocate power from these pools to new preference customers. Those final procedures, in conjunction with the Post-1989 Marketing Plan (51 FR 4012, January 31, 1986), establish the framework for allocating power from the resource pool established for the Loveland Area Projects (LAP). Only comments relevant to the proposed allocations will be accepted during the comment period. After all public comments have been thoroughly considered, Western will prepare and publish the Final Allocations of Power in the Federal Register .

Western will allocate up to 4 percent of the LAP long-term firm hydroelectric resource available as of October 1, 2004, as firm power. Current hydrologic studies indicate that about 28 megawatts (MW) capacity and 44 Gigawatthours (GWh) of energy will be available for the summer season. Approximately 24 MW capacity and 35 GWh of energy will be available for the winter season. Firm power means firm capacity and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and conditions specified in Western's long-term firm power electric service contracts.

Written comments on the Proposed Allocation of Power must be received at the address above by close of business on September 10, 2001. Western will respond to comments received on the Proposed Allocation of Power and publish the final allocations after the end of the comment period.

Western received 40 applications for the Post-2004 LAP resource pool. Applicants requested total allocations of 1,900 GWh in the summer season and 1,700 GWh in the winter season. Proposed seasonal capacity allocations for all allottees are based on the proposed seasonal energy data shown in the following tables and is calculated from the LAP seasonal plant factors of 36.7 percent in the summer season and 33.4 percent in the winter season. Initial review of the applications indicated that 6 of the 40 applicants did not meet the minimum allocation qualifications published at 65 FR 52419. Review of data from the remaining 34 applicants resulted in 25 proposed allocations of the Post-2004 LAP resource pool.

The proposed allocations for Native American allottees are shown in this table.

Facilities that represented non Native American load on the reservations were not considered as eligible for the allocation process. Native American facilities that were completed or substantially near completion on the application due date were considered eligible load. The Native American seasonal energy data was adjusted to account for those eligibility factors prior to the allocation process.

Native American allottees received a Western hydropower benefit totaling 65 percent of eligible load in both the summer and winter season based on the adjusted seasonal energy data submitted. The 65 percent Western hydropower benefit is inclusive of current service received through serving utilities and future service that will be received by serving utilities as a result of this allocation process.

Based on the applications submitted by the Northern Arapaho and the Eastern Shoshone tribes, Western could not differentiate between each tribe's load. The data from each tribe was used to propose an allocation for the Wind River Reservation instead of each tribe. The 65 percent Western hydropower benefit for the Wind River Reservation includes an estimated allocation from Western's Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects resource pool and the Western service currently received from the Reservation's serving utility.

After proposed allocations were made to Native American allottees, utility and nonutility proposed allocations were allotted based on a pro-rata share of the remaining resource pool and application of the minimum and maximum allocation criteria to that pro-rata share. The proposed allocations for utility and nonutility allottees are listed here.

The proposed allocations shown in the tables above are based on the LAP marketable resource available at this time. If the LAP marketable resource is adjusted in the future, all allocations will be adjusted accordingly.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-621 (Act), requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Western has determined that (1) this rulemaking relates to services offered by Western, and, therefore, is not a rule within the purview of the Act, and (2) the impacts of an allocation from Western would not cause an adverse economic impact on a substantial number of such entities. The requirements of this Act can be waived if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. By the execution of this Federal Register notice, Western's Administrator certifies that no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities will occur.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, Western has received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect customer information in this rule, under control number 1910-1200.

Western has completed an environmental impact statement on the Program, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Record of Decision was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 1995 (60 FR 53181). Western's NEPA review assured all environmental effects related to these procedures have been analyzed.

DOE has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; accordingly, no clearance of this notice by OMB is required.

The information collection and recordkeeping requirements are mandated by statute and take the form of (1) a report by executive officers of insured nonmember banks to their boards of directors within 10 days of incurring any indebtedness to any other bank in an amount in excess of the amount the insured nonmember bank could lend to the officer, and (2) a report from insured nonmember banks, included with their reports of condition filed with the FDIC, on any extensions of credit made by the bank to its executive officers since the bank filed its last report of condition.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued) FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product Baycol (cerivastatin sodium). Baycol is indicated as an adjunct to diet for the reduction of elevated total and LDL cholesterol levels in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia (Frederickson Types IIa and IIb) when the response to dietary restriction of saturated fat and cholesterol and other nonpharmacological measures alone has been inadequate. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for Baycol (U.S. Patent No. 5,006,530) from Bayer Corp., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated September 9, 1998, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of Baycol represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for Baycol is 2,262 days. Of this time, 1,896 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355) became effective: April 19, 1991. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on April 19, 1991.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505 of the act: June 26, 1996. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for Baycol (NDA 20-740) was initially submitted on June 26, 1996.

3. The date the application was approved: June 26, 1997. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 20-740 was approved on June 26, 1997.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 890 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments and ask for a redetermination by July 10, 2001. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by November 7, 2001. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch. Three copies of any information 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. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Immunotoxicology Evaluation of Investigational New Drugs.” The immune system consists of a diffuse and complex set of cells and organs that have complicated interactions with each other and with other physiological systems. These complexities make the detection and evaluation of drug-induced immunotoxicity in animal models difficult. Immunotoxicologic findings could suggest the need for additional followup studies, particularly if the observed adverse effects are serious. The objective of these followup studies would be to investigate the nature and mechanism of the immunotoxic effects. Immunotoxicity findings could lead to modifications in proposed clinical trials or could be included in the investigator's brochure or product label. Rarely, immunotoxicity findings could indicate that a drug is unsafe for some types of clinical investigations or certain indications.

For the safety assessment of INDs, specific immunotoxicity testing should be conducted when drugs are to be administered by inhalation or topically. Specific immunotoxicity studies should also be considered for safety assessment purposes when: (1) The drug has the potential to elicit an anti-drug immune response; (2) use of the drug during pregnancy is likely; (3) there is an absence of immunotoxicity findings in the toxicology studies, but there is significant accumulation or retention of the drug in immune system tissues; or (4) the drug will be used to treat an immune-deficiency disease such as the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). In most other instances, specific immunotoxicity studies are generally not needed to support initial clinical trials or continued development.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). The draft guidance represents the agency’s current thinking on immunotoxicology evaluation of INDs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (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.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.

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

Title of Proposal: Annual Lead-Based Paint Activity Report.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0090.

Form Numbers: HUD-52850.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Public housing agencies (PHAs) and Tribally Designation Housing Entities (TDHEs) are requried to maintain records on tenant notificaiton, testing and abatement activities. These agencies are also required to provide tenants and purchasers a copy of all positive lead-based paint test results. HUD needs the information to assure statutory and regulatory compliance with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPPA). HUD reports the information to Congress as required by statute.

Respondents: Individual or households, State, Local or Tribal Government

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 3,100.

Status: Reinstatement, without change.

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons.

OMB Approval Number: 2529-0043.

Form Numbers: HUD-60002 and Form HUD-958.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: This information collection will facilitate the collection of Section 3 information to assess the impact of HUD-assisted activities on enhancing the employment opportunities for lower income persons and the use of businesses that employ low-income persons.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: COE: Ms. Shirley Middleswarth, Army Corps of Engineers, Management & Disposal Division, 441 G Street, Washington, DC 20314-1000; (202) 761-7425; DOT: Mr. Rugene Spruill, Space Management, SVC-140, Transportation Administrative Service Center, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW Room 2310, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-4246; GSA: Mr. Brian K. Polly, Assistant Commissioner, General Services Administration, Office of Property Disposal, 18th and F Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20405; (202) 501-0052; INTERIOR: Ms. Linda Tribby, Acquisition & Property Management, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240; (202) 606-3139; NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9200; (These are not toll-free numbers).

In the draft Environmental Assessment, we considered six alternatives for take of nestling American peregrine falcons ( Falco peregrinus anatum ) in the western United States and Alaska. We received 352 electronic or written comment letters on the draft Environmental Assessment. Seventeen were from State or Federal agencies; 335 were from individuals and organizations. Fifteen agency responses favored allowing take of nestlings, and 2 responses were neutral. Of the individual and organization comments received, 21 opposed take of nestlings and 314 supported allowing take. We modified the Environmental Assessment to respond to concerns expressed by agencies, organizations, and individuals.

Having reviewed the comments on the draft, our preferred alternative is to allow take of up to 5% of the American peregrine falcon nestlings produced in the States west of 100° longitude, at the discretion of each State. These States include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. We believe that a conservative level of take is appropriate for a species recently removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, and will have no discernible effect on the American peregrine falcon population in the western United States.

You may obtain copies of the documents for review by calling the Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above referenced telephone number. Documents also are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, and its implementing regulations, prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened species. Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). Harm may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. The Service may, under certain circumstances, issue permits to authorize take of endangered or threatened wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered or threatened species are found at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.

Under the proposed action, improvement of park facilities and fire management activities would directly impact the coastal California gnatcatcher by removing 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub vegetation utilized by coastal California gnatcatchers. The Deer Canyon Park Preserve totals approximately 130 acres. The Applicant's HCP describes consideration of alternatives to the action and provisions for minimization and mitigation of impacts.

The HCP is further designed to assure that this action does not reduce the potential for survival and recovery of the coastal California gnatcatcher in the wild, as mandated by requirements of 50 CFR Part 17.22(b)(1)(iii).

The HCP proposes the following measures to minimize the impacts of the project on coastal California gnatcatchers: (1) Fuel modification and clearing of coastal sage scrub will be conducted outside the gnatcatcher breeding season. If it is necessary to clear coastal sage scrub during the breeding season, surveys by a qualified biologist must demonstrate that gnatcatchers are not nesting or rearing chicks in the affected area; (2) a project monitor will be present during all clearing activities to make sure no birds or nests are directly harmed or destroyed; (3) construction limits will be fenced or flagged prior to construction activities to avoid inadvertent disturbance of areas outside the construction zone; (4) the proper use and disposal of oil and gasoline will be enforced; and (5) all trash associated with construction activities will be properly contained and disposed.

To mitigate for the permanent loss of occupied habitat due to the proposed activities, the Applicant proposes to revegetate 6.0 acres of non-native grassland in Deer Canyon Park Preserve with coastal sage scrub vegetation. The revegetated area would connect patches of fragmented coastal sage scrub that lie to the north and south. A restoration HCP will be developed that includes performance criteria, such as percent cover by native and non-native plants, native plant diversity, and evidence of natural reproduction, which must be met. The restoration plan must be reviewed and approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The HCP considered the following alternatives: (1) The proposed project; (2) use of a mitigation fee; (3) redesign of the project; and (4) no project or no action alternative.

The proposed project involves the issuance of a permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to authorize the incidental take of the threatened coastal California gnatcatcher during facilities improvement and fire management activity. The project impacts 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher. Mitigation for the project is the revegetation of 6.0 acres of non-native grassland with coastal sage scrub vegetation.

The use of a mitigation fee to compensate for the loss of coastal sage scrub, as outlined in the Central and Coastal Orange County Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), is not authorized for this project because Deer Canyon Park Preserve is designated as an Existing Use Area, and the in-lieu fee mitigation program is not available to mitigate for take of gnatcatchers within Existing Use Areas unless specifically authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.

Under the redesign alternative, the applicant would redesign the project to further reduce impacts to coastal sage scrub vegetation. The applicant states that it is not possible to further redesign the project and meet project goals.

Under the No Project alternative the project would not occur. Therefore an incidental take permit would not be required and the Applicant would abandon the proposed project.

The Service has determined that the HCP qualifies as a “Low Effect” Habitat Conservation Plan as defined by the Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Our determination that a habitat conservation plan qualifies as a low-effect plan is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of a plan would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of a plan would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of a plan, considered together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant.

The Service therefore has made a preliminary determination that approval of the HCP qualifies as a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Based on this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA documentation. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such additional documentation.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act and Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). The Service will evaluate the permit application, the HCP, and the associated documents and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue a permit for the incidental take of the coastal California gnatcatcher. A final decision on permit issuance will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.

Oil-Dri Corporation of Nevada (Oil-Dri) has submitted a Plan of Operations for the construction, operation, and reclamation of a mining operation and processing facility located approximately ten miles north of the Reno/Sparks area in Hungry Valley, Washoe County, Nevada. The proposed mining operation, known as the Reno Clay Plant Project, would be located on 305 acres of public and 40 acres of private land and would result in the development of two open pit mine areas, construction of a processing facility, construction and/or upgrade of haul and access roads, and continued exploration activities. Construction is scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2001 and continue for approximately 20 years.

The Draft EIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the proposed mining and processing facilities, two access alternatives, and the no action alternative. Issues analyzed include geology, minerals, paleontology, air resources, aesthetics (visual & noise), water resources, soils, vegetation, range resources, wildlife, special status species, land use, access, recreation, cultural resources, Native American Religious Concerns, social & economic resources, and Environmental Justice.

A copy of the Draft EIS has been sent to all individuals, agencies, and groups who have expressed interest in the project or as mandated by regulation or policy. A limited number of copies are available upon request from the BLM at the address listed above. In addition, the document is available on the Carson City Field Office Home Page at the address above.

Public participation has occurred throughout the EIS process. A Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2000 (Pages 43779-43780) and the 30-day public scoping period was initiated. A public open house was held in Reno on August 8, 2000 and additional presentations were made to three Washoe County Citizen Advisory Boards and to a community meeting at the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony.

To assist the BLM in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action and alternatives, comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. Comments should also refer to specific pages or chapters in the document. After the comment period ends, all comments will be analyzed and considered by the BLM in preparing the Final EIS.

This EIS is a draft supplement to the March 1996 Final EIS Zortman and Landusky Mines Reclamation Plan Modifications and Mine Life Extensions. With the bankruptcy of the mines' operator, Zortman Mining, Inc., the BLM and DEQ are overseeing reclamation at the mines. The Draft Supplemental EIS has been prepared to analyze additional reclamation alternatives developed by the agencies that may constitute a substantial change from those presented in the 1996 Final EIS. The Draft Supplemental EIS presents 12 reclamation plans, six for reclamation of the Zortman Mine and six for reclamation of the Landusky Mine. The reclamation plans were developed based upon public scoping comments and through consultation with the Fort Belknap government and the Environmental Protection Agency. The Draft Supplemental EIS discloses the environmental consequences of each alternative. Alternative Z6 is identified in the Draft Supplemental EIS as the DEQ and BLM preferred reclamation alternative for the Zortman Mine, and Alternative L4 is identified as the preferred reclamation alternative for the Landusky Mine. The identification of the preferred alternatives does not constitute an agency decision but is intended to help focus public comment on the alternatives more likely to be selected.

Milwaukee Fence Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is as of this date, reinstated as an eligible bidder on Federal and federally assisted construction contracts and subconstracts.

At the request of U.S. Senators Max Baucus, Mike Crapo, Harry Reid, and Craig Thomas, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is exploring how pilot projects can be used to determine how collaboration, consensus building, and appropriate dispute resolution processes can improve the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Senators have asked specifically about the potential application of collaborative approaches to NEPA activities in the context of natural resources management and public lands issues. In order to respond to this request, and at the suggestion of the Senators, the U.S. Institute is seeking input from those with interest and experience in NEPA review activities and collaborative processes.

Congress established the U.S. Institute in 1998 in the Environmental Policy and Conflict Resolution Act (Pub. L. 105-156). The Institute's primary purpose is to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts. It was also charged with assisting in achieving the substantive goals of NEPA laid out in Section 101. The U.S. Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall Foundation, an independent federal agency of the executive branch located in Tucson, Arizona and overseen by a board of trustees appointed by the President. The U.S. Institute serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in such disputes, regardless of who initiates or pays for assistance. The U.S. Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem solving is appropriate for specific environmental conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties to the table, and whether a third-party facilitator or mediator might be helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts to reach consensus or to resolve the conflict.

This project builds on the results of a workshop co-sponsored by the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming and the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana in March of 1999 and reported on in “Reclaiming NEPA's Potential: Can Collaborative Processes Improve Environmental Decision Making?” The workshop focused on the potential for improving NEPA through the use of collaborative processes.

Chief among the important questions raised at this workshop were:

• How can both national and local interests be properly considered and appropriately balanced through collaborative NEPA processes?

• To what extent may multi-stakeholder collaborative groups participate in NEPA reviews and affect natural resource management decisions?

• When should cooperating agency status be granted to state and local governments and how can such cooperation be managed most fairly and productively?

• How can collaborative processes be used to improve the implementation of NEPA and in particular help achieve the substantive goals stated in Section 101?

In 1995, coinciding with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the passage of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) undertook a study of the effectiveness of NEPA implementation. This report, which refers to NEPA as a “framework for collaboration,” focused on five critical areas within which improvements could be made to the implementation of NEPA, including:

• Strategic planning—the extent to which agencies integrate NEPA goals into their internal planning processes at an early stage;

• Public information and input—the extent to which an agency provides information to and takes into account the views of the surrounding community and other interested members of the public during its planning and decision-making processes;

• Interagency coordination—how well and how early agencies share information and integrate planning responsibilities with other agencies;

• Interdisciplinary place-based approach to decision making that focuses the knowledge and values from a variety of sources on a specific place; and

• Science-based and flexible management approaches once projects are approved.

This current effort is guided by an interest in soliciting broad-based and balanced feedback on a pilot projects initiative, designing a well-managed and transparent project, and providing timely and useful information. Based on the Senators' request and with the assistance of the Meridian Institute, the U.S. Institute is seeking input from those with interest and experience in NEPA review activities and multi-stakeholder collaborative processes. To date, the U.S. Institute and Meridian staff have conducted approximately fifty interviews with individuals representing a diversity of interests and perspectives on this initiative.

For the purpose of this draft document, the following working definitions will be used:

Collaboration and Collaborative Processes involve people who represent diverse interests, perspectives, and institutions that agree to work together to identify problems, share information, and, where possible, develop mutually acceptable solutions. Collaborative processes frequently take place prior to a formal decision being made by the responsible institution. The term collaboratives is sometimes used to refer to privately organized rather than governmentally organized collaborative processes.

Consensus-Building Processes constitute a form of collaboration that explicitly includes the goal of reaching a consensus agreement on policy matters, environmental conflicts, or other issues in controversy. Consensus is often, although not always, defined as “no dissent.” Consensus building processes often, although not always, involve the assistance of a neutral convenor, facilitator, or mediator.

Dispute Resolution Processes aim to resolve specific and definable disputes over formal agency decisions that have been or are about to be made. The parties to a dispute resolution process are typically entities that can be granted standing to participate in the dispute resolution process. Under this definition, litigation is a form of dispute resolution process. The terms appropriate or alternative dispute resolution refer to non-adversarial processes that take place in advance of or in conjunction with formal litigation usually involving a neutral mediator to assist the parties in their negotiations.

Non-governmental interests refer broadly to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as national environmental groups, local citizens groups, and other public interest oriented groups, as well as companies, associations, and organizations representing commercial and private sector interests. Given the focus on federal lands and natural resource management issues in this document, non-governmental interests also include resource users such as ranchers, loggers, timber companies, miners, mining companies, oil and gas companies, etc.

Stakeholders refers to the individuals, organizations, and institutions that have a stake in the outcome of a decision because they are either directly affected by the decision or have the power to influence or block the decision.

Based on a review of currently available literature and the results of the interviews described above, a number of challenges appear to be associated with NEPA implementation, as well as with the use of collaborative processes initiated in conjunction with NEPA implementation (whether the collaborative process is before or early in a NEPA process or, alternatively, after the NEPA process has begun and actual or potential disputes have emerged). The challenges with both NEPA implementation and collaborative approaches, which are reviewed below, should be considered as the basis for focusing the pilot projects.

Some of the stakeholders interviewed expressed concern about whether the Senators who initiated the request or the U.S. Institute believe “NEPA is broken and needs to be fixed” and, if so, whether there is a belief that the use of collaboration and dispute resolution is the way to fix the problem. It is important to point out that almost without exception the stakeholder representatives interviewed indicated they do not believe there is a problem with the statute itself, but many felt there are concerns with how the statute is being implemented.

The interviews also evidenced concerns about the underlying authority and standards for agency decisions contained in other environmental statutes. In some cases the criticisms initially leveled at the NEPA process were found to be based primarily on concerns with requirements of other substantive laws. In the case of federal lands and natural resource management issues, the statutes that intersect with NEPA include but are not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Since the focus of this effort is on the use of collaborative processes and appropriate dispute resolution in NEPA implementation, it will be important to clearly distinguish between perceived problems and concerns with the authority and standards of decision making contained in other statutes, and perceived problems and concerns with how agencies are fulfilling their NEPA duties and obligations. While this will be a challenge when identifying criteria for selecting pilot projects, it will be even more of a challenge in evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot projects and translating any new insights from the pilots to concrete suggestions for improving NEPA implementation.

Some stakeholders have suggested that the U.S. Institute undertake a systematic retrospective analysis of collaboration and NEPA implementation to help inform the development of clearly delineated problem statements with respect to the pilot projects initiative. The U.S. Institute agrees with the need to have clearly delineated problem statements that can be used to develop criteria for selecting and evaluating pilot projects. However, it appears that there is sufficient clarity regarding problems reported with NEPA implementation to proceed with the development of a pilot initiative, which would include a systematic retrospective analysis in parallel with the pilot projects.

From its interviews and a preliminary review of the literature, the U.S. Institute has compiled the following list of perceived problems with NEPA implementation.

1. Inconsistent NEPA Implementation. Inconsistent implementation and interpretation by lead federal agencies of the statutory requirements of NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations and guidelines.

2. Efficiency and Effectiveness. How to “streamline” NEPA implementation by making it more efficient, less time consuming, and equally, if not more, effective.

3. Inappropriate Timing of Interagency or Intergovernmental Coordination. Many times a lead agency consults with other agencies with overlapping regulatory authority after alternatives have been identified and publicly discussed with stakeholders, only to find that one or more of the alternatives under consideration is unacceptable to the agency with overlapping jurisdiction.

4. Overemphasis on Documentation with Insufficient Attention to Planning and Decision Making. There is an excessive focus on NEPA documentation and efforts to make NEPA documents “litigation proof” rather than using NEPA to improve strategic planning and decision-making.

5. Inadequate Attention to Section 101. CEQ's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1502.2(d)) states that an environmental impact statement:

Both the interviews and the NEPA-related literature cite two additional issues that influence the NEPA implementation process but are not exclusive to that process. The first is information management and use of technical information. The second issue is the role of the Federal Advisory Committee Act in the NEPA process.

The quality of NEPA analysis depends in large part on the quality of information that is available to and considered by decision-makers and the general public. As a consequence, a number of reported information and information technology related problems may warrant consideration in the design of pilot projects. These include:

a. Lack of Baseline Data. The lack of high quality baseline environmental data, especially for land management agencies, that can be periodically updated and used as the basis for NEPA analysis, often results in the re-creation of high quality data on a case-by-case basis.

b. Insufficient Utilization of Information Technology. Information technology, especially decision-support tools and geographic information systems are not widely available or are under-utilized.

c. Excessive Data Demands. Guidance is needed on how to identify what data would be useful in improving the quality of the decision. While thorough documentation and requests for additional information are often warranted, excessive data generation and reporting can overwhelm the ability of decision makers and the public to understand the key points.

Federal agencies have the option of utilizing citizen advisory committees and work groups to advise agencies during the NEPA process. However, many report real and perceived limitations to the use of a federal advisory committee.

a. Limitations and Perceptions. Most federal agencies are limited in the number of advisory committees they can establish. In addition, there is a widespread perception that the FACA can be an impediment to undertaking governmentally organized multi-stakeholder collaboration. These real and perceived limitations can create incentives to circumvent the requirement to establish an official advisory committee when in reality a FACA-chartered committee may be the best course of action.

b. Advisory vs. Decisional. Federal advisory committees advise agencies on specific issues. There is a need for clearer guidance about how to ensure governmentally organized multi-stakeholder collaboration processes maintain this advisory role and yet, where appropriate, strive to achieve a consensus that includes commitments from the sponsoring agency (akin to what takes place in a regulatory negotiation).

From the literature surveyed and the interviews conducted, the U.S. Institute and Meridian Institute staff identified a number of perceived problems with the use of collaborative and appropriate dispute resolution processes. It was apparent from the interviews that it is useful to distinguish between among four types of collaborative processes based on their organizational context:

• Interagency collaboration and coordination involving affected agencies within the federal government;

• Intergovernmental collaboration and coordination involving the lead federal agency and affected agencies from other levels of government, including tribal, state, and local government;

• Governmentally organized multi-stakeholder collaboration that is initiated and organized by the lead federal agency, or a cooperating governmental agency, and involves representatives of affected non-governmental interests; and

• Privately organized collaborative processes that are initiated, organized, and conducted by non-governmental interests who have a stake in the outcome of agency decisions where there is limited or no direct involvement of the lead federal agency.

While specific issues and concerns were raised within each of these contexts, there were several cross-cutting problems reported, including:

a. Lack of Guidance for Deciding How to Collaborate. Agencies lack guidance on whether and how to engage in multi-stakeholder collaborative processes, separate one-on-one consultations with stakeholder representatives, or standard public participation techniques. In some cases, such processes are initiated after an agency decision has already been made, for example, which undermines the efficacy of the collaboration.

b. Inadequate Stakeholder Representation. Lead agencies often do not involve all government agencies and/or non-governmental interests that have a stake in the outcome of the collaborative process. There is a lack of awareness and practical guidance for determining the major stakeholders who need to be represented in a collaborative process.

c. Lack of Resources. Agencies have limited financial and personnel resources to undertake and organize a multi-stakeholder collaboration. Similarly, the lack of financial and personnel resources may limit some stakeholder groups from effectively participating in multi-stakeholder collaboration.

d. Involving Nationally Oriented Groups in Locally Oriented Processes. Where locally oriented, federally organized multi-stakeholder collaborative processes include issues that are of a broader national interest, it is difficult to involve national groups directly in the collaborative process.

a. Roles and Responsibilities of Agency Representatives. Lack of clarity regarding the decisionmaking roles, responsibilities, and authority of agency representatives who are “at the table” in relation to those who are at “higher” levels. This is especially problematic in locally oriented processes that require decisions to be made at the regional and/or national levels.

b. Maintaining Balanced Stakeholder Representation. It can be difficult to maintain balanced involvement of all major stakeholder interests throughout the course of the collaborative process. There is a need for guidance on how to handle instances where stakeholder representatives participate in a collaborative process until they feel their interests are not being fully satisfied and then pullout and resort to traditional adversarial strategies.

c. Length of Time Needed to Complete Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration. The time it takes to complete multi-stakeholder collaborative processes, especially consensus-based processes.

d. Goal Confusion. In some cases, the process of collaboration itself may develop into the primary goal of the participants rather than focusing on improved and informed decisions and designing a process that will effectively achieve this end.

a. Unrealistic Stakeholder Expectations. Nongovernmental stakeholders can be disappointed if the decision making framework is not specified. When non-governmental stakeholders participate in collaborative processes or assisted negotiations, sometimes the decision rules within the group are not clarified at the outset and the legal duties and obligations of the agency representatives for specific decisions or actions are not fully understood.

b. Inconsistent Decisions. Sometimes agency decision makers choose courses of action different from those arrived at by consensus in a collaborative process or by assisted negotiation in a conflict resolution process. The value of such participatory processes can be undermined. Guidance is needed to minimize this occurrence by assuring consistent communication within agencies during their participation.

c. Implementation Challenges. Recommendations from collaborative processes or conflict resolution processes may not always take into account their feasibility or resource requirements. Institutional structures may not exist or be limited to assure appropriate follow-through and monitoring to ensure implementation. Mechanisms for assuring the practicality of implementation requirements should be developed.

In addition to the cross-cutting issues raised in the sections above, there are some specific concerns reported regarding privately organized multi-stakeholder collaborations. Some examples of issues that may need to be addressed include:

• What should agency personnel do when the process explicitly excludes certain stakeholder interests?

• How should they respond when there is clear evidence of an attempt to include representation of all stakeholder interests but not everyone chooses to participate?

• What should the agency do when the process includes a balanced representation of the diverse stakeholders that have an interest in the issues being discussed?

• Should federal agency staff participate in such processes if they are requested to do so and, if so, to what degree?

• Should the results of privately convened collaborative processes be given special weight or consideration by agencies and, if so, how and under what conditions?

The results of the interviews and the preliminary review of the literature indicate there is some dissatisfaction with how agencies are implementing NEPA. These concerns are reflected in the list of reported problems outlined above. At the same time, many of the concerns that are attributed to NEPA implementation reflect broader concerns about the role of the federal government in public lands and natural resource management issues and with environmental decision-making in general.

Notwithstanding Congress' declaration more than 30 years ago of a national environmental policy in Section 101 of NEPA, it is clear the value conflicts that underlie environmental issues remain pronounced. Collaborative problem solving, consensus building, and dispute resolution processes have been used to address these value conflicts in a variety of situations since the mid-1970s. While these processes have been utilized in increasingly sophisticated ways and in a wide variety of circumstances by virtually every federal agency, as is evident from the problem statements outlined above, there is still much that can be learned about how to more effectively utilize these processes.

Undertaking a carefully designed pilot projects program will permit the U.S. Institute and those who have an interest in improving the quality of federal agency NEPA analyses and decision-making processes on public lands and natural resource management issues to:

• Clearly distinguish problems and concerns related to NEPA and the manner in which NEPA is being implemented from concerns about other environmental statutes and/or broader societal concerns;

• Demonstrate innovative and practical solutions to clearly delineated NEPA implementation problems; and

• Learn more about the conditions under which collaborative problem solving, consensus-building, and dispute resolution processes can improve implementation of NEPA.

There are differing views regarding the effectiveness of NEPA implementation, reflecting legitimate underlying differences in values and perspectives about the nature and extent of the environmental impacts of proposed projects and how these impacts can best be avoided or mitigated. Most would agree, however, there is room for improvement in the application of NEPA procedures and in the achievement of its substantive objectives articulated in Section 101. Collaborative processes and conflict resolution strategies often involve or implicate NEPA review and analysis activities. Well-managed and highly visible pilot projects may bring to light important lessons for better integrating effective collaboration into NEPA activities and improving the quality and durability of management decisions informed by NEPA analyses.

As indicated by the interviews and preliminary review of the literature, pilot projects could yield important insights into possible improvements in NEPA implementation and guidance with respect to:

• CEQ regulations and implementing NEPA;

• Federal agency regulations;

• Tribal, state, and local government guidance; and

• NGO guidelines and practices for participating in NEPA implementation.

The design and implementation of a pilot projects initiative raises a number of challenges, including how to best:

• Ensure that all interests will be fairly represented in the selection, evaluation, and analysis of such projects,

• Identify and respond to potential institutional barriers,

• Address concerns on the one hand that this initiative might lead to unanticipated changes in NEPA implementation, and on the other, that reform of NEPA implementation may not be forthcoming, and

• Manage the projects with appropriate public oversight.

To address these challenges, the U.S. Institute recommends establishing some fundamental conditions for undertaking a pilot projects initiative, identifying a set of criteria for selecting the pilot projects, and establishing a separate set of criteria for evaluating the results of the pilot projects.

The U.S. Institute recommends four basic features for a pilot projects initiative. First, there must be a sufficient number of pilot projects from which to draw reliable lessons across the four different types of collaborative processes (i.e., interagency, intergovernmental, governmentally organized, and privately organized) and across a spectrum of agencies that have responsibility for federal lands and natural resource management issues.

Second, it is important not to “reinvent the wheel.” The use of collaboration and dispute resolution on environmental issues, of which NEPA implementation is a subset, is not new. For this reason, the pilot projects under this initiative should be oriented less toward introducing a new concept or approach and more toward solving specific problems regarding the use of collaboration and dispute resolution in NEPA implementation. At the same time, the initiative would include research and a retrospective analysis of past and present NEPA projects involving collaborative and dispute resolution processes, in parallel with current projects in the pilot program, in order to broaden the information gained.

Third, pilot projects are not enough in and of themselves. Evaluation of the results of the pilot projects is essential in order to learn from both the successes and the failures. Articulating the criteria for assessing the outcomes of these pilot projects will be central to such an initiative. Dissemination of the results of the evaluations is essential to ensure that the lessons learned from these pilot projects are broadly understood and utilized.

Finally, a transparent, open, and public process is needed to build consensus regarding the desired outcomes of this pilot projects initiative in relation to NEPA implementation on federal lands and natural resource management issues. The interviews conducted thus far along with this request for public comment are a step toward laying the initial foundation for such a process.

The U.S. Institute seeks input on how broadly or narrowly it should interpret the suggestion from the Senators to focus on “federal lands and natural resource management” issues. This question should be considered in light of the work to “streamline” NEPA implementation in several agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration as well as in specific situations such as the U.S.D.A. Forest Service's and the Department of the Interior's National Fire Plan. There are concerns that NEPA streamlining efforts should seek to retain NEPA's effectiveness and at the same time improve its efficiency. Streamlining efforts will likely require a significant level of collaboration and dispute resolution planning to meet these ends. The need for effective collaboration, particularly interagency and intergovernmental collaboration, may be even more significant in instances where efforts are being made to streamline NEPA implementation.

The U.S. Institute would value input on how broadly this initiative should define its focus on federal lands and natural resource management issues. The strictest interpretation might limit the focus to NEPA reviews conducted by land management agencies such as the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Alternatively, a broader focus would include federal agencies whose mission includes, but not exclusively, the management of a natural resource, e.g., military reserves, or the mitigation of impacts on natural resources, e.g., transportation projects, airport expansions. It might also include opportunities to work with tribal governments with resource management issues impacting tribal lands and adjacent federal or state lands.

The U.S. Institute proposes to serve as the lead agency for the purpose of administering the NEPA Pilot Projects Initiative consistent with its mission to assist with the implementation of the provisions of Section 101 of NEPA. This role would include:

• Providing program administration and oversight;

• Making the final decisions on the criteria for selecting the pilot projects;

• Selecting the pilot projects;

• Collaborating with participating agencies as necessary and appropriate to select and oversee neutral third party service providers such as conveners, facilitators, fact-finders, trainers, mediators, etc.;

• Identifying the criteria by which to evaluate the outcome of the pilot projects;

• Selecting and overseeing the work of independent evaluators;

• Reporting on the lessons that are learned from a retrospective analysis and prospective pilot projects; and

• Establishing and managing a federal advisory committee that will be used to provide input on all of the above.

Several commenters strongly recommended the use of a federal advisory committee to help guide the U.S. Institute on these matters to assure transparency and build trust in the NEPA pilot projects initiative. The U.S. Institute proposes to form a federal advisory committee made up of a balanced but manageable number of individuals representing organizations that have an interest in the initiative.

A preliminary list of the criteria the U.S. Institute proposes to use in selecting the pilot projects is as follows:

• Geographic balance (while it is expected that a majority of projects will be drawn from the Western U.S., an attempt should be made to select projects from the entire nation);

• Diversity of agency participation from lead federal agencies, states, counties, and tribes;

• Diversity of the federal lands and natural resource management issues to be addressed;

• Balance of projects across the four different categories of collaboration (i.e., interagency, intergovernmental, governmentally organized multi-stakeholder, and privately organized multi-stakeholder) as well as projects that employ dispute resolution processes;

• Projects of local, state, regional, and national scale representing the spectrum of issues that are the focus of the NEPA analysis and collaborative process;

• Projects that are occurring at a variety of different stages in the NEPA review and decision-making process (where a range of collaborative and dispute resolution processes could or are occurring).

In addition, the U.S. Institute is considering giving priority to pilot projects that:

• Are explicitly designed to address one or more of the NEPA implementation and/or collaborative process problems identified above;

• Have a genuine potential for success (e.g., for collaborative processes, decisions have not been predetermined, adequate incentives exist for collaboration or dispute resolution, etc.); and

• Emphasize innovative approaches to the integration of the substantive aspirations of Section 101 of NEPA with the implementing procedures of Section 102.

The U.S. Institute encourages comments on this list.

In order to have value, the proposed NEPA pilots project initiative must include both an evaluation component and a reporting component. The evaluation component will include evaluations of the results and outcomes of the pilot projects by independent and professionally qualified evaluators. A concerted effort will be made with the guidance of the federal advisory committee to establish agreed upon criteria for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of the pilot projects. At the conclusion of the initiative, the U.S. Institute will report on lessons learned, taking into consideration the findings of the independent evaluations and the retrospective analysis of the research, and make recommendations for changes, if any, that might be made to existing NEPA policies, guidelines or regulations.

As noted above, the U.S. Institute proposes to establish a federal advisory committee to advise the Institute on critical components of the NEPA pilot projects initiative, including the criteria for conducting evaluations of the pilot projects and how to best select and oversee the independent evaluators. The proposed role for the advisory committee includes the review and interpretation of the evaluation results and the identification of what it sees as key findings that the U.S. Institute should consider.

In order to explore the proposal for pilot projects more fully, the U.S. Institute is holding two public workshops which will be facilitated by the Meridian Institute. The workshops are scheduled for June 8, 2001 in Denver, Colorado and June 14, 2001 in Washington, DC Representatives of resource user groups, environmental organizations, academia, state, local, and tribal governments, and federal agencies are being invited in order to participate in a balanced and constructive discussion on this initiative. These participants will not act as a committee and there will not be any attempt to seek a group recommendation on any issue. Additional seats will be available for members of the public, who will be given limited time on the agenda to provide comments.

If you would like to attend the workshop, please contact the Meridian Institute (see ADDRESSES section) by June 1, 2001 so that it can determine the amount of interest and prepare sufficient materials.

Based on the input provided at this workshop and any written comments received, as well as the information summarized in this document, the U.S. Institute will prepare formal recommendations to the Senators on a NEPA pilot projects initiative. Further development of such an initiative relies on the feedback of the public, interested stakeholders, and the Senators who requested the information.

The U.S. Institute will take into consideration any comments and additional information received on or prior to the close of the 45-day comment period.

National Environmental Policy Act 42 U.S.C. 4321-4337.

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. 40 CFR 1500-1508 (1992).

“The National Environmental Policy Act. A Study of its Effectiveness After Twenty-five Years.” January, 1997. Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality.

“Reclaiming NEPA's Potential: Can Collaborative Processes Improve Environmental Decision Making?” March 1999. Workshop Proceedings. Co-sponsored by the Institute for Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Wyoming and the O'Connor Center for the Rocky Mountain West at the University of Montana.

Bingham, Gail and Lee M. Langstaff. “Alternative Dispute Resolution in the NEPA Process”. Resolve Center for Environmental and Public Policy Dispute Resolution. http://www.resolv.org/Resources/pubs/default.htm

Caldwell, Lynton H. 1998. “The National Environmental Policy Act. An Agenda for the Future.” Indiana University Press. 210 pp.

Miller, Anne Norton. 2000. “NEPA Where are we? Where are we going? “ Environmental Practice. 2(4): 275-279.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (N1-462-01-2, 15 items, 12 temporary items). Working papers, including drafts and reference materials, relating to the preparation of plans and reports stemming from the Government Performance and Results Act. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports.

2. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (N1-95-01-1, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to agency Y2K activities, including risk assessments, the testing and modification of automated systems, briefings, and training. Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing are included.

3. Department of the Army, Army-wide (N1-AU-01-17, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Master file of the Central Issue Facility System, an electronic information system containing information concerning the receipt, storage, issue, exchange, and turn-in of clothing and equipment at installations.

4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-00-39, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Master file and outputs of the Hazardous Substance Management System, an electronic information system used to support and facilitate the tracking and reporting of hazardous materials at installations. The system includes such data as quantities of hazardous chemicals and information concerning their location, handling, storage, disposal, release, and transfer. Copies of reports generated by this system that pertain to the release of hazardous material are sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and incorporated into an EPA system that was previously approved for permanent retention.

5. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (N1-361-01-2, 1 item, 1 temporary item). The Safety and Health Information Reporting System, an electronic information system consisting of employee exposure records used to produce an occupational safety and health log and summary. Included are reports on hazards, accident investigations, and surveys and inspections. Records are proposed for retention for 30 years, as required by 29 CFR 1910.

6. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (N1-434-01-2, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records provided by manufacturers containing safety information concerning hazardous chemicals and records relating to the inventorying and integrity testing of sealed radioactive sources. Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing are included. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for a 75-year retention period.

7. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (N1-434-01-3, 8 items, 7 temporary items). Records relating to spent nuclear fuels. Included are records pertaining to such matters as safety at installations, air sampling, planning, project reviews, and transfers of nuclear material. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of files relating to offsite storage facilities and final repositories for spent nuclear fuels are proposed for permanent retention.

8. Department of Energy, Agency-wide (N1-434-01-4, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to identifying and avoiding conflicts of interest by employees and consultants involved in technology transfer activities. Included are such records as annual certifications, correspondence, evaluation forms, review and approval forms, and mitigation plans. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

9. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (N1-443-00-4, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records relating to agency advisory committees. Records consist of an electronically maintained directory that includes for each committee information concerning its organization, functions, and membership. This information is also available in paper records that were previously approved for permanent retention.

10. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy (N1-174-01-1, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Records relating to surveys to assess customer satisfaction with the Department of Labor web site. Included are surveys completed on-line by the public, master files, electronic and paper outputs, and system documentation.

11. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention (N1-412-01-2, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Paper records that have been microfilmed relating to new chemical registrations under Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Microfilm copies and paper records that have not been filmed, consisting of such documents as pre-manufacture notices, chemical submissions and supporting data, and test data documenting health and environmental effects are proposed for permanent retention.