The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the Department) regulates the importation of animals and animal products to guard against the introduction of animal diseases into this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of animals and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 through 99).

On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 34155-34168, Docket No. 98-090-1) a proposal to, among other things, amend the regulations regarding the importation of swine and swine products from the European Union (EU).

Before developing our proposed rule, we conducted an analysis to determine the likelihood of introducing classical swine fever (which we referred to in the proposed rule as hog cholera) from the EU, and to determine what, if any, mitigation measures we considered necessary. We assessed the likelihood of introducing classical swine fever through the importation of live breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products. We made the risk analysis available to the public during the comment period for the proposed rule.

We solicited comments concerning our proposed rule for 60 days ending August 24, 1999, and received five comments by that date. One of the comments expressed concerns with several aspects of our risk analysis. Based on that comment, and as recommended by the Department's Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis, we revised the initial risk analysis and included a supplement that presented in more detail specific information about classical swine fever outbreaks in the EU. The revised risk analysis is titled “Risk Analysis for Importation of Classical Swine Fever Virus in Swine and Swine Products from the European Union—December 2000.”

We are giving notice that the revised risk analysis is available for public review and are requesting comments on the revised document. We will address any comments we receive on the revised risk analysis when we address the comments received on our June 1999 proposed rule.

The Internet address for accessing the revised risk analysis is http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/reg-request.html . At the bottom of that website page, click on “Information previously submitted by Regions requesting export approval and their supporting documentation.” At the next screen, click on the triangle beside “European Union/Not Specified/Classical Swine Fever,” then on the triangle beside “Response by APHIS.” A link will then appear for “Risk Analysis for Importation of Classical Swine Fever Virus in Swine and Swine Products from the European Union—December 2000.” Following that link will allow you to view the revised risk analysis.

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action of managing invasive plant infestations on the Cibola National Forest and Kiowa, Rita Blanca, Black Kettle and McClellan Creek National Grasslands is to:

• Protect forests, rangelands, grasslands, wildlands and adjacent private, industrial and other agency lands by eradicating invasive plant species where possible and by limiting the spread of well established invasive plant species when eradication is not realistically possible given time and funding constraints;

• Comply with federal, state and county noxious week laws regarding the management of noxious weed species.

The project proposes to take an integrated pest management (IPM) approach to management of invasive plant species. This approach will combine biological, cultural, mechanical and chemical methods as well as incorporating prevention and education measures. These methods are further defined below:

• Biological control methods involve the release of insects or plant pathogens that impact invasive plant species through reduction of seed production, reduction of plant vigor, or other avenue that reduces the ability of invasive plants to dominate native plant communities. Biological control agents typically come from the area of origin of the pest plant host, which is usually overseas. These agents have been proven to be benign to native plants and crop species. They are generally not effective in elimination of invasive plants, and usually require large infestations to become established.

• Cultural control methods include planting, fertilizing or generally encouraging desired vegetation to limit sites available for encroachment by invasive species.

• Mechanical control methods involve hand pulling or digging individual plants, picking off and destroying flower and seed heads

• Chemical control methods involve the use of herbicides to kill invasive species while maintaining as much desirable vegetation as possible.

Possible alternatives to the proposed action include taking no action against invasive plant species and using only non-chemical control methods.

The responsible official is Liz Agpaoa, the Cibola National Forest Supervisor. The address is Cibola National Forest Supervisor's Office, 2113 Osuna Rd., NE, Suite A, Albuquerque, NM 87113-1001.

The decisions to be made are: (1) Whether to manage invasive plant species and if so, whether to use one or a combination of several methods of control, including mechanical, chemical, biological or cultural treatments and if so, where and how much? (2) A range of alternatives will be considered. These include taking no action against invasive plant species, using only non-chemical control methods, and using a combination of control methods in an integrated pest management strategy.

Public participation will be important at several times during the analysis. The first time is during the scoping period [Reviewer may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environment Policy Act (CFR) at 40 CFR 1501.7]. The Agency will be seeking written issues with the Proposed Action from Federal, State, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribes, and other individuals who may be interested in or affected by the Proposed Action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, will be invited to participate as a cooperating agency to evaluate potential impacts to threatened and endangered species habitat if any such species are found to exist in the potential treatment areas. This input will be used to develop additional alternatives. The scoping process includes:

• Identifying potential issues;

• Selecting significant issues with the Proposed Action, needing in-depth analysis;

• Eliminating insignificant issues; issues that have been analyzed and documented in a previous EIS, issues that controvert the need for the Proposed Action, or issues that are outside the authority of the Responsible Official to decide;

• Exploration of additional alternatives based on the issues identified during the scoping process; and

• Identification of potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

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

The Forest Service believes, 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 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. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 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 National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) will tier to the Final EIS and ROD for the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest Plan provides the overall guidance (Goals, Objectives, Standards, and Management Area Direction) to achieve the Desired Future Condition for the area being analyzed, and contains specific management area prescriptions for the entire Forest.

Issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the analysis will be determined through scoping. The primary issues are expected to include the socioeconomic benefits of mining, the potential impacts of underground mining and mining-induced subsidence and seismicity to surface and ground water, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources, range improvements, recreation, man-made features, and other land uses.

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to visit with Forest Service and BLM officials at any time during the EIS process. Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal comments on the analysis. The two comment period are, (1) during the scoping process, the next 30 days following publication of this Notice in the Federal Register , and (2) during the formal review period of the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in August, 2002. At that time the EPA will publish an availability notice in the Federal Register . The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date that EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register . The Final EIS is expected to be released in January, 2003.

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, 533 (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. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 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 National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Prima has submitted an APD in order to obtain approval to conduct gas exploration and reclamation activities in the summer of 2003. All exploration activities would take place on Federal Oil and Gas Lease UTU-77087. One exploration well and associated road construction is proposed. The site would be located approximately 4 miles south-southeast of the town of Clear Creek, via FSR50110, in Section 22, T.14S., R.7E, SLM, Carbon County, UT on Castle Valley Ridge within an Inventoried Roadless Area.

The purpose of the exploration program is to assess the economic recoverability of potential gas reserves in the Ferron Sandstone. The exploration drilling program would provide the structural, stratigraphic, and reservoir data necessary for the development of a suitable plan which would allow the company to economically and efficiently recover the gas reserves within Federal Oil and Gas Lease UTU-77087.

The BLM is proposing to approve the APD. The Forest Service is proposing to approve the Surface Use Plan of Operations (SUPO) with conditions for mitigation of effects to non-mineral resources.

The Forest Service is seeking information and comments from Federal, State, and local agencies as well as individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed action. The agency invites written comments regarding potential issues and alternatives related to the proposed action and the area being analyzed. Information received will be used to prepare the Draft and Final EIS and considered in making agency decisions.

The EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) will tier to the Final EIS and ROD for the Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 1986, as amended, by the 1994 Record of Decision for Oil and Gas Leasing on Lands Administered by the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Draft preliminary issues include effects to wildlife, visual quality, roadless character, and dispersed recreation use along the Castle Valley Ridge Trail System.

Agency representatives and other interested people are invited to visit with Forest Service and BLM officials at any time during the EIS process. Two specific time periods are identified for the receipt of formal comments on the analysis. The two comment periods are, (1) during the scoping process, the next 30 days following publication of this Notice in the Federal Register, and (2) during the formal review period of the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS is estimated to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in October 2002. At that time the EPA will publish an availability notice in the Federal Register. The comment period on the Draft EIS will be 45 days from the date that EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. The Final EIS is expected to be released in March 2003.

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, 533 (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. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft 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 National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Forest Service will prepare an EIS to decide whether to authorize SITLA to construct and reconstruct an access route across National Forest System Lands, for management purposes including timber removal, on their inholdings on East Mountain. A segment of the access route would traverse portions of the East Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area.

The SITLA inholdings consist of two sections: Section 36, T15S, R6E, (about 634 acres) and Section 2, T16S, R6E (about 987 acres). Provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, section 1323(a)(16 U.S.C. 3210) provides that the owners of non-Federal land within the National Forest System shall be provided adequate access to their land. Regulations implementing section 1323(a) are set forth in Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 251, subpart D—Access to Non-Federal Lands. The Forest Service Policy is further explained in the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 5400 and 2700. Access must comply with other laws and regulations such as the Threatened and Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act.

The purpose and need for this action is to provide an adequate access route across National Forest System Lands to SITLA inholdings consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and Forest Service Policy.

The Forest Service proposes to authorize SITLA permanent occupancy and use of National Forest System Lands along the proposed access location subject to terms and conditions.

The Responsible Official for the Record of Decision is Jack G. Troyer, Regional Forester, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401.

This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the EIS. Scoping will be by Newspaper Legal Notice, mailings to interested parties and Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions. No public meetings are planned.

Preliminary issues have been identified as new road construction in the East Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area and unstable steep slopes.

If you choose to participate, your comments should be in writing and as specific as possible. All comments will be considered. Please note: comments submitted, as well as the names and addresses of those who comment, are considered part of the public record and will be released if requested under the Freedom of Information Act. If you provide a comment, you will remain on our mailing list for this project. If you do not comment but want to remain on the mailing list, please notify us. Those who do not comment or otherwise notify us will be dropped from the mailing list for this project. The estimated dates for filing the draft EIS is May 2003 and the FEIS is February 2004.

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

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 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 that 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, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the 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. Comments may also address the adequacy of the DEIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Regional Forester for the Eastern Region gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an EIS to revise the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Monongahela National Forest ( Forest Plan ) pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1604(f)(5) and USDA Forest Service National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning regulations. The Regional Forester approved the original Forest Plan in January 1986. This Forest Plan , and the aforementioned plan amendments, guide the overall management of the Monongahela National Forest.

We make six primary decisions in the Forest Plan , including:

1. Forest-wide multiple-use goals and objectives. Goals describe a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that respond to goals.

2. Forest-wide management requirements (standards and guidelines). These are limitations on management activities, or advisable courses of action that apply across the entire forest.

3. Management area direction applying to future activities in each management area. This is the desired future condition specified for certain portions of the forest, and the accompanying standards and guidelines to help achieve that condition.

4. Lands suited and not suited for resource use and production (such as timber management and grazing).

5. Monitoring and evaluation requirements needed to gauge how well the plan is being implemented.

6. Recommendations to Congress, if any (such as Wilderness or Wild and Scenic River designation).

The scope of this revision is limited to changing only those portions of the current Forest Plan that need revision, update, or correction. We propose to narrow the scope of revising the Forest Plan by focusing on topics identified as being most critically in need of change. The six decisions listed above will be revisited only in how they apply to the revision topics that are identified.

There are three compelling reasons to revise the 1986 Forest Plan: (1) 15 years have passed since the Regional Forester approved the original Forest Plan for the Monongahela National Forest and national forests must revise the forest plan at least every 15 years according to requirements of the National Forest Management Act [U.S.C. 1604 (f)(5)]; (2) agency goals and objectives, along with other national guidance for strategic plans and programs, have changed more than can effectively be covered by additional forest plan amendments; and (3) new information and changed conditions need to be taken into consideration.

Throughout the mid-Atlantic region, including the Potomac Highlands of the Appalachian Mountains, people value the opportunities public forests provide. These opportunities include enjoyment of recreation, solitude, nature study and scenic beauty. In addition to such opportunities, the public expects important benefits from managed forests. Benefits provided by the Monongahela National Forest include a natural, forested setting for hunting and fishing; commercial recreation events, relaxation with family and friends, a place to learn about West Virginia history and culture, and wilderness experience, as well as providing wood products, and natural gas and minerals. These benefits and opportunities, coupled with its proximity to population centers, make the Monongahela National Forest integral to the sense of place for communities across West Virginia, as well as for the entire mid-Atlantic region.

The revision of the Monongahela Forest Plan will focus on management direction and other areas identified as most critically in need of change. The revision topics will be refined, and additional topics may be identified, through the public comment process, through monitoring and evaluation, and experience with implementation of the Forest Plan since 1986. The following preliminary revision topics and associated subtopics have been identified:

• Establish management area goals, and standards and guidelines, to improve watershed health in terms of ecological sustainability, including: Ecological functions, riparian area management, erosion and sedimentation control, flood and flood damage control, and restoration of aquatic ecosystems.

• Establish standards and guidelines to mitigate any adverse impacts on watersheds from acid deposition.

• Maintain red spruce, northern hardwood, and oak-hickory ecosystems at sustainable levels.

• Identify appropriate conditions for use of prescribed fire to restore ecosystems, reduce hazardous fuels, maintain healthy forests and provide wildlife habitat.

• Update the current list of management indicator species. Replace some of the game species on the current list with non-game species that better represent habitats and species.

• Establish guidelines to reduce negative impacts to forest health from plant and animal pests, including insect infestations and non-native invasive plant species.

• Set the Forest Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).

• Update standards and guidelines to accommodate appropriate silvicultural methodologies.

• Establish vegetation management goals to better represent ecosystems at appropriate scales.

• Establish appropriate harvest levels to maintain the ecological function and supply of special forest products (i.e., mosses, medicinal herbs, mushrooms, firewood).

• Establish direction for the Forest trail systems.

• Update road and trail density guidance to maintain a variety of visitor experiences.

• Establish guidance to maintain dispersed and developed recreation settings that provide customer satisfaction.

• Adjust Management Area boundaries where needed to incorporate ecological land types, current social demands, and management practicalities.

• Establish Management Area(s) and appropriate standards and guidelines to protect rivers eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River system.

• Determine whether any areas are appropriate for recommendation to Congress for Wilderness designation.

• Determine the most appropriate use for inventoried roadless areas.

When making decisions to revise the Forest Plan , we will examine economic and social impacts, as well as environmental impacts at local and sub-regional levels. Based on the above-mentioned preliminary revision topics and associated sub-topics, the Forest planning team is gathering information for an analysis of current and projected uses, demand, and capabilities of the Forest. Data gathering and analyses that are either underway or planned include a recreation feasibility study, a social assessment, evaluation of potential roadless areas, special forest products inventories and species viability evaluations. Collectively, this information and analysis will contribute to our Analysis of the Management Situation. The Analysis of the Management Situation, studies, and related references compiled by the planning team, will be made available for public review upon completion.

In addition to the preliminary revision topics, we propose to revise the Forest Plan to:

• Make minor changes throughout the Forest Plan for new or updated information;

• Update the monitoring and evaluation strategy; and

• Incorporate the Scenery Management System (SMS) in place of the current system to evaluate visual resources.

Forest plan decisions do not change laws, regulations or rights. The revised Forest Plan will only make decisions that apply to National Forest System lands. The Forest Plan will make no decisions regarding management or use of privately owned lands or reserved and outstanding mineral estates. Further suitability studies of Wild and Scenic Rivers will not be completed as a part of this Forest Plan revision. Topics related to implementing projects or enforcing regulations are also beyond the scope of what can be decided in a forest plan.

The management guidelines related to the federally listed (endangered) Indiana Bat and West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel are not included as a revision topic because the Forest is currently amending the existing Forest Plan for these species based on formal consultation with the U.S. Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. Information about these species will be brought forward into the revised Forest Plan and does not need to be duplicated during the revision process. The alternatives in the final EIS will be analyzed for their effects on Threatened and Endangered Species.

Public comments received on topics that will not be addressed in the revised Forest Plan will be forwarded to the managers responsible for that topic area. The comments will be considered as managers develop information and proposals related to those topics. Such proposals may result in future plan amendments, changes in implementation, changes in program emphasis, or various other means of addressing concerns related to a particular topic. Implementation of proposals will be addressed as budget priorities allow.

We will consider a range of alternatives when revising the Forest Plan . Alternatives will be developed to address different options to resolve issues raised about the proposed action, and the revision topics and proposals listed above, and to fulfill the purpose and need described earlier in this document. A “No Action” alternative is required and will be considered. For this analysis, the No Action alternative means that management would continue under the existing Forest Plan as amended.

The Responsible Official will decide on the management direction for the Monongahela National Forest. The Responsible Official's choices will include:

1. The No Action Alternative, which would continue management under the current Forest Plan as amended; and

2. Alternatives developed during the revision process to address issues raised about the Proposed Action.

Following publication of this Notice of Intent, we will provide opportunities for public involvement including: a 90-day formal comment period, public meetings, written comments, website and e-mail. The Forest Service will host a series of public meetings to: (1) Establish multiple opportunities for the public to generate ideas, concerns, and alternatives; (2) present and clarify proposed changes to the Forest Plan ; (3) describe ways that individuals can respond to this Notice of Intent; and (4) invite comments from the public on this proposal for revising the Forest Plan.

The table below presents the schedule of initial meetings that will be held during the 90-day public comment period. If you need special accommodations, please contact Doug Adamo, Forest Planner; or Kate Goodrich, Forest Public Affairs Officer, by calling (304) 636-1800, fax number (304) 636-1875.

From mid-2002 through mid-2004, we will validate issues and develop alternatives. We will provide many types of public involvement in support of alternative development, including public workshops, collaborative meetings, and website, as well as acceptance of written comments via regular mail and e-mail.

Late in the year 2004, we will release our proposed revised Forest Plan and a draft EIS. We will again provide many types of public involvement opportunities including a 90-day formal comment period, public meetings, and website, as well as acceptance of written comments via regular mail and e-mail.

In 2005, we will address the comments and revise the draft EIS based on those comments and further analysis. By mid-2005, we will release the decision, final revised Forest Plan , final EIS, and record of decision. We will provide informational meetings to explain these documents and decision on the final Forest Plan.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection.

Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any persons may request the agency to withhold a submission from the record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets.

The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and if the requester is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 90 days.

This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which assists the Forest Service in the development of the EIS. Comments will be most helpful if they are written and are specific in nature, stating not only the area of concern, but also the reason for the concern.

The Forest Plan revision will include a social impact analysis, which will include considerations of potential effects to environmental justice concerns and individual civil rights. Comments regarding these topics are also requested.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published new planning regulations in November of 2000. Concerns regarding the ability to implement these regulations prompted a review with probable revision of these regulations. On May 10, 2001, USDA Secretary Veneman signed an interim final rule allowing Forest Plan amendments or revisions initiated before May 9, 2002, to proceed either under the new planning rule or under the 1982 planning regulations. The Monongahela National Forest revision process will be initiated under the 1982 planning regulations, pending future direction in revised regulations.

A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period for the draft EIS will be 90 days from the date the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes it is important to provide 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. NRDS, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978)]. Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts [ City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F2d 1016, 1022 (9th cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980)]. Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 90-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters 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 of Environmental Quality Regulations ( http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm ) for implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The Forest Plan for the Beaverhead National Forest was completed in 1986 and the Deerlodge Forest Plan was completed in 1987. The Forests were administratively combined in 1996. Both plans will remain in effect and continue to be implemented until they are revised.

With this Notice we initiate revision of both forest plans. During the next several months our focus will be on organizing the revision team and evaluating information required. Once the scope of the revision is better understood the Forest will issue another Notice to announce initiation of an Environmental Impact Statement, as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act.

This Notice initiates revision under the 1982 planning regulations (36 CFR 219). The Forest Service is preparing new draft planning regulations, which are anticipated in the spring of 2002. Since these new regulations will reflect the latest national thinking on land and resource management planning, the Forest will seriously consider switching to revision under the new planning regulations. This will depend on when the regulations are finalized. An additional Notice will be issued if the Forest decides to operate under the new regulations.

The Forest Plan for the Manti-La Sal National Forest was completed in November, 1986 and will remain in effect and continue to be implemented until the Plan is revised. In the past, a “Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement” was issued at the beginning of the forest planning process. This Notice addresses initiation of revision with a focus on information needs, resource inventory reviews, organizing the revision team, and working with the public. Once the scope of the revision is better understood the Forest will issue another Notice to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement.

This Notice initiates revision under the 1982 planning regulations (36 CFR 219). The Forest Service is preparing new draft planning regulations expected to be issued in the Spring of 2002. Since these new regulations will reflect the latest national thinking on land and resource management planning, the Forest will seriously consider switching to, and completing the forest plan revision under, the new regulations when they are finalized. An additional Notice will be issued if the Forest decides to switch. (Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21)

On January 4, February 15, March 1, and March 8, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 FR 556, 7130, 9436, and 10663) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the 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 services to the Government.

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

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

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 services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are 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 additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each service will be required to procure the 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 services to the Government.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the 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 services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

The U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce” or “Department”) is one of the most diverse Federal departments, both in terms of its mission and the information it provides to the public. We are responsible for daily weather reporting, facilitating the use of technology both at home and in the workplace, collecting statistics that assist the public and private sector, and supporting the environmental and economic health of U.S. communities. Our mission is to promote job creation and improve living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that encourages economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development, conservation, and wise use of living marine resources.

To carry out this mission, three strategic goals have been identified. They are to provide the information and the framework to enable the economy to operate efficiently and equitably; provide the infrastructure for innovation to enhance U.S. competitiveness; and observe and manage the Earth's environment to promote sustainable growth.

Commerce provides the basic economic data necessary to develop sound business decisions, producing many of the commonly used economic statistics issued by the U.S. Government. The Department also produces information designed to encourage the use of science and technology in the production of consumer goods and services.

Commerce plays an important role in the nation's global business development. The Department develops and disseminates foreign market research and international trade opportunities through its offices in the United States and in 83 foreign countries. Commerce also monitors and enforces compliance with U.S. trade laws and agreements, and defends American firms from injurious foreign business practices by administering U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws.

The oceanic and atmospheric programs at Commerce improve the understanding and rational use of the natural environment to further the Nation's safety, welfare, security, and commerce. These responsibilities include predicting the weather, charting the seas, and protecting the oceans and coastal areas.

Domestically, Commerce's programs promote long-term business enterprises that create jobs for minority groups and in underdeveloped areas across the United States. These programs are supported by reports, publications, projections, and business expertise. The Department provides services to citizens, and private business as well as to state, local and tribal governments.

Given the broad responsibilities of the Commerce Department in scientific, technical, and statistical information, Commerce welcomes the opportunity provided by the issuance of the Office of Management and Budget information quality guidelines to demonstrate our thorough and professional approach to information release at the Commerce Department.

Our goal is to ensure and maximize the quality of the information we release to the public. We are committed to making the methods, models, and processes that produce our information transparent and rigorous. At the Commerce Department, we have a long tradition of producing relevant, credible, high quality information to the public at large, the academic community, and the private sector.

We believe that we uphold a high standard regarding information quality through the use of quality control procedures for statistical data collection and processing. The 2000 decennial census, conducted by the Census Bureau, was the most accurate census in the history of the Nation. Commerce has made significant strides in redesigning the national income and product accounts by improving the conceptual foundation and incorporating new estimating methods and other statistical improvements. Our scientific research incorporates both internal and external peer review as appropriate. The Department boasts two Nobel Prize winners in science. We operate supercomputers that rank in the Nation's top ten in processing power. These powerful computers allow us a high degree of model resolution that increases the number of data points used to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts.

In summary, we are proposing these draft Commerce guidelines as a continuation of our commitment to information quality. We have a proven track record in producing high quality information and welcome the opportunity for the public to comment on our information quality guidelines.

The Department of Commerce Chief Information Officer (CIO) will prepare and submit reports annually to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regarding the number and nature of complaints received by the Department of Commerce regarding Department compliance with the OMB guidelines concerning the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information and how such complaints were resolved, as required by Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the OMB Guidelines.

1. By October 1, 2002, document and make available to the public information quality standards that address the requirements of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity for all non-exempt information disseminated by the operating unit.

2. By October 1, 2002, establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the operating unit on or after October 1, 2002, that does not comply with these Department guidelines and the OMB guidelines.

3. Assist the Department CIO in the preparation of annual reports to OMB by providing information requested by the Department CIO.

By October 1, 2002, each operating unit must document and make available to the public information quality standards that meet the requirements of quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity, as defined in these guidelines, for all non-exempt information disseminated by that operating unit. (The operating units of the Department are organizational entities outside the Office of the Secretary charged with carrying out specified substantive functions (i.e. programs) of the Department. For purposes of this document, operating unit responsibilities will apply to the Office of the Secretary also.) Each operating unit will post on its Web site the categories of information disseminated by the operating unit, the quality standard for each category, and an administrative correction mechanism for public comment by May 31, 2002. Web addresses are listed in the final section of this announcement. Note: The draft standards for the Census Bureau and for other than scientific, financial, and statistical information in the Office of the Secretary are available now.

The guidelines below provide direction to the operating units of the Department in issuing information quality standards applicable to information they disseminate. This document includes Department-wide model information quality standards to address information utility and integrity, as well as a model information quality standard for information other than scientific, financial, or statistical information. The latter standard includes the model utility and integrity standards for completeness. Finally, this document contains a model administrative correction process for information disseminated by operating units of the Department.

As noted below, each operating unit may adopt or adapt the suggested model standards and adapt the suggested model administrative mechanism, as needed. An operating unit may also choose to adapt the model standards by integrating them with other standards. Where no model standard is provided, each operating unit must prepare standards to comply fully with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001 (Public Law 106-554) and the OMB Guidelines. In particular, each operating must address the objectivity of scientific, financial, and statistical information it disseminates.

Each operating unit may adopt or adapt this policy.

This policy covers release of information by the Department of Commerce on or after October 1, 2002.

Any information released by the Department that does not represent the views of the Department (or any of its components) shall contain a disclaimer indicating that it does not represent the views of the Department.

Each operating unit may adopt or adapt this standard.

This standard covers all information disseminated by the Department of Commerce on or after October 1, 2002.

Information disseminated to the public shall be useful to its intended users. “Useful” means that the content of the information is helpful, beneficial, or serviceable to its intended users, or that the information supports the usefulness of other disseminated information by making it more accessible or easier to read, see, understand, obtain, or use. Where the usefulness of information will be enhanced by greater transparency, care shall be taken that sufficient background and detail is available, either with the disseminated information or through other means, to maximize the usefulness of the information. The level of such background and detail shall be commensurate with the importance of the particular information, balanced against the resources required, and be appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated.

Each operating unit may adopt or adapt this standard.

This standard covers all information disseminated by the Department of Commerce on or after October 1, 2002.

Information disseminated by the Department of Commerce to the public, independent of the specific distribution mechanism, shall be safeguarded from improper access, modification, or destruction. The Department will ensure that disseminated information, including original and supporting information, is protected commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm that could result from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of such information.

All electronic information disseminated to the public by the Department of Commerce adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Systems Reform Act.

Confidentiality of data collected by the Department is safeguarded under legislation including the Privacy Act and Titles 13, 15, and 22 of the U.S. Code. For its formal statistical data releases to the public, the Commerce Department maintains strict procedures to protect premature disclosure of the data before the publicly scheduled date and time of the release.

Each operating unit may adopt or adapt this standard.

This standard covers all non-scientific, non-financial, non-statistical information disseminated by the Department of Commerce on or after October 1, 2002.

Information disseminated to the public shall be useful to its intended users. “Useful” means that the content of the information is helpful, beneficial, or serviceable to its intended users, or that the information supports the usefulness of other disseminated information by making it more accessible or easier to read, see, understand, obtain, or use. Where the usefulness of information will be enhanced by greater transparency, care shall be taken that sufficient background and detail is available, either with the disseminated information or through other means, to maximize the usefulness of the information. The level of such background and detail shall be commensurate with the importance of the particular information, balanced against the resources required, and be appropriate to the nature and timeliness of the information to be disseminated.

Information disseminated by the Department of Commerce to the public, independent of the specific distribution mechanism, shall be safeguarded from improper access, modification, or destruction. The Department will ensure that disseminated information, including original and supporting information, is protected commensurate with the risk and magnitude of harm that could result from the loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of such information.

All electronic information disseminated to the public by the Department of Commerce adheres to the standards set out in Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources,” OMB Circular A-130; the Computer Security Act; and the Government Information Systems Reform Act.

Confidentiality of data collected by the Department is safeguarded under legislation including the Privacy Act and Titles 13, 15, and 22 of the U.S. Code. For its formal statistical data releases to the public, the Commerce Department maintains strict procedures to protect premature disclosure of the data before the publicly scheduled date and time of the release.

Information disseminated by the Department shall be presented in a clear, complete, and unbiased manner, and in a context which enhances usability to the intended audience. The sources of the disseminated information shall be identified to the extent possible, consistent with confidentiality, privacy, and security considerations and protections, and taking into account timely presentation, the medium of dissemination, and the importance of the information, balanced against the resources required and the time available.

Information disseminated by the Department shall be reliable and accurate to an acceptable degree of error as determined by factors such as the importance of the information, its intended use, time sensitivity, expected degree of permanence, relation to the primary mission(s) of the disseminating office, and the context of the dissemination, balanced against the resources required and the time available. A body of information is considered to be reliable if experience shows it to be generally accurate. Accurate information, in the case of non-scientific, non-financial, non-statistical information, means information which is reasonably determined to be factually correct in the view of the disseminating office as of the time of dissemination.

The pre-dissemination review process shall enable the Department to substantiate the quality of disseminated information through documentation or other means appropriate to the nature and importance of the information, balanced against resources required and the time available.

Pre-dissemination review of information disseminated by the Department shall be incorporated into the normal review processes for each type of information to take advantage of inherent quality checks that are part of the process of formulating the information. This review shall be at a level appropriate to the information, taking into account the information's importance, balanced against the resources required and the time available. Department operating units shall treat information quality as integral to every step in their process of developing the information, including creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination.

Pre-dissemination review can be accomplished in a number of ways, including but not limited to combinations of the following:

a. Active personal review of information by supervisory and management layers, either by reviewing each individual dissemination, or selected samples, or by any other reasonable method.

b. Use of quality check lists, charts, statistics, or other means of tracking quality.

c. Careful design and monitoring of review processes to ensure they are effective.

d. Peer monitoring during information preparation.

e. Use of management controls.

f. Review of comments from the public.

g. Any other method which serves to enhance the objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information.

Contact information shall be provided with the information disseminated.

(a) Requests to correct information. Any affected person may request, where appropriate, timely correction of disseminated information that does not comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or Department guidelines. An affected person would submit a request for such action directly to a point of contact designated to receive such requests.

(b) Appeals of denials of requests. Any person receiving an initial denial of a request to correct information made under paragraph (a), may file an appeal of such denial, which must be received by the head of the operating unit within thirty calendar days of the date of the denial of the request. The appeal must include a copy of the original request, any correspondence regarding the initial denial, and a statement of the reasons why the initial denial was in error. No opportunity for personal appearance, oral argument, or hearing on appeal is provided.

(c) Savings clause. Operating units must adopt or adapt these procedures for providing affected persons with an opportunity to seek and obtain correction of disseminated information described in this guideline. However, operating units with an existing process for providing affected persons with an opportunity to seek and obtain correction of disseminated information may retain their existing process, provided such existing process has been published in the Federal Register , or otherwise been made publicly available.

(d) Definitions.

(1) Affected person means a person who meets each of the following three criteria:

(i) The person must have suffered an injury “ harm to an identifiable legally-protected interest;

(ii) There must be a causal connection between the injury and the disseminated information—the injury has to be fairly traceable to the disseminated information or decisions based on such information, and not the result of independent or unrelated action; and

(iii) It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

(2) Person means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, public or private organization, or State or local government; and

(3) Program office means a sub-organization of an operating unit responsible for carrying out specified substantive functions (i.e., programs) of that operating unit.

(e) Procedures for initial request for correction.

(1) Each operating unit of the Department will establish internal procedures that ensure that every dissemination of information will contain a point of contact for an affected person to request correction of such disseminated information that does not comply with OMB or Department guidelines. The point of contact may be a Department-wide internet Web site established for the purpose of receiving such requests for correction. Alternatively, the point of contact may be an office in the operating unit that disseminated the information, either the program office that actually disseminated the information, an office one organizational level above such office, or a central point of contact within the operating unit.

(2) An initial request for correction of disseminated information must be either posted to any Department-wide internet Web site established for such purpose or in writing and addressed to the point of contact. The point of contact will transmit the request to the office that will address the request (responsible office). Any Department employee receiving a misdirected request will take reasonable efforts to forward the request to the appropriate office, but the responsible office is not obligated to respond until it receives the request.

(3)(i) No initial request for correction will be considered under these procedures concerning:

(A) A matter not involving “information,” as that term is defined in OMB's guidelines;

(B) Information that has not actually been “disseminated,” as that term is defined in OMB's guidelines; or

(C) Disseminated information the correction of which would serve no useful purpose. For example, correction of disseminated information would serve no useful purpose with respect to information that is not valid, used or useful after a stated short period of time (such as a weather forecast). This limitation would not, however, preclude a request for correction alleging a systemic problem resulting in consistent errors in the dissemination of such information.

(ii) Such a request will be accounted for in the Department's report to OMB.

(4) At a minimum, initial requests must include:

(i) The requester's current home or business address, telephone number or electronic mail address (in order to ensure timely communication);

(ii) An accurate citation to or description of the particular information disseminated which is the subject of the request (including the date and information source from which the requester obtained the information); and

(iii) An explanation of:

(A) How the requester is an affected person;

(B) How the requester believes the office that disseminated the information failed to follow its applicable information quality standards; and

(C) Why the requester believes that the subject information is not correct.

(5) Upon receipt of an initial request, the requester will be notified of receipt as soon as administratively possible.

(6)(i) Each operating unit of the Department will establish internal procedures that ensure that, upon receipt of a request from an affected person meeting the requirements of paragraph (e)(4) (hereinafter called “a proper request”), an initial decision will be communicated to the requester, usually within 60 calendar days. Each operating unit may establish a time period for its initial decision depending on the type of information at issue.

(ii) No action will be taken regarding a request failing to meet the requirements of paragraph (e)(4), including a request made by a person unaffected by the dissemination of the information. The submitter of any such request will be notified of this disposition. Such a request will be accounted for in the Department's report to OMB.

(iii) A proper request made concerning information disseminated as part and during the pendency of the comment period on a proposed rule, including a request concerning the information forming the record of decision for a proposed rule, will be treated as a comment filed on that proposed rulemaking action, and will be addressed in issuance of any final rule. A proper request filed after the close of the comment period on any proposed rule may be considered to the same extent as any other late-filed comment or may be addressed through the procedures established in this guideline.

(7)(i) Upon receipt of a proper request, the responsible office must make a preliminary determination whether the request states a claim. A request for correction will be preliminarily determined to state a claim if it reasonably demonstrates, on the strength of the assertions made in the request alone, that the information disseminated was based on a misapplication or non-application of the operating unit's applicable published information quality standards.

(ii) A determination that a request does not state a claim will be communicated to the requester as soon as is administratively possible. There is no appeal from a decision that a request does not state a claim.

(8)(i) If a request is preliminarily determined to state a claim, the responsible office will objectively investigate and analyze, in a manner consistent with established internal procedures, whether the information disseminated is in compliance with the operating unit's published information quality standards. The appropriate official will make an initial decision, based on the request and any internal investigation and analysis, whether the information should be corrected because it does not comply with the operating unit's published information quality standards (granted request) or not corrected because it does comply with the operating unit's published information quality standards or, in the event that it does not comply with the operating unit's published information quality guidelines, the results would have been substantially or statistically the same (initial denial). There will be no opportunity for an in-person hearing.

(ii) The appropriate official must communicate his/her initial decision to the requester within the time frame established by the operating unit's internal guidelines. The initial decision must contain the name and title of the person communicating the decision, and a notice that the requester may appeal an initial denial to the head of the operating unit (with the name, title, and address of that official) within 30 calendar days of the date of the initial denial. An initial denial will become a final decision if no appeal is filed within 30 days.

(iii) The appropriate official may determine to grant the request and not correct the disseminated information if to correct the information would require a commitment of resources unavailable to that official. The appropriate official will communicate such a determination to the requester and will consider, in consultation with the head of the operating unit, including a request for sufficient funds to undertake the correction in the next budget cycle.

(f) Appeals from initial denial.

(1) An appeal from an initial denial must be made within 30 calendar days of the date of the initial decision. Such appeal must be in writing and addressed to the head of the operating unit responsible for the program office that disseminated the information. At a minimum, an appeal of an initial denial must include:

(i) The requester's current home or business address, telephone number or electronic mail address (in order to ensure timely communication);

(ii) A copy of the original request and any correspondence regarding the initial denial; and

(iii) A statement of the reasons why the requester believes the initial denial was in error. In describing why the requester believes the initial denial was in error, the requester must provide detailed reasons why:

(A) The failure to follow its information quality standards led the office that disseminated the information to disseminate information that is not within an acceptable degree of imprecision or error;

(B) The disseminated information is not within an acceptable degree of imprecision or error regardless of whether the office that disseminated the information correctly followed its information quality standards; or

(C) The standards covering the dissemination of the information at issue were so flawed that, even if they had been followed, they would lead to the dissemination of incorrect information.

(2) The head of the operating unit will decide whether the information should be corrected based on all the information presented in the appeal and the evidence collected by the operating unit pertaining to that appeal. There will be no opportunity for an in-person hearing. The head of the operating unit must communicate his/her decision to the requester within the time frame established by the operating unit's internal procedures, but in no case longer than 60 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. The decision of the head of the operating unit will constitute a final decision by the Department.

(3) The head of the operating unit may determine that an appeal meets one of the criteria in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) and not correct the disseminated information or the Department's guidelines if to do so would require a commitment of resources unavailable to that official. The head of the operating unit will communicate such a determination to the requester and will consider including a request for sufficient funds to undertake the correction in the next budget cycle.

Funding Instrument: The selected recipient will: (1) Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service that delineates the terms of reference for establishing the Cooperative Institute and provides guidelines for its subsequent activities; and, (2) Receive a renewable, 5-year cooperative agreement to support the development of the Institute's cooperative research program with NESDIS in the area of satellite ocean remote sensing. The award will have an initial base term of five years. A NESDIS-sponsored, independent panel will conduct a review of the Institute during the fourth year of the five-year program. The Panel's findings and recommendations will serve as the basis for renewal of the Institute for an additional five years.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA): This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under Number 11.440 (Research in Remote Sensing of the Earth and Environment).

Funding Availability: Funding for this program in FY 2002 will be contingent upon the availability of funds, but it is anticipated that approximately $500,000 will be available for the first (start-up) year and a minimum of $500,000 each year thereafter for the term of the agreement. These funds will provide a base core of funds for the development and subsequent activities of the Institute and include the core costs of administering the Institute and funding of the individual research projects. These funds will be allocated as follows: no more than $250,000 for costs associated with the administration and outreach components of the Institute; the remainder to fund the individual projects that form the research component. The administration and outreach components will form the base proposal to be funded on an annual basis. The individual research projects will be funded as amendments to the base cooperative agreement. The Director of the Institute will be responsible for the overall development of the research programs. The successful applicant will be expected to leverage off this base to develop, by the end of the initial five-year term of the cooperative agreement, a self-sustaining, competitive research program in externally-supported coastal and open-ocean satellite remote sensing (hereafter described as “ocean remote sensing”) research with a goal on the order of $1,000,000 annually.

Eligible applicants are non-federal public and private non-profit universities, colleges, and research institutions that offer accredited graduate-level degree-granting programs leading to a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Oceanography, or equivalent degree in the physical or Earth sciences.

The ocean increasingly impacts various aspects of human lives, including economics, public safety, national security, and quality of life. Ocean-observing environmental satellites provide a critical observational resource in the Nation's efforts to understand and predict these complex relationships. NESDIS seeks to establish a Cooperative Institute for Ocean Remote Sensing. The Institute will provide a collaborative research and technology environment enabling the Nation's academic and industrial research communities and NESDIS to promote and make available research into operational ocean remote sensing capabilities.

NOAA has primary mission responsibilities in environmental prediction, assessment, and the conservation and management of coastal and oceanic resources. NESDIS, one of the five principal offices within NOAA, has the lead role in providing environmental satellite data and information to support NOAA's coastal and ocean mission roles. NESDIS is involved in the full spectrum of environmental satellite activities. These activities include: satellite spacecraft operations; data acquisition from both domestic and foreign environmental satellites; environmental data distribution and management; research and development of environmental data products and information services; and development of future satellite sensor requirements.

Within NESDIS, the Office of Research and Applications (ORA) serves as the principal interface between the NESDIS operational oceanic, atmospheric, and climate-related satellite observation activities and the Nation's research community. Through a broad range of both internally- and externally-funded research activities, ORA helps ensure that NESDIS realizes the full potential of national and international research in atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial remote sensing across the full spectrum of its mission responsibilities described above.

The primary purpose of the Institute is to create a mechanism to bring together the resources of a research-oriented university or institution, NESDIS, and other branches of NOAA in order to develop and maintain a center of excellence in satellite remote-sensing research relevant to understanding and providing adequate stewardship of the Earth's oceans, coastal waters, marine ecosystems, and the living and non-living resources within these regions. The selected recipient will be expected to:

1. Build an Institutional Infrastructure (Administrative Core): Provide an organizational setting to promote and establish research relating to satellite ocean remote sensing by drawing upon multiple disciplines and involving collaboration with multiple research-performing and research-sponsoring partners. Serve as a model of outreach, input, and collaboration for applying research to solving priority problems in coastal and ocean remote sensing, current satellite system optimization, and future satellite system development and planning.

2. Expand Research in Satellite Ocean Remote Sensing, Satellite Data Management, and User Access Technologies (Research Component): Support multi-disciplinary research projects aimed at satellite remote-sensing in support of the Nation's coastal and ocean remote-sensing responsibilities, to include: (a) Algorithm development and validation; (b) Application of active and passive satellite remote-sensing techniques such as altimetry, scatterometry, synthetic aperture radar, radiometry, and ocean color imagery; (c) Satellite sensor development and demonstration; (d) Technologies relating to satellite data acquisition, data distribution, mission operations, and mission planning; and satellite sensor development and demonstration; (e) Technologies relating to improving user access to data and data management; (f) Techniques for assimilating satellite data for improved ocean modeling and forecasting of both oceanic and atmospheric parameters. Through such multi-disciplinary research, explore new approaches for enhancing the use of present and future environmental satellites to meet the rapidly changing needs of the Nation's coastal and ocean regions.

3. Increase Recruitment and Outreach (Outreach Component): Enhance opportunities for user familiarization with ocean and coastal satellite remote sensing, research training, career development, and mentoring in ocean remote sensing.

In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1 (Recipient Activities), and NESDIS will be responsible for the activities under 2 (NESDIS activities).

(A) Administrative Core: (1) Establish an appropriate organizational setting and institutional infrastructure that are supportive of developing the Cooperative Institute into a self-sustaining research collaboration. This setting must facilitate collaboration between NESDIS, the Cooperative Institute, and multiple external research partners. (2) Establish relationships with organizations relevant to the success of the Institute's research agenda, demonstrated by letters of agreement. Cooperation with public and private sector coastal and ocean resource management, administration, and research programs is encouraged. (3) Establish appropriate relationships with organizations or individuals to ensure that the Institute's research can be applied to solving priority problems of a national scale (meaning, broadly applicable) or in local regions.

(B) Research Component: (1) Organize and develop an integrated research program theme and agenda that will address research topics of programmatic interest to NESDIS/ORA/ORAD as outlined in the “Program Description” section of this announcement. An overview of ORAD's programs is available on their website http://orbit-net.nesdis.noaa.gov/ora/. (2) Within the developed research agenda, design and propose research projects that have sufficient scientific merit to attract external research funding. (3) Conduct oceanographic research of significance to NESDIS' role in coastal and open ocean processes. Individual research projects are to be coordinated with one another and, whenever possible, projects among research areas are also to be coordinated. The high level of coordination is intended to broaden the scientific findings of each individual project or program by making research results useful to a large number of scientists conducting research in oceanographic sciences. Specifically, the Director shall ensure that: (a) The research falls within the scope of the 5-year cooperative agreement; (b) collaborative efforts with NESDIS and other organizations are identified; (c) the research addresses important problems; (d) the concepts and methods proposed for the research are acceptable; (e) Principal Investigators are qualified to conduct the research; and (f) costs are fair and reasonable. (4) Disseminate research findings to the national and international scientific communities via journals, conference presentations, and the World-Wide Web.

(5) Make successful research available to efforts and applications that improve the Nation's ocean remote-sensing capabilities, ocean models, marine and atmospheric forecast accuracy, long-term ocean monitoring.

(C) Outreach Component: Establish a program for enhancing opportunities, career development and training, including the mentoring of junior researchers and programs for training mid-career or transitional professionals.

(A) Review proposal(s), conducted by the NOAA Program Officer, to ensure that the research is consistent with the joint technical and programmatic interests of the organizations.

(B) Provide technical assistance on projects as necessary.

(C) Provide for the exchange of professional staff, skilled in relevant aspects of ocean remote sensing research, for research program development, mentoring, cross-training of scientists and professionals, and professional development.

(D) Collaborate with the Institute's scientists on research activities.

(E) Provide access to NESDIS developmental and operational environmental satellite data, information, and constituency service activities to support the Institute's research program.

NOAA Grants Application Package. The Department of Commerce (DOC) Pre-Award Notification of Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register Notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917; DOCID:fr01oc01-39) are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that DOC will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbaugh , 172 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case has been finally resolved, DOC will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202. All applicants are required to submit a complete application package and proposal. The standard forms and additional information are available on the DOC Grants Management Web site at http://www.doc.gov/oebam/grants.htm. If Internet access is not available, forms can be obtained by mail by contacting the NOAA/NESDIS/ORA at (301) 763-8102. A signed original and two copies of the proposal must be received by ORA by the time and date indicated in the DATES section of this Notice. Investigators are required to submit 3 copies of the proposal, however, the review process requires 10 copies. Investigators are encouraged to submit sufficient proposal copies, especially color or unusually sized (not 8.5″×11″), or otherwise unusual materials submitted as part of the proposal. Proposals must be limited to a total of no more than 40 pages, including budget justification, investigators’ vitae, and all appendices. Appended information may not be used to circumvent the page length limit. Federally-mandated forms are not included within the page count. Proposals should be submitted in the following format in 12-point font. Incomplete proposals will not be considered and will be returned to the applicant.

Core Proposal for establishing and administering the Institute.

1. Title Page—Core funding for the Cooperative Institute for Ocean Remote Sensing (CIORS), the lead Principal Investigator (Director, CIORS), Partner name(s) (if any) and their respective affiliations, complete addresses, telephone, FAX, and e-mail information. The title page will also provide the total proposed cost on an annual basis for the five-year period. The title page should be signed by the Principal Investigators (PI(s)) and the institutional representative of the PI's organization.

2. Goals and Objectives of the Institute—Identify broad research goals, a general description of how the applicant proposes to achieve those goals, a summary of the applicant's institutional qualifications and relevant experience to conduct the proposed program, and quantifiable objectives for each of the three primary elements for the proposed Cooperative Institute: Administrative Core, Research Component, and Outreach Component.

3. Technical Approach—Describe the specific approach the applicant proposes to accomplish the proposed Institute's identified purposes. Provide details of the Institute's process for selecting individual research projects.

4. Project Partners—Identify any project partners, their respective roles, and their contributions/relationships to the proposed effort.

5. Milestones and Outcomes—List target milestones, time lines, and desired outcomes; and identify the potential value of the proposed work to the needs of the targeted audience.

6. Qualifications and Relevant Experience—Identify the qualifications and relevant experience of the applicant (and partners) that relate to each of the following ocean remote-sensing activities relevant to the mission of NESDIS: Satellite spacecraft operations; data acquisition from both domestic and foreign environmental satellites; data distribution and management; research and development of environmental data products and information services; assimilation of remote-sensing data into environmental models, and future satellite sensor requirements development.

7. Summary of the applicant's relevant current or recently completed (please limit to past 5 years) administrative, research and outreach activities that should be considered in selection process. Also identify activities related to achieving NOAA's goals with respect to minority serving institutions.

8. Institute Budget—Provide a detailed budget breakdown by category (Core funding, research themes (by year for efforts proposed for multiple years)) and a brief narrative to provide the basis for the proposed budget.

9. Key Personnel Qualifications—Provide curriculum vitae for each individual considered key to the success of the proposed effort, including relevant publications by the individual in scientific and professional literature.

Applications will be subject to a peer review. Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria, with each proposal's score based on scientific and technical merit. Factors to be considered include:

A. Organizational Infrastructure: Does the applicant demonstrate a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve the mission? Will the approach lead to the development of a body of knowledge that can yield results beyond that accomplished with individual projects alone? Will the CIORS attract established investigators and develop genuine collaboration among investigators with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise.

B. Environment: Does the scientific, technical and administrative environment of the institute contribute to excellence and the probability of success? Does the proposed Institute employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of a high level of Institutional commitment and support? Does the Institute Director (PI) have specific authority and responsibility to carry out the project? Does the Institute Director have a high enough level of organizational influence to garner the support needed for the institute, i.e., report to an appropriate institutional official, e.g., dean of school, vice president of a university? Is the time and effort indicated for the Institute Director adequate (minimum of 25 percent effort devoted solely to the Institute) with an anticipated range of 25 to 50 percent)?

C. Collaboration: Ability to build coalitions and partnerships with critical organizations and individuals (such as distinguished scientists, as well as potential researchers-in-training, universities, colleges, research institutions, state and local governments, and other public and private nonprofit organizations) and to facilitate collaboration and coordination to assure the accomplishment of the Institute's goals.

D. Organization: The quality and appropriateness of the organizational structure, the quality and experience of the administrative staff, the plans for quality control through in-house consultation and outside review (e.g., Scientific Advisory Board), and the quality of the plans allocating and monitoring of resources.

E. Ease of Collaboration: Does the location of the proposed Institute allow for easy collaboration with NESDIS's principal centers of research, applications development, and operational activities?

F. Budget: Reasonableness of proposed budget and time frame for the project in relation to the work proposed.

A. Research Theme and Agenda: Is the concept of an institute fulfilled, i.e., is there an organizing theme (or set of themes) and associated research agenda that defines the mission of the CIORS.

B. Societal Significance: Does the proposal address important coastal and open ocean issues amenable to ocean remote-sensing observations? What will be the effect of the institute and its affiliated studies on fundamental advances in the development, testing, and dissemination of coastal and open-ocean satellite remotely sensed data and information?

C. Leadership: Are the institute director and other senior investigators recognized as leaders in their respective fields? Do they have the experience and authority to organize, administer and direct the Institute?

D. Research Projects: Are the proposed specific research themes of exceptional scientific merit?

E. Innovation: Does the Institute propose to develop novel concepts, approaches, measures or methods in basic research that will inform and guide public use of satellite-remote-sensing-derived ocean data and information? Are the aims original and innovative? Do the projects extend existing approaches or develop new methodologies or technologies?

A. Does the applicant include a research development component for new, mid-career or transitional professionals through research training and career development mechanisms?

B. To what extent are efforts made to recruit a wide variety of professionals and students to the CIORS, including minority professionals and students?

Selection Procedures: A selection panel will be convened to review and to provide recommendations on selection using the above criteria. The panel may consist of both Federal and non-Federal experts in the field. No consensus recommendation will be made. Proposals will be ranked according to their cumulative score and presented to the Selecting Official for final selection. In addition to the individual rankings assigned by the panel, the selecting official may consider the following program policy factors: Balance among the prioritized research areas of programmatic interest described in the Program Description of this Notice and duplication of other research programs currently funded by NOAA. Unsatisfactory performance by a recipient under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding. As a result of this review, the Selecting Official may decide to select an award out of rank order.

Disposition of Unsuccessful Proposals. Proposals will be held in the Program Office until award of the Cooperative Institute agreement to the selected recipient and then destroyed.

A maximum of $250,000 will be available annually for the core administrative costs of establishing and maintaining the Institute. Funds for the core proposal will be provided at the beginning of the annual performance period. It is estimated that an additional $250,000 will be available during the first year of performance to fund the individual research projects. Individual research projects will be funded as amendments to the agreement throughout the 5-year period. It is estimated that a minimum of $500,000 each year thereafter for the term of the agreement will be available for funding the administrative, outreach, and research projects. The Institute will be expected to leverage off this base to develop, by the end of the initial 5-year term of the grant, a self-sustaining, competitive research program with a goal on the order of $1,000,000 annually in externally supported coastal and open ocean remote-sensing research.

Cost Sharing—There is no requirement for cost sharing in response to this program announcement.

Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

It has been determined that this notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. et seq.

This document gives notice of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 222. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows:

This invention relates to a bacterial expression system for production of protective antigen (PA) against bacillus anthrasis. Recombinant asporogenic B. anthracits that are derived from ΔSterne-1(pPA102) and show inability to bind the dye when grown on Congo Red Agar can be screened and asporogenic strains isolated using methods of the invention. Organisms of the invention lacking spore-forming function may be killed by heat shock at temperatures as low as 60 °C. for 60 minutes. Hence, contamination of the environment with viable spore-forming organisms is easily avoided and decontamination is easily accomplished.

A novel composition comprising toxins produced from Burkholderia species is described and is effective in inhibiting nematode growth.

A device for securing a catheter with respect to a patient's mouth that preferably includes a balloon that can be inflated within the patient's mouth on the exterior of the catheter, a bite block, and a shield. The balloon preferably immobilizes the catheter with respect to the securing device when inflated while permitting relative movement of the catheter and the securing device when deflated. The balloon preferable also prevents inadvertent withdrawal of the securing device from the patient's mouth when inflated while permitting withdrawal when deflated. The invention preferably includes a method for using such a securing device.

Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404. The following Patent Number, Title and Issue date is provided:

Patent Number: US 6,375,241 B1.

Title: Load Securing and Release System.

Issue Date: April 23, 2002.

A system including but not limited to a low-backscatter aperture structure, where the system include but is not limited to a camera, an optical communications system, an imaging system, a test system, and a measurement system.

This invention relates to a method of purifying cholera toxin using a matrix with at least one ion chosen from among matrix with Ni+2, Co+2, Cd 2 or Zn+2 immobilized thereon. It is possible thereby to selectively elute the B subunit for cholera toxin from the matrix.

A method of making a vaccine from a protective antigen. The protective antigen is useful against Bacillus anthracis. The protective antigen is produced by an asporogenic organism, which overproduces the desired antigen. The asporogenic organism is a recombinant asporogenic B. anthracis. The recombinant asporogenic B. anthracis was derived from a Δ Sterne-1(pPA102) strain of bacteria and binds to dye when grown on Congo Red Agar.

This study is authorized by a U.S. House of Representatives Resolution dated May 7th, 1997, which reads: Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, that the Secretary of the Army is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Shore of New Jersey from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, published as House Document, 332, 85th Congress, 2nd Session, the Report of Limited Reconnaissance Study on the entire Shore of New Jersey, dated September 1990, and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether any modifications of the recommendations contained herein are advisable at the present time, in the interest of water resources development, environmental restoration, and other applied purposes.

1. Public scoping meetings are schedule for June 13, 2002 from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The meetings will be held in Monmouth County at the Sea Bright Borough Hall gymnasium. Results from the public scoping meetings with the District, Federal, state, and local agency will be addressed in the DEIS. Parties interested in receiving notices of public scoping meetings or copies of the Scoping Document should contact Ms. Alvarez at the above address.

2. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to COL. John B. O'Dowd, District Engineer, at the above address.

3. Estimated date of DEIS availability: July 19, 2005.

The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000, Title I of Public Law 106-457 has four purposes: (1) Promotion of estuary habitat restoration; (2) development of a national strategy for creating and maintaining effective estuary habitat restoration partnerships; (3) provision of Federal assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects; and (4) development and enhancement of monitoring and research capabilities to ensure that estuary habitat restoration efforts are based on sound scientific understanding and innovative technologies. The Act authorizes an estuary habitat restoration program for implementation of Federal assistance through cost-shared estuary habitat restoration projects. The Act authorizes funds to be appropriated to Army for this program. Funds were also authorized for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a database of restoration project information and to develop monitoring data standards. The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council consisting of representatives from Department of the Army, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of Agriculture was established to oversee these activities.

The Council is charged to develop an estuary habitat restoration strategy designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to maximize benefits and foster coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities. The goal of the strategy is restoration of 1,000,000 acres of estuary habitat by the year 2010. Elements of the draft strategy are discussed in section 106(d) of the Act. The intent of this notice is to obtain comments on the draft strategy prepared by the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council in accordance with these requirements.

While the authorized estuary habitat restoration program is discussed in this draft strategy, the implementation process for solicitation and review of project proposals and evaluation criteria will be the subject of a separate notice at a later date. The strategy is also not intended to be the forum for a detailed discussion of the monitoring data standards, but does include a discussion of the need for monitoring.

The Council is looking for comments on the entire strategy, including any omissions. The following questions have been developed to indicate areas where additional discussion may be beneficial. However, these questions are not intended to limit the nature and content of the comments you may wish to provide.

a. Introduction, Paragraph 3 —Calls for supporting restoration activities that create self-sustaining systems integrated into the surrounding landscapes. What criteria should the Council use in evaluating whether a project is “self-sustaining”?

b. Introduction, Paragraph 5 —Interprets the definition of “estuary” that is set forth in the Act. Is the definition of “estuary” contained in this paragraph consistent with how you would define estuary? If not, why not? What definition would you propose using, consistent with the intent of the Act? Should the Council provide more guidance on defining the boundaries of an estuary? If so, what would you propose?

c. Introduction, Paragraph 6 —For measuring progress toward the one million acre goal, “restored area” is considered to be the area where monitoring can document restored function. Is this a realistic measurement of progress? What other means would you suggest be used to measure progress toward the goal and why?

d. Trends of Estuary Habitats, Paragraph 3 —States that the Council will develop a habitat classification system based on Cowardin et al. to address habitat trends as required in the Act. The Federal Geographic Data Committee has adopted Cowardin as the Federal standard for wetland mapping, monitoring and data reporting. Does Cowardin address all components of estuary habitat for which status and trends data should be developed and for which monitoring data should be tracked? If not, what components are missing? What classification systems are currently being used by States and others who track status and trends information?

e. Trends of Estuary Habitats, Paragraph 6 —Directs the Council, within two years, to review estuary habitat trends data and identify data gaps. What information should be included in the Council's review of trends data? What are the most significant gaps in habitat trends data, either geographically or in terms of habitat types, which should be addressed by the Council?

f. Trends of Estuary Habitats, Paragraph 6 —States that trends data collected by the Council will be used to establish restoration priorities. Should the Council use trends data to establish national and regional restoration priorities? If yes, how should the data be used and which types of information are most critical? If no, how should national and regional priorities be identified?

g. Trends of Estuary Habitats, Paragraph 7 —Encourages organizations preparing or updating estuary management and restoration plans to incorporate available trends data and use it to plan priorities. Are there good examples of trends data collection by local or regional groups?

h. Estuary Management or Habitat Restoration Plans, Paragraphs 2-5 —Describes seven elements that are typically found in effective estuary habitat restoration plans. Should there be other minimum requirements used to identify effective restoration plans? If so, what do you think they are?

i. Ecosystem Level Approach, Paragraph 5 —Directs the Council in its review of project proposals to support projects developed in an ecosystem context with multiple benefits. What do you believe would indicate that an ecosystem approach has been used in project planning?

j. Partnerships, Paragraph 3 —Calls for collaboration among government and non-government entities involved in habitat restoration. How can collaboration among agencies, private organizations and individuals be improved to ensure that all interested parties are involved and in a position to contribute to the restoration effort?

k. Partnerships, Paragraph 4 —Encourages the use of awards to encourage restoration partnerships and the involvement of volunteers. Would a national process be beneficial for granting awards or should the process be developed locally by project partners? Should such a process be run by a Federal agency?

l. Partnerships, Paragraph 7 —Encourages Council members and private partners to use web sites to provide the public with information on funding for estuary restoration projects. Should a Federal agency develop a national Web site that would act as a clearinghouse to other Web sites?

m. Habitat Restoration Program, Paragraph 2 —Describes habitat restoration activities that are eligible for funding under the Act. Are the categories of included activities (1) sufficient to achieve the Act's goal of restoring one 4 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010 and (2) inclusive of all critical restoration activities that are not specifically excluded by the Act? If not, which additional activities should be considered?

n. Habitat Restoration Program, Paragraph 4 —The Council and the Secretary may consider additional factors, other than those set forth in the Act, for project evaluation, ranking, and selection. What additional factors should the Secretary and the Council consider?

o. Habitat Restoration Program, Paragraph 6 —Defines a small project as generally one with a Federal cost of $250,000 or less and that manipulates 50 acres or less. Is this definition adequate for balancing small and large projects in the program?

p. Ensuring Success, Paragraph 5 —Encourages local, State and regional groups to monitor on an estuary or regional scale. How can restoration success be documented over estuary or regional scales (especially considering funding constraints and the level of effort that might be required)?

q. Ensuring Success, Paragraph 7 —Directs NOAA to establish standard data formats for project monitoring and to maintain a database on restoration projects. What existing monitoring standards and guidance are available that should be considered in developing monitoring requirements under the Act? What existing restoration 5 project databases already exist that could serve as a model for the database to be created for the Estuary Restoration Act?

Electronic Filing Address . You may submit comments by e-mail to: estuary@usace.army.mil . Comments should be in one of the following formats: Word, WordPerfect, or ASCII. The subject line for submission of comments should begin with “Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy comments from [insert name of agency, organization, or individual].”

This draft Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy (Strategy) has been developed in accordance with the requirements of the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000, Title I of Public Law 106-457 (the Act). The purpose of the Strategy is to ensure a comprehensive approach to maximize benefits derived from estuary habitat restoration projects, provide incentives for the creation of new partnerships between the public and private sectors, and foster coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities related to restoration of estuary habitat. The Act also provides Federal assistance, promotes efficient financing of technically sound and cost-effective estuary habitat restoration projects, and encourages the use of innovative technologies.

Congress enacted the Estuary Restoration Act to establish a collaborative process for addressing the pressures facing our Nation's estuaries. As part of the Act, an inter-agency Estuary Habitat Restoration Council (Council) was established to develop and submit the Strategy to Congress, solicit, review, and evaluate project proposals, and recommend projects to the Secretary of the Army. Much of the Council's work will involve soliciting and funding on-the-ground habitat restoration projects. The Strategy, however, is broader than site-specific restoration. It encourages coordinating, integrating, and capitalizing upon the broad spectrum of ongoing estuary restoration efforts throughout the country. Its goal is to bring together the collective expertise, technical, and financial resources of the Federal community, the practical experience of State, local and nongovernmental groups, and the vision of the corporate world to restore the integrity of our Nation's estuarine systems. The Federal investment will be used to leverage the financial and technical contribution of non-Federal partners, providing sound ecological and economic returns.

The Strategy calls for restoration activities that improve degraded estuaries or estuary habitat, or those that create estuary habitat with the goal of attaining a self-sustaining system integrated into the surrounding landscape. Restoration projects must improve or reestablish function to degraded or destroyed habitats, and be located to recapture regional ecological integrity. Successful restoration will protect native fish and wildlife in estuaries and their watersheds, while providing multiple additional benefits such as improved surface and ground water quality and quantity, flood control, outdoor recreation, and other services, valued by local stakeholders and consistent with the re-establishment and maintenance of healthy ecosystems.

The goal of the Strategy is to restore one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. The Council will organize and support a task force to recommend methods for tracking progress toward the million-acre goal, including defining a baseline timeframe for comparison. The task force will consider regional and local perspectives on quantifying project successes. Subsequently, the Council will produce periodic reports on progress toward meeting the Strategy's million-acre goal, as well as other habitat trends.

The Act defines estuary as “a part of a river or stream or other body of water that has an unimpaired connection with the open sea and where the sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water from land drainage.” Estuary also includes the “* * * near coastal waters and wetlands of the Great Lakes that are similar in form and function to estuaries. * * *” For the purposes of this Strategy, estuary is considered to extend from the head of tide to the boundary with the open sea (to downstream terminus features or structures such as barrier islands, reefs, sand bars, mud flats, or headlands in close proximity to the connection with the open sea). In the Great Lakes, riparian and nearshore areas will be considered to be estuaries. Estuary habitat includes the estuary and its associated ecosystems, such as: salt, brackish, and fresh water coastal marshes, coastal forested wetlands and other coastal wetlands, maritime forests, coastal grasslands, tidal flats, natural shoreline areas, shellfish beds, sea grass meadows, kelp beds, river deltas, and river and stream corridors under tidal influence.

Some restoration projects can easily measure success in terms of acreage (for example, projects that plant vegetation), but many cannot (for example, projects that alter hydrology). By manipulating a relatively small area, the function of a much larger habitat area can be improved. For the purposes of this Strategy, therefore, the restored area will be defined as that area over which appropriate monitoring can document restored function.

The Estuary Habitat Restoration Council developed this Strategy building on work done by Council member agencies, environmental professionals, and private conservation organizations, including Restore America's Estuaries (RAE). In consultation with restoration professionals, scientists, academics, and nonprofit organizations, RAE has developed A National Strategy for Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration . The document provides a framework for restoring function to estuarine and coastal habitats, which can aid in focusing restoration efforts to reach this Strategy's million-acre goal.

This Strategy is dynamic. It will evolve over time according to information collected through monitoring and research programs and feedback from restoration practitioners, scientists, and public agencies and private organizations. Reaching the one million acre goal will require further close coordination among the Federal partners, and state, local and private partners as habitat priorities, project efficiencies, and funding sources are identified.

Section 106(d) of the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000 requires that the National Strategy include guidance on addressing trends of estuarine habitats. For each estuarine habitat type, the Strategy addresses historic losses, estimated current rate of loss, the extent of the threat of future loss or degradation, and a measurement of the rate of change.

Understanding trends as well as the structure, function and extent of various estuary habitats is key to an effective and efficient restoration program. Trends data provide a chronological and geographic picture of change in habitat types, thereby helping managers to recognize ecological stability or stress. They help to identify existing or potential habitat threats so that early action can be taken to avoid or rectify them. This information can be used to establish a baseline from which to quantify restoration success. By identifying both healthy and impaired ecosystems, trends information can help managers to target habitat restoration efforts in a cost-effective manner. For these reasons this Strategy will promote the development and use of trends data in designing restoration programs for estuary habitats.

Council member agencies use different terminology to describe estuarine habitat. The Council will use a classification system based on Cowardin et al. (1979). The Cowardin classification system is the national standard for wetland mapping, monitoring and data reporting as determined by the Federal Geographic Data Committee ( http://www.fgdc.gov/ ). Examples of the relevant classes are: estuarine subtidal , including open water, bay bottoms, and reefs; estuarine intertidal emergents , such as salt marsh; estuarine intertidal forested/shrub , such as mangroves; estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore , such as beaches, bars and mudflats; and estuarine aquatic bed , such as submerged or floating estuarine vegetation. Freshwater habitat categories to be included because they are estuarine-associated ecosystems or are found in the Great Lakes include: palustrine forested wetlands , such as forest swamps or riparian zones; palustrine shrub wetlands ; and palustrine emergents , including inland marshes and wet meadows.

For purposes of this Strategy, estuary habitats will include the complex of physical and hydrologic features and living organisms within estuaries and their associated ecosystems, including salt and fresh water coastal marshes, coastal forested wetlands and other coastal wetlands, maritime forests, coastal grasslands, tidal flats, natural shoreline areas, shellfish beds, sea grass meadows, kelp bed, river deltas, and river and stream banks under tidal influence.

There are several studies that document estuary habitat trends on both a national and regional basis. For instance, Dahl (2000) summarized the status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States from 1986-1997. Three categories of estuarine and marine wetlands were included and together these comprise about five percent (5.3 million acres) of the total wetland acreage in the conterminous United States. During the study period, a net loss of 10,400 acres of estuarine and marine wetlands occurred. Filling or draining for urban and rural development accounted for 43 percent of estuarine and marine wetland losses, while saltwater intrusion accounted for an additional 12 percent of the loss.

Within two years, the Council will review information available for estuary habitats concerning historic losses, current rates of loss, the extent of the threat of future loss or degradation, and measures of the rate of change, and identify gaps in trends information that can be addressed by the Council members and/or its partners. Data collected will be used to identify regional and national restoration priorities based on this information.

Organizations and agencies preparing or updating estuary management or restoration plans should incorporate available information on estuary trends in their documents and consider this data when establishing project priorities. Among the sources of information to consult are historic maps and navigation charts, State and local agencies, available aerial photography and other remote sensing data, Federal agencies, such as the members of the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council and the United States Geological Survey, reports on Federal projects in estuaries, and universities conducting research in local estuaries.

It is also important to collect information relating to the causes of change in estuary habitat types, distribution, and quantity. This will help in defining the types of projects that may be needed, setting realistic goals, and influencing the design. For example, if the primary limiting factor is water quality and the source of the problem is upstream, success of any estuary restoration project might be limited until the upstream problem is resolved.

Project proposals submitted to the Council for potential funding should contain information related to the trends for estuary habitat types in the project area and explain how this information was considered when developing the project proposal. The Council will give priority to projects that clearly address historic losses in areas where steps are being taken to address the causes of degradation and where there is a reasonable likelihood of success in the foreseeable future.

This Strategy will be implemented in a manner consistent with estuary management or habitat restoration plans. An estuary habitat restoration plan is defined in the Act as “* * * any Federal or State plan for restoration of degraded estuary habitat that was developed with the substantial participation of appropriate public and private stakeholders.” Included are the estuary habitat restoration components of comprehensive conservation and management plans approved under section 320 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), lake wide management plans or remedial action plans developed under section 118 of the FWPCA, management plans approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and the interstate management plan developed pursuant to the Chesapeake Bay program under section 117 of the FWPCA.

Effective estuary habitat restoration plans typically contain common elements such as focusing on the watershed as the basic management unit, integrating good science with sound decision-making, and emphasizing collaborative problem solving. Also essential is public and private stakeholder participation. This is crucial to the final success of any plan, because those individuals and private interests affected by measures to maintain and restore the estuary are ultimately responsible for implementing the plan. Providing them the opportunity to design and contribute during early planning stages promotes “buy-in” when the time comes to undertake restoration actions and activities.

Another component of successful restoration plans is clearly identifying a central goal or set of goals and describing means for measuring progress toward achieving these goals. Performance measures may be as simple as the number of acres of habitat directly restored or protected. Many federally approved estuary management and restoration plans track major milestones or other implementation activities to ensure progress is occurring, or if it is not, to identify what necessary steps to take to move forward.

Successful plans also include trend assessment, which is critical to watershed characterization, such as loss of historic estuarine habitat, land use, development, recreation, and fisheries pressures. This information is necessary to identify problems facing a given estuarine watershed and to select those actions necessary to return it to the desired state. Status and trend information can help to assess the condition of the highest priority resources and can forecast future conditions should current trends continue. It can also highlight data gaps.

Finally, plans should identify management and restoration priorities. Identifying regional or estuary-level restoration priorities will help projects address the most critical habitat needs. The Council will give priority to those projects that have the best potential to restore critical habitat functions successfully. Improved planning will also allow benefits to be accrued over a larger scale, enhancing the overall effectiveness of restoration efforts.

In accordance with the Act, every project considered for funding under this authority must address restoration needs identified in an estuary habitat restoration plan. Additionally, one of the factors for the Secretary of the Army (Secretary) to consider when selecting a project to fund is whether the project is part of an approved Federal estuary management or habitat restoration plan. This selection criterion will help ensure that the Strategy is implemented in a manner consistent with such plans.

Agency staff supporting the Council participated in and reviewed the results of a recent effort supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and led by Restore America's Estuaries (RAE), a nongovernmental organization, to review existing estuary restoration plans. Plans reviewed included those developed for Federal programs such as the National Estuary Program (Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans), State Coastal Zone Management Plans, and other State plans and watershed or estuary plans, such as the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan and Ecoregional Plans developed by The Nature Conservancy. Review of these plans revealed that the level and sophistication of planning for estuarine and coastal habitat restoration varies significantly among the regions and watersheds of the United States. In some coastal areas, only broad, coastal management planning has been completed, while in other areas sophisticated planning efforts with strong community and stakeholder participation have determined specific habitat restoration goals and priorities.

By working with State and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the Council will help to identify gaps in planning, and encourage sharing of information and other collaborative efforts to improve restoration plans. The Council will also seek to promote coordination of planning activities associated with other State and Federal programs. For example, the Council will encourage regional planning workshops, bringing together resource managers, scientists, and other stakeholders to establish restoration goals and priorities. The Council could also identify and recommend the use of successful planning frameworks such as those developed by the National Estuary Program and other examples.

This Strategy recognizes that successful estuary restoration projects with multiple goals will improve ecosystem function. Restoration projects should be designed using an ecosystem or watershed approach to re-establish a self-sustaining area that provides the structure and function necessary to support the many interrelated physical, biological, and chemical components of healthy estuary habitats. An ecosystem or watershed approach will facilitate the development of projects with multiple benefits. Examining how actions fit into the surrounding area and considering economic, recreational, water quality, land use, and other parameters is necessary to achieve restoration goals. Estuarine habitats are a web of interrelated components, each supporting and depending on the other for healthy function.

Estuary restoration projects that include physical and functional restoration should provide healthy ecosystems to support wildlife, including endangered and threatened species, migratory birds, and resident species of an estuary watershed, as well as fish and shellfish, including commercial and recreational fisheries.

Restoration of healthy ecosystem function can provide improved water quality and flood control benefits. For example, healthy and intact tidal wetlands filter water flowing from rivers and tributaries to the ocean, remove pollutants from runoff and trap and assimilate nutrients. Estuarine wetlands also have the capacity to store floodwater and can provide a critical physical buffer between land and water, protecting communities from flooding and storm surge.

Healthy estuaries also provide multiple opportunities for outdoor recreation, such as recreational fishing, boating, birding, and a variety of water sports. The recreation industry dependent on healthy estuaries provides significant income to coastal regions. Restoration projects completed under this Strategy may incorporate recreational features that are compatible with the primary goal of restoring healthy habitat function.

In its review of project proposals, the Council will support projects developed in an ecosystem context with multiple benefits. The Council will work with others to share examples of particularly effective projects that exemplify this process.

To achieve the goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat, it will be important to involve individuals and organizations from both the public and private sectors. Enhancing partnerships among agencies and establishing new public-private partnerships is a central theme of the Act and a critical part of this Strategy.

In order to meet the goals of the Act, the Council will improve coordination among existing restoration programs by reviewing and discussing programs administered by agencies represented on the Council, and developing shared goals and objectives for habitat restoration. Although agencies may differ in their implementation strategies, developing common goals will facilitate coordination. The Council will also coordinate with State habitat restoration programs to improve the effectiveness of restoration efforts.

In order to maximize public-private partnerships, the Council encourages collaboration among public agencies, private organizations, companies, and individuals (e.g., private landowners, hunters, birders, fishermen, etc.) in restoration efforts. This connectivity encourages private organizations, companies, landowners and others to bring their resources (financial or in-kind) to the table to assist in planning and implementing successful restoration projects. There are several existing programs that provide models for successful partnerships, including the Coastal America Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership, a voluntary public-private partnership in which corporations join with Federal and State agencies to restore wetlands and other aquatic habitats.

Private support can range from providing materials or funding to the use of volunteers for hands-on restoration or monitoring. One way to encourage resourceful, active partnerships, and especially to acknowledge the efforts of volunteers, is to establish annual awards recognizing successful restoration efforts. These awards may be given to a wide variety of groups, including nongovernmental organizations, individuals, businesses, and local, State and Federal agencies to reward efforts at all levels.

Private partnerships may also be critical for those projects involving demonstration or pilot testing of an innovative technology. The estuary habitat restoration program established in the Act requires a non-Federal interest to provide a minimum of 35 percent of the costs of a restoration project. However, when innovative technology is involved, the percentage required to be contributed by the non-Federal interest shall be reduced to 15 percent for the incremental cost of using the new technology. The Council will consider technology “innovative” if it involves a new process, technique, or material or uses existing processes, techniques, or materials in a new application.

The non-Federal interests must provide all of the lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations. The non-Federal interest is also responsible for all costs associated with operation, maintenance, replacement, repair and rehabilitation of the project, including monitoring. This presents many opportunities for the involvement of a broad array of individuals and organizations to participate in the restoration effort.

To expand the base of support for restoration, the Council will encourage member Agencies and private partners to maintain and expand existing web sites that provide information on both public and private sources of funding for estuary projects. Web sites should include links to other web sites that emphasize accomplishments of completed restoration projects. Effective implementation of any restoration plan requires a well-developed funding strategy that identifies governmental, nonprofit, and private resources to provide support both in the near and long term.

The Council will work with other Federal, State and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations and private parties to identify and publicize funding sources, and will also identify examples of effective partnerships that have implemented estuary restoration projects. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established the Environmental Finance Program to assist communities in their search for creative approaches to funding their environmental projects. Environmental finance centers at universities provide publications, analyses of financing alternatives, training, and technical assistance, including workshops for local governments that discuss watershed-financing alternatives. In 2001, the National Estuary Program sponsored workshops on funding solutions for estuary programs and comprehensive conservation management plan implementation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Coastal America Corporate Wetlands Restoration Partnership ( http://www.coastalamerica.gov/text/cwrp ) are other examples of the resources available to help non-Federal interests obtain support for estuary projects.

The Act establishes “an estuary habitat restoration program under which the Secretary may carry out estuary habitat restoration projects and provide technical assistance in accordance with the requirements of this title.” This is one means for achieving the one million acre goal of the Strategy. The statute includes requirements for non-Federal origination of projects, selection criteria, cost-sharing, operation and maintenance, authority for nongovernmental agencies to be sponsors, a requirement for a written agreement between the non-Federal sponsor and the Secretary, and potential delegation of project implementation.

The Act defines the term estuary habitat restoration activity to mean “an activity that results in improving degraded estuaries or estuary habitat or creating estuary habitat (including both physical and functional restoration), with the goal of attaining a self-sustaining system integrated into the surrounding landscape.” Projects funded under this program will be consistent with this definition. Eligible habitat restoration activities include re-establishment of chemical, physical, hydrologic, and biological features and components associated with an estuary. This may entail improvement of estuarine wetland tidal exchange or reestablishment of historic hydrology, providing fish passage, establishment of riparian buffer zones, construction of reefs to promote fish and shellfish production, reintroduction of native species, and control of nonnative or invasive species. Cleanup of pollution for the benefit of estuary habitat may be considered, as long as it does not meet the definition of excluded activities in the Act. Excluded activities are those required for mitigation of adverse effects of a regulated activity or that constitutes restoration for natural resource damages.

Section 104(c) of the Act contains four required elements and seven listed selection factors to be considered by the Secretary of the Army when determining which projects to fund. Projects must address restoration needs identified in an estuary plan, be consistent with this Strategy, include a monitoring plan, and include satisfactory assurance that the non-Federal interest has adequate authority and resources. The listed selection factors are: inclusion in an approved Federal plan, technical feasibility, scientific merit, encouragement of increased cooperation among government agencies at all levels, fostering of public-private partnerships, cost effectiveness, and whether the State has a dedicated source of funding for acquisition or restoration of estuary habitat. If a project merits selection based on the above criteria, then priority consideration will be given to a project if it: (a) Occurs within a watershed where there is a program being implemented that addresses sources of pollution and other activities that otherwise would adversely affect the restored habitat water quality in the watershed; or (b) includes an innovative technology having the potential for improved cost-effectiveness.

The Council will consider the factors discussed above during its review and ranking of proposals for the Secretary's consideration. Additional criteria may also be developed by the Council to facilitate review and these will be included in the program guidance. The list of recommended projects will be provided in priority order. The Secretary may consider other factors when selecting projects to fund from the list provided by the Council.

In addition to considering the selection and priority factors in sections 104(c)(3) and (4), the Secretary will also select a balance of smaller and larger estuary habitat projects and ensure an equitable geographic distribution of the funded projects. The Council recognizes that the scope of a project is not always directly proportional to the cost and that projects are sometimes difficult to characterize adequately in terms of acreage to be restored. For purposes of selecting a balance of smaller and larger estuary habitat restoration projects, the Council will use a combination of cost and acreage to be manipulated as criteria to define small projects. In general, a small project would be one with a Federal cost of $250,000 or less and that manipulates 50 acres or less. The Council will discuss and classify projects that cannot be easily characterized as “small” because of conflicts between cost and acreage factors. The availability of funding, project costs, and the nature of the proposals will affect the ability to assure equitable geographic distribution of projects funded by this program. In any one year, the Council may recommend funding more projects in one region than another but will consider the number, scope and cost of funded projects in a region when making subsequent funding decisions.

The goal will be to select those projects of highest national priority while assuring that all regions of the country benefit from the program. The Council will explore various means for defining national priorities and consider those priorities in project selection.

The Act stipulates that monitoring is essential for evaluating and documenting our progress toward reaching the goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat. By closely tracking progress at the project level, we can determine whether individual projects contribute to meeting the goals of estuary and regional restoration plans, and tally habitat acreage restored over a national scale. In addition to monitoring at the project level, ecosystem-level monitoring may also be needed to judge restoration success. Monitoring information will allow restoration planners and practitioners to modify their efforts according to on-the-ground results, and can build long-term public support for habitat protection and restoration efforts.

Because monitoring is essential to both documenting success and adapting project and program approaches, it should be a central concern of those designing a restoration project or regional restoration plan. For each habitat type to be restored, the monitoring plan should define the desired structure and functions in the context of project goals, and identify attributes indicating those functions. Quantitative performance standards for projects should include functional and structural elements and be linked to appropriate, local reference habitats that represent “target conditions.” It may also be useful to compare the project site to degraded, non-restored “control” sites to better document project-induced improvements in habitat condition.

Ideally, restoration goals should be quantitative, as well as spatially and temporally specific. Project goals should also be measurable and realistic. A realistic goal should consider causes of past decline of the habitat proposed for restoration and surrounding land cover and ecosystem conditions. Monitoring data should be used to guide project operations and maintenance.

Specific project goals will determine the appropriate complexity of each monitoring plan. The project must include monitoring on a regular basis and over a meaningful time period. The length of the ideal monitoring program will vary depending on the habitat type and project goals for restoring function, but should always include pre-construction measurements to establish baseline conditions, monitoring during project construction to determine whether to adjust techniques or goals, and post-construction monitoring to confirm success of the restoration and alert project managers to the need for adjustments. Project monitoring should document any changes to the original construction specifications, including what problems were encountered, the reasoning behind any changes, and any changes the project staff would recommend with the knowledge they now possess. Information on changes from baseline conditions and comparison to reference or control sites should be included as well.

Beyond monitoring individual restoration projects, local, State or regional groups should also conduct monitoring over the estuary or regional scale to allow a more complete evaluation of restoration successes. System-wide monitoring of water quality and other habitat parameters can gauge ecosystem improvements beyond those achieved at project sites. Additionally, remote sensing may be useful in documenting both baseline habitat information and large-scale changes in habitat coverage and conditions.

The restoration and maintenance of healthy coasts and estuaries will require the long-term support of a broad cross-section of the public. Including local communities in planning and implementing restoration projects will build interest in protecting and maintaining restored habitat. Increased awareness of the attributes needed to sustain healthy habitat will increase local stewardship of the environment and will help to ensure the long-term success of restoration projects.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in consultation with the Council, will develop standard data formats for project monitoring, along with requirements for types of data collected and frequency of monitoring. These standards will build on existing inter-agency efforts to develop monitoring protocols and restoration databases. These standards are not intended to limit the types of information gathered by project managers, but rather to ensure that data will be useful to other parties, and to facilitate regional and national tracking of restoration success. Consistent data collection and reporting standards should clarify results, make selection and justification of restoration methods more straightforward, ensure that success is documented based on sufficient data, enhance the restoration knowledge base, and increase the comparability of data among restoration projects.

In addition to developing monitoring data standards, NOAA will also maintain a database of information concerning estuary habitat restoration projects carried out under the Act, including information on project techniques, project completion, monitoring data, and other relevant information. This database will be Internet-accessible, to allow widespread dissemination and use of restoration project and monitoring data.

The actions described in this Strategy facilitate reaching the goal of restoring one million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. There are many existing programs and organizations actively involved in estuary restoration whose efforts will also contribute significantly to estuary restoration. Examples include the National Estuary Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Restore America's Estuaries member organizations, and the program implementing the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act.

The Strategy is intended to be dynamic. Working with the organizations listed above and other interested stakeholders, the Council will review and refine this Strategy over time in an iterative process, as new information becomes available and progress toward meeting the goals of the Act is evaluated. Section 108(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to report to Congress at the end of the third and fifth fiscal years. As part of this process the Council will review the Strategy and update as necessary.

The Council will prepare additional documents and make them available for public comment regarding habitat restoration program implementation and the development of the monitoring standards. As indicated in this Strategy, the Council will promote a variety of efforts to facilitate promotion of partnerships and efficient, effective restoration of estuary habitats.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget (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, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. 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. ED 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 respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title : Fund for the Improvement of Education: Partnerships in Character Education Program.

Abstract : This application package, based on the Department of Education's Generic Application package, has program specific criteria which is used to provide guidance to applicants on new statutory requirements. Because this application package is based on the generic application package, it is in an easily recognizable format for applicants. It is necessary to announce the competition as soon as possible to allow state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) time to submit the application with a reasonable expectation that awards will be made before the next school year begins.

Additional Information : The Department is requesting emergency processing and a May 3 approval for this information collection since it could potentially result in public harm if this collection went through the normal clearance process. Applications for Character Education Program grants must be available in early May in order to provide applicants with sufficient time to develop and submit strong applications by early July, 2002. The Department of Education must award these grants by early August or sooner to allow the involved state and local education agencies sufficient time for planning during the summer so that implementation occurs in September, 2002.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden :

 Responses: 500.

 Burden Hours: 12,000.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2028. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

As part of wider education reform efforts to improve student achievement, the development of charter schools is an innovative approach to improving public education and expanding parental options in education. While charter school laws vary by State, public charter schools are granted greater flexibility in exchange for accountability for results. They are also public schools of choice in that all students, parents, and faculty associate with charter schools voluntarily. They are intended to stimulate the creativity and commitment of teachers, parents, students, and citizens to improve student academic achievement.

Congress reauthorized the PCSP in January 2002, by enacting the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Under the new legislation, a non-SEA eligible applicant for PCSP funds must submit an application for a charter to an authorized public chartering agency and provide adequate and timely notice and a copy of its PCSP application to the authorized public chartering agency. The SEA or the Secretary may waive these requirements in cases where the eligible applicant is applying for a pre-charter planning grant or subgrant.

The new legislation also added a specific provision prohibiting local educational agencies (LEAs) from deducting funds for administrative fees or expenses from a subgrant awarded to an eligible applicant, unless the eligible applicant voluntarily enters into a mutually agreed upon arrangement for administrative services with the LEA. Additional information about the PCSP, including application requirements, selection criteria, priorities, diversity of projects, and waivers is provided in the application package for this program.

The Department will hold three (3) separate competitions under this program. All SEA applicants must apply for grant funds under CFDA No. 84.282A. Non-SEA eligible applicants that propose to use grant funds for planning, program design, and implementation must apply under CFDA No. 84.282B; and non-SEA eligible applicants that are requesting funds for dissemination activities must submit their applications under CFDA No. 84.282C.

(A) CFDA No. 84.282A—Selection Criteria for SEAs. SEAs that propose to use a portion of their grant funds for dissemination activities must address each selection criterion listed below. SEAs that do not propose to use a portion of their grant funds for dissemination activities must address selection criteria (1) through (7) only, and need not address selection criterion (8) below. The maximum possible score is 130 points for SEAs that do not propose to use grant funds to support dissemination activities, and 150 points for SEAs that propose to use grant funds to support dissemination activities. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. To ensure fairness, if an SEA is not proposing to use grant funds to support dissemination activities, the Secretary will not consider points awarded under criterion (8) in determining whether to approve an application for funding.

In evaluating an application from an SEA, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(1) The contribution the charter school grant program will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged and other students to achieve State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards (25 points).

(2) The degree of flexibility afforded by the SEA to charter schools under the State's charter school law (20 points).

(3) The ambitiousness of the objectives for the State charter school grant program (15 points).

(4) The quality of the SEA's strategy for assessing achievement of those objectives (15 points).

(5) The likelihood that the charter school grant program will meet those objectives and improve educational results for students (15 points).

(6) The number of high-quality charter schools to be created in the State (20 points).

(7) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (20 points).

(8) In the case of SEAs that propose to use grant funds to support dissemination activities under section 5204(f)(6) of the ESEA, the quality of the dissemination activities and the likelihood that those activities will improve student achievement (20 points).

(B) CFDA No. 84.282B—Selection Criteria for Non-SEA Eligible Applicants for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation Grants. The maximum possible score for all of the criteria in this section is 145 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for Planning, Program Design, and Implementation, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(1) The quality of the proposed curriculum and instructional practices (20 points).

(2) The degree of flexibility afforded by the SEA and, if applicable, the (LEA) to the charter school (10 points).

(3) The extent of community support for the application (10 points).

(4) The ambitiousness of the objectives for the charter school (15 points).

(5) The quality of the strategy for assessing achievement of those objectives (15 points).

(6) The likelihood that the charter school will meet those objectives and improve educational results for students during and after the period of Federal financial assistance (20 points). (7)

(7) The extent to which the proposed project encourages parental involvement (10 points).

(8) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director; and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (20 points).

(9) The contribution the charter school will make in assisting educationally disadvantaged and other students to achieve State academic content standards and State student academic achievement standards (25 points).

(C) CFDA No. 84.282C—Selection Criteria for Non-SEA Eligible Applicants for Dissemination Grants. The maximum possible score for all of the criteria in this section is 125 points. The maximum possible score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses following the criterion. In evaluating an application from a non-SEA eligible applicant for a dissemination grant, the Secretary considers the following criteria:

(1) The quality of the proposed dissemination activities and the likelihood that those activities will improve student achievement (30 points).

(2) The extent to which the school has demonstrated overall success, including (a) substantial progress in improving student achievement (15 points); (b) high levels of parent satisfaction (15 points); and (c) the management and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving, financially viable charter school (15 points).

(3) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in a manner that will enable others to use the information or strategies (20 points).

(4) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience of the project director; and the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability (15 points).

(5) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (15 points).

Priority Treatment: In accordance with statutory requirements, in awarding grants to SEAs under this competition, the Secretary gives priority to States to the extent that the State meets the statutory criterion described in paragraph (a) below, and one or more of the statutory criteria described in paragraphs (b) through (d) below. An SEA that meets priority (a) but does not meet one or more of the other priorities will not receive any priority points. Likewise, an SEA that does not meet priority (a) but meets one or more of the other priorities will not receive any priority points. The maximum number of priority points for all of the priorities in this section is 40 points.

(a) Periodic Review and Evaluation. The State provides for periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public chartering agency of each charter school at least once every 5 years, unless required more frequently by State law, to determine whether the charter school is meeting the terms of the school's charter, and is meeting or exceeding the academic performance requirements and goals for charter schools as set forth under State law or the school's charter (10 points).

(b) Number of High-Quality Charter Schools. The State has demonstrated progress in increasing the number of high-quality charter schools that are held accountable in the terms of the schools' charters for meeting clear and measurable objectives for the educational progress of the students attending the schools, in the period prior to the period for which an SEA or eligible applicant applies for a grant under this competition (10 points).

(c) One Authorized Public Chartering Agency Other than an LEA, or an Appeals Process. The State—

(1) Provides for one authorized public chartering agency that is not an LEA, such as a State chartering board, for each individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school pursuant to such State law; or

(2) In the case of a State in which LEAs are the only authorized public chartering agencies, allows for an appeals process for the denial of an application for a charter school (10 points).

(d) High Degree Autonomy. The State ensures that each charter school has a high degree of autonomy over the charter school's budgets and expenditures (10 points).

Other Statutory Provisions: The following definitions, amount criteria, allowable activities, and authorized uses of funds for dissemination activities are taken from the PCSP authorizing statute, in Title V, Part B, Subpart 1 of the ESEA. They are repeated in this application notice for the convenience of the applicant. Other statutory requirements also apply to this program. The entire authorizing statute is included in the application package for the program.

The following definitions apply to this program:

(a) Charter school means a public school that—

(1) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempted from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this definition;

(2) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;

(3) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;

(4) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;

(5) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;

(6) Does not charge tuition;

(7) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and part B of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act;

(8) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that admits students on the basis of a lottery, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated;

(9) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary and secondary schools in the State, unless the requirements are specifically waived for the purposes of this program;

(10) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;

(11) Operates in accordance with State law; and

(12) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school.

(b) Developer means an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out.

(c) Eligible applicant means a developer that has (1) applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school; and (2) provided adequate and timely notice to that authority under section 5203(d)(3) of the ESEA.

(d) Authorized public chartering agency means an SEA, LEA, or other public entity that has the authority under State law and is approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a charter school.

In determining the amount of a grant to be awarded under this competition to an SEA, the Secretary shall take into consideration the number of charter schools that are operating or approved to open in the State.

An eligible applicant receiving a grant or subgrant under this program may use the grant or subgrant funds only for—

(a) Post-award planning and design of the educational program, which may include—

(1) Refinement of the desired educational results and of the methods for measuring progress toward achieving those results; and

(2) Professional development of teachers and other staff who will work in the charter school; and

(b) Initial implementation of the charter school, which may include—

(1) Informing the community about the school;

(2) Acquiring necessary equipment and educational materials and supplies;

(3) Acquiring or developing curriculum materials; and

(4) Other initial operating costs that cannot be met from State or local sources.

An SEA may reserve not more than 10 percent of the grant funds to support dissemination activities. A charter school may use those funds to assist other schools in adapting the charter school's program (or certain aspects of the charter school's program), or to disseminate information about the charter school, through such activities as—

(a) Assisting other individuals with the planning and start-up of one or more new public schools, including charter schools, that are independent of the assisting charter school and the assisting charter school's developers, and that agree to be held to at least as high a level of accountability as the assisting charter school;

(b) Developing partnerships with other public schools, including charter schools, designed to improve student performance in each of the schools participating in the partnership;

(c) Developing curriculum materials, assessments, and other materials that promote increased student achievement and are based on successful practices within the assisting charter school; and

(d) Conducting evaluations and developing materials that document the successful practices of the assisting charter school and that are designed to improve student achievement.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the previous site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7221-7221j.

The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting. Members of the public who plan to file written statements and/or make brief (suggested 5-minute limit) oral statements at the public comment session are encouraged to contact the Designated Federal Officer for the Board prior to the meeting.

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board meets three times each calendar year at different locations along the U.S.-Mexico border. It was created by the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. An Executive Order delegates implementing authority to the Administrator of EPA. The Board is responsible for providing advice to the U.S. President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the States contiguous to Mexico in order to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border. The statute calls for the Board to have representatives from U.S. Government agencies; the governments of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and private organizations with expertise on environmental and infrastructure problems along the southwest border. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives notice of this meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463).

OMB Control Number: 3060-0014.

Title: FCC Form 308, Application for Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations.

Type of Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $17,000.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR section 73.3545 of the Commission's rules and section 325(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, FCC Form 308 is used to apply for authority to locate, use, or maintain a studio in the United States for the purpose of supplying program material to a foreign radio or TV broadcast station, whose signals are consistently received in the United States, or for extension of existing authority. An informal application for a permit of this nature may also be used by applicants holding an AM, FM or TV broadcast station license or construction permit, so long as applications contain a description of the nature and character of the programming proposed, the applicant's ownership, and an explanation of the legal relationship between the applicant and foreign station(s) involved.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0892.

Title: Direct Broadcast Satellite Public Interest Obligations.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 8.

Estimated Time per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency of Response: Once.

Total Annual Burden: 96 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR section 100.5, each Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) provider, as part of its public interest obligations, must annually determine its channel capacity. This is done by calculating, based on measurements taken quarterly, the average number of channels available for video programming on all satellites licensed to the provider during the previous year. 47 CFR section 100.5(c)(6) also sets forth public file and recordkeeping obligations in this regard.

This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Hearing Designation Order, MM Docket No. 02-38, adopted on February 14, 2002 and released on March 19, 2002. The full text is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th Street, W.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260 or TTY (202) 418-2555.

1. In March 1996, the Commission relaxed the numerical station limits in its local radio ownership rule in accordance with Congress's directive in section 202(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Since then, the Commission has received applications proposing transactions that would comply with the new limits, but that nevertheless could produce concentration levels that raised significant concerns about the potential impact on the public interest. In response to these concerns, the Commission concluded that it has an independent obligation to consider whether a proposed pattern of radio ownership that complies with the local radio ownership limits would otherwise have an adverse competitive effect in a particular local radio market and thus, would be inconsistent with the public interest. In August 1998, the Commission also began flagging public notices of radio station transactions that would result in one entity controlling 50 percent or more of the advertising revenues in the relevant Arbitron radio market or two entities controlling 70 percent or more of the advertising revenues in that market. On November 8, 2001, we adopted the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket No. 01-317 (“ Local Radio Ownership NPRM ”). We expressed concern that our current policies on local radio ownership did not adequately reflect current industry conditions and had led to unfortunate delays in the processing of assignment and transfer applications. Accordingly, we adopted the Local Radio Ownership NPRM to undertake a comprehensive examination of our rules and policies concerning local radio ownership and to develop a new framework that will be more responsive to current marketplace realities while continuing to address our core public interest concerns of promoting diversity and competition. In the Local Radio Ownership NPRM, we also set forth an interim policy to guide our actions on radio assignment and transfer of control applications pending a decision in this proceeding. Under our interim policy, we presume that an application that falls below the 50/70 screen will not raise competition concerns unless a petition to deny raising competitive issues is filed. For applications identified by the 50/70 screen, the interim policy directs the Commission's staff to conduct a public interest analysis, including an independent preliminary competitive analysis, and sets forth generic areas of inquiry for this purpose. The interim policy also sets forth timetables for staff recommendations to the Commission for the disposition of cases that may raise competitive concerns.

2. On April 30, 2000, Clear Channel and Air Virginia filed an application proposing to assign the license of station WUMX(FM) from Air Virginia, Inc. to Clear Channel. Eure Communications (“Eure”) filed a petition to deny on May 26, 2000, alleging that the transaction would have anti-competitive effects on local advertisers in the local radio market. Clear Channel and Air Virginia filed oppositions to the petition to deny and Eure replied. Clear Channel currently owns five stations in the Charlottesville metro: WVAO-FM, Crozet, Virginia; WCYK-FM, Staunton, Virginia; WVSY(FM), Ruckersville, Virginia; WKAV(AM), and WCHV(AM), Charlottesville, Virginia. In its Petition to Deny, Eure alleges that the proposed transaction would have anti-competitive effects on local advertisers in the Charlottesville metro. Specifically, Eure claims that based on BIA's 1999 revenue data, Clear Channel's local advertising revenue share, as a result of the acquisition, would increase from 30.8% to 53.6%, and Clear Channel's post-merger share combined with Eure's own share in the market, would be 94.2%. In addition, Eure argues that the proposed transaction would eliminate a competitor in the market, reducing the voices in the market from seven to six. Other than the stations owned by Eure and Clear Channel, Eure claims that there is only one other station in the market, WUVA(FM), that generates any revenue share. Clear Channel's dominance is also clear, according to Eure, when audience demographic shares are examined. Eure claims that Clear Channel's average local commercial audience share for fall 1999 would increase from 35.7 to 45.7, constituting excessive market concentration. Finally, Eure argues that the proposed level of increase in concentration is inconsistent with antitrust principles and is unacceptable under what it asserts is the Department of Justice's (“DOJ”) primary indicator of market concentration. In opposition, Clear Channel argues that Eure has offered no concrete allegations as to how the proposed transaction would harm competition or how it would impose a barrier to Eure's ability to compete in the market. On November 15, 2001, the staff sent a letter requesting additional information from the parties to facilitate the competition analysis. Clear Channel responded to the letter on December 5, 2001, and Eure filed comments on December 19, 2001. We designate the application for hearing based on this record.

3. Section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (the “Communications Act”), 47 U.S.C. 310(d), requires the Commission to find that the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served by the assignment of Air Virginia's radio broadcast license to Clear Channel before that assignment may occur. Under the interim policy set forth in our Local Radio Ownership NPRM , we conduct a public interest analysis, including but not limited to an independent preliminary competition analysis of the proposed transaction based on publicly available information and information in the Commission's records. Under the interim policy, to decide whether a proposed assignment serves the public interest, we first determine whether it complies with the specific provisions of the Communications Act, other applicable statutes, and the Commission's rules, including our local radio ownership rules. If it does, we then consider any potential public interest harms of the proposed transaction as well as any potential public interest benefits to determine whether, on balance, the assignment serves the public interest. The Commission's analysis of public interest benefits and harms includes an analysis of the potential competitive effects of the transaction, as informed by traditional antitrust principles. However, the Commission's public interest evaluation is not limited to competition concerns but necessarily encompasses the broad aims of the Communications Act. These broad aims include, among other things, ensuring the existence of an efficient, nationwide radio communications service, available to everyone and promoting locally oriented service and diversity in media voices. Our public interest analysis therefore includes assessing whether the transfer will affect the quality of radio services or responsiveness to the local needs of the community, and whether it will result in the provision of new or additional services to listeners. Thus, under our interim policy, where a proposed transaction raises concerns about economic concentration, we will consider evidence that the particular circumstances of a case may mitigate any adverse impact to radio listeners that might otherwise result, as well as any evidence of benefits to radio listeners that might result from the proposed transaction. Ultimately, it is the potential impact of the transaction on listeners that will determine whether we can find that, on balance, grant of a particular radio station assignment or transfer of control application serves the public interest.

4. Having concluded that the proposed transaction is consistent with the numerical limits set forth in our ownership rules, our interim guidelines instruct us now to turn to our competition analysis. Here, we find that the proposed transaction would create a market in which the combined market share of the top two group owners in the market would be 94.2%. Unlike other transactions we have considered, we find that Clear Channel has failed to demonstrate particular circumstances in this market sufficient to overcome a concern that this level of economic concentration in this market will harm the public interest. Rather, Clear Channel has presented only generic arguments challenging the parameters of our current competition analysis. On the basis of the information before us, we are unable to make the required finding that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by granting the captioned application in light of the question(s) raised in the context of our competition analysis. Accordingly, we will designate the assignment application for hearing to determine, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(e), and based on the evidence to be adduced at hearing, whether the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served by the grant of the application.

5. We direct the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) to examine in an evidentiary hearing the particular circumstances of the Charlottesville market to determine whether the factual assumptions in paragraphs 18 through 28 of the Local Radio Ownership NPRM are correct. We further direct the ALJ to determine, in light of his conclusions, whether the transaction is likely to cause any anticompetitive harms, and to determine what, if any, public benefits would accrue from this transaction. Finally, we direct the ALJ to apply these findings to determine whether, on balance, grant of the application would serve the public interest.

6. To defer further consideration of the application to assign the license of Station WUMX(FM), Charlottesville, Virginia from Air Virginia to Clear Channel in accordance with the interim policy, Air Virginia and Clear Channel must file a joint election to defer consideration of the application. Such election must be filed by April 23, 2002.

7. In the event the parties do not timely file the joint election set forth in the paragraph above, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(e), the application to assign the license of station WUMX(FM), Charlottesville, Virginia from Air Virginia Inc. to Clear Channel Radio Licenses, Inc. is being designated for hearing at a time and place to be specified in a subsequent Order, to determine, in light of the evidence to be presented in the hearing, whether the public interest, convenience and necessity would be served by the grant of the above-captioned assignment application (File No. BALH-20000403/ABI).

8. Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(e), the burden of proof with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the issue specified in this Order will be upon Air Virginia and Clear Channel, the applicant parties in this proceeding.

9. A copy of each document filed in this proceeding subsequent to the date of adoption of this Order must be served on the counsel of record appearing on behalf of the Chief, Enforcement Bureau. Parties may inquire as to the identity of such counsel by calling the Investigations and Hearing Division of the Enforcement Bureau at (202) 418-1420. Such service must be addressed to the named counsel of record, Investigations and Hearing Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, Room 3-B431, Washington, DC 20554.

10. The effectiveness of this Order is stayed until April 8, 2002. From March 19, 2002, until March 29, 2002, the parties may amend their application or file such other information with the Media Bureau as they deem relevant to ameliorate the competitive concerns identified in this Order.

11. To avail themselves of the opportunity to be heard, Air Virginia and Clear Channel, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(c) and 1.221(e), in person or by their respective attorneys, must file in triplicate, a written appearance, stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this Order. Such written appearance shall be filed by April 28, 2002. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(c), if the parties fail to file an appearance within the specified time period, the assignment application will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

12. Eure Communications, Inc. is being made a party to the proceeding pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(d). To avail itself of the opportunity to be heard, Eure Communications, Inc., pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(e), in person or by its attorneys, must file in triplicate, a written appearance, stating its intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this Order. Such written appearance shall be filed by April 28, 2002. If Eure Communications, Inc., fails to file an appearance within the time specified, it shall, unless good cause for such failure is shown, forfeit its hearing rights.

13. The applicant, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 311(a)(2), and 47 CFR 73.3594, must give notice of the hearing within the time and in the manner prescribed, and must advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required by 47 CFR 73.3594(g).

14. The application to assign the licenses for station WUMX(FM), Charlottesville, VA from Air Virginia, Inc. to Clear Channel Radio Licenses, Inc. will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding.

15. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send copies of this Order to all parties by certified mail, return receipt requested.

1. Title: Uniform Application/Uniform Termination for Municipal Securities Principal or Representative.

OMB Number: 3064-0022.

Form Number: MSD-4; MSD-5

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 75.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Total Annual Burden: 75 hours.

General Description of Collection: An insured state nonmember bank which serves as a municipal securities dealer must file Form MSD-4 or MSD-5, as applicable, to permit an employee to become associated or to terminate the association with the municipal securities dealer. FDIC uses the form to ensure compliance with the professional requirements for municipal securities dealers in accordance with the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board.

2. Title: Request for Deregistration for Registered Transfer Agents.

OMB Number: 3064-0027.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Business or other financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 18.

Estimated Time per Response: .42 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 7.56 hours.

General Description of Collection: An insured nonmember bank or a subsidiary of such a bank that functions as a transfer agent may withdraw from registration as a transfer agent by filing a written notice of withdrawal with the FDIC as provided by 12 CFR 341.5.

3. Title: Summary of Deposits.

OMB Number: 3064-0061.

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Affected Public: All financial institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 3 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 18,000 hours.

General Description of Collection: The Summary of Deposits annual survey obtains data about the amount of deposits held at each office of all banks with branches in the United States. The survey data provides a basis for measuring the competitive impact of bank mergers and has additional use in banking research.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of these collections. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Section 1910 of the Public Health Service Act authorizes the implementation of a program of grants to States or accredited schools of medicine in States to develop and evaluate improved emergency procedures and protocols for children. It covers the entire spectrum of emergency medical care, including education of emergency providers about pediatric care, primary prevention, acute clinical care, and rehabilitation, and is a critical component of the President's initiative to combat terrorism and bioterrorism.

The standard emergency medical services (EMS) system was developed primarily for adults, to address cardiac arrest. Because children suffer from a different spectrum of disease and injuries than adults, emergency medical services for adults differ significantly from those that are needed by children. Children are smaller, often respond with different symptoms than adults display in similar traumatic circumstances, and require specialized equipment and provider training. EMSC is specialized care for children who experience a serious injury or an acute illness. EMSC is integrated into the standard EMS system, and enhances its capability to address the special needs of children.

Each year, well over 31 million children and adolescents are seen in emergency departments. Fewer than half of all hospitals (46%) with emergency departments have all the necessary equipment for the stabilization of ill and injured children. Only five States currently require that advanced life support ambulances carry all the recommended equipment needed to stabilize a child. The most seriously ill and injured children may require care in pediatric specialty centers and access to rehabilitation services. Yet, no more than 11 States have guidelines for the identification of pediatric acute care facilities, to ensure that children get to the right hospital in a timely manner.

EMS systems depend on successful coordination of services from many separate components, including pre-hospital care, emergency department care, inpatient care, and rehabilitation. Linking data across these different systems involves both technical challenges, and access issues. Other issues include a lack of common definitions across systems, a lack of consensus on needed data elements, a lack of validated measures of severity and acuity, a lack of validated measures of patient outcomes, and a lack of consensus on what outcomes to measure and when to measure them. Mortality is the most readily available and most widely used outcome, but relatively few children needing or receiving emergency care die. Other outcomes include the presence or absence of diseases, impairments, functional limitations, or disabilities interfering with age-appropriate activities; physical mobility and functioning; social and role functioning; and emotional and mental well-being. Measuring these reliably in children is a challenge. The purpose of the National Trauma Registry for Children Demonstration Project is to assess the feasibility of addressing some of these issues.

Title XIX, Section 1910, Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-9).

This announcement invites proposals to demonstrate the feasibility and the value of developing a nationwide repository of information on the epidemiology and optimal clinical management of pediatric injury and trauma, which has the potential to improve the quality of care for children who have experienced traumatic injury. This demonstration project is structured into two parts:

(a) Data Identification, Collection and Use Planning Grant. The purpose of this grant is to devise a process to identify and define a uniform set of variables that describe the type of pediatric trauma, clinical course and outcomes. Proposed data elements should ensure comparability across state and regional registries. MCHB assumes that the clinical data necessary to examine and enhance the care of injured children in the U.S. already exists as a subset of all data collected by hospitals on patient care. There are, however, barriers that hinder or even prohibit the aggregation of data from existing systems. One of the more obvious barriers is the lack of a standardized or common set of data elements.

The grantee will be expected to propose data elements drawn from pre-hospital, emergency department, inpatient, rehabilitation, outcome, and vital statistics records. In the selection and justification of these data elements, the grantee will be expected to weigh the value and the cost of collection costs for each element. A list of data elements previously identified as possible candidates for a trauma registry is included in the grant guidance.

The grantee will also be expected to address ideas for long-term sustainability, and patient privacy and confidentiality concerns that may arise as a result of data collection and linkage.

(b) Registry Design and Technology Planning Grant. The purpose of this grant is to develop a pediatric trauma information system that will result in reliable and valid data for a variety of research and policy uses. Current trauma registry software packages are proprietary, and data are not easily exchanged across different platforms. The grantee will be expected to work with popular registry vendors to devise an export algorithm that will allow vendor data, using divergent platforms, to be downloaded to a central repository.

Other issues to be addressed by the grantee include designing a system that can easily be adapted to add new data elements, obtaining voluntary participation by hospitals in providing data to the registry, electronic submission of data, and sample design considerations. MCHB's intent is to develop a registry system that is nationally representative, and large enough to enable analysis by specific type of pediatric injury.

State governments and accredited schools of medicine are eligible for these grants. The term “schools of medicine” for the purpose of this solicitation is defined as having the same meaning as set forth in section 799B(1)(A) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(A)). “Accredited” in this context has the same meaning as set forth in section 799B(1)(E) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(E)).

(1) Data Identification, Collection, and Use Planning Grant: MCHB expects to award one grant of up to $150,000 in this category to identify and prioritize data elements necessary for a trauma registry; develop sustainable data collection procedures that take into account the needs of all potential users, including but not limited to, State EMS Offices, pediatric trauma surgeons, pre-hospital and hospital health care providers; and develop procedures for accessing the data. For the purposes of this demonstration project a registry is defined as the recording and compilation of predetermined data elements for the reporting and descriptive analysis of injury patterns, treatment and quality of care.

(2) Registry Design and Technology Planning Grant: MCHB expects to award one grant of up to $250,000 in this category for a project to assess existing trauma registries; and to analyze the feasibility of obtaining and linking information from them, and to assess the feasibility of collecting data elements recommended by the recipient of the Data Identification, Collection, and Use Planning Grant, but not currently being collected.

Applicants must specify the category of grant for which they are applying. Those applying for both types of grants must complete a separate application for each.

Approximately $400,000 in FY2002 funds is available to support two (2) awards. One award of up to $150,000 will be made for a Data Identification, Collection and Use Planning project, and one award of up to $250,000 will be made for a Registry Design and Technology Planning project. The initial budget period will be 12 months, with a subsequent budget period of 12 months. Continuation of any project from one budget period to the next is subject to satisfactory performance, program priorities, and availability of funds.

MCHB staff will screen applications for completeness and responsiveness to the program guidance. Applications that are incomplete or non-responsive will be returned to the applicant without review. Applications that are complete and responsive to the guidance will be evaluated for technical merit by a peer review group convened specifically for this solicitation and in accordance with HRSA grants management policies and procedures. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Technical merit will be assessed using the following criteria:

(a) Applicants' ability to accurately describe the significance of the injury and trauma problems facing the children of our nation and the rationale for establishing the NTRC;

(b) Applicants' ability to clearly articulate the project's goals and the corresponding time-framed, measurable (e.g. quantified) objectives and activities to achieve these goals;

(c) Applicants' ability to clearly articulate and identify a process for evaluating the outcome of this project;

(d) Applicants' ability to successfully carry out the project as evidenced by a sufficient number of qualified project personnel and resources; and

(e) Reasonableness of the proposed budget and soundness of the arrangement for fiscal management and ability to complete the proposed activities within the project period.

Additional criteria used to review and rank applications for this competition are included in the application kit. Applicants should pay strict attention to addressing these criteria, as they are the basis upon which their applications will be judged.

OMB approval for any data collection in connection with these grants will be sought, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

This program has been determined to be a program which is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372 concerning intergovernmental review of Federal programs by appropriate health planning agencies, as implemented by 45 CFR Part 100. Executive Order 12372 allows States the option of setting up a system for reviewing applications from within their States for assistance under certain Federal programs. The application packages to be made available under this notice will contain a listing of States that have chosen to set up such a review system and will provide a single point of contact (SPOC) in the States for review. Applicants (other than federally-recognized Indian tribal governments) should contact their State SPOC as early as possible to alert them to the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions on the State process. For proposed projects serving more than one State, the applicant is advised to contact the SPOC of each affected State. The due date for State process recommendations is 60 days after the application deadline for new and competing awards. The granting agency does not guarantee to “accommodate or explain” for State process recommendations it receives after that date. ( See part 148, Intergovernmental Review of PHS Programs under Executive Order 12372 and 45 CFR Part 100 for a description of the review process and requirements).

In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

Title: 30 CFR part 243 Suspensions Pending Appeal and Bonding (formerly titled “Filing Sureties”).

OMB Control Number: 1010-0122.

Bureau Form Number: Forms MMS-4435 and MMS-4436.

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

Regulations in 30 CFR part 243 allow lessees, designees, or payors who can demonstrate that they are financially solvent to stay the effectiveness of an MMS order or decision without posting a surety instrument (Federal leases only). For those who are not financially solvent or for appeals involving Indian leases, MMS requires that a surety instrument be posted to secure the financial interests of the public and Indian lessors during the entire administrative or judicial appeal process. A surety instrument is a formal guarantee of payment in case of default. MMS accepts the following types of surety instruments:

• Form MMS-4435, Administrative Appeal Bond;

• Form MMS-4436, Letter of Credit;

• Certificates of Deposit; and

• U.S. Treasury Securities.

This information collection covers the hour burden associated with submitting annual audited financial statements or the surety instruments listed above. Submission of the information in this collection is necessary to stay the effectiveness of an MMS order or decision issued for a Federal and Indian property. Proprietary information that is submitted is protected, and there are no questions of a sensitive nature included in this information collection.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: 300 Federal or Indian lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 300 hours.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-hour” Burden : Estimated “non-hour costs” are $1,250 consisting of a $50 fee from each of 25 appellants for which MMS must consult a business information or credit reporting service.

Comments : Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to (a) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on January 14, 2002, we published a Federal Register notice (67 FR 1781) with the required 60-day comment period announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. We did not receive any comments on the notice. We have posted a copy of the ICR at our Internet web site http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/FRNotices/FRInfColl.htm. We will also provide a copy of the ICR to you without charge upon request.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, please send your comments directly to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive your comments by June 3, 2002. The PRA provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Public Comment Policy : We will post all comments received in response to this notice on our Internet web site at http://www.mrm.mms.gov/Laws_R_D/InfoColl/InfoColCom.htm for public review. We also make copies of these comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours at our offices in Lakewood, Colorado.

Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by the law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

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

MMS prepares an SEA and FONSI for proposals that relate to exploration for and the development/production of oil and gas resources on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. The EA examines the potential environmental effects of activities described in the proposals and presents MMS conclusions regarding the significance of those effects. Environmental Assessments are used as a basis for determining whether or not approval of the proposals constitutes major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment in the sense of NEPA Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared in those instances where MMS finds that approval will not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The FONSI briefly presents the basis for that finding and includes a summary or copy of the EA.

This notice constitutes the public notice of availability of environmental documents required under the NEPA Regulations.

This listing includes all proposals for which the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region prepared a FONSI since publication of the preceding notice on December 18, 2001.

Persons interested in reviewing environmental documents for the proposals listed above or obtaining information about EAs and FONSIs prepared for activities on the Gulf of Mexico OCS are encouraged to contact MMS at the address or telephone listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The Commission instituted this investigation on September 14, 2001, based on a complaint filed by Funai. 66 FR 47927 (2001). The notice of investigation named as respondents: Orion Electric Co., Ltd., of Fukui, Japan; Orion America, Inc., of Paramus, NJ, and Orion Sales, Inc., of Princeton, IN (collectively, “respondents”). Id. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, and sale within the United States after importation of certain video cassette devices and television/video cassette combination devices by reason of infringement of claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,594,510; claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,815,218; claims 1-5 of U.S. Letters Patent 5,987,209; and claims 1-4 of U.S. Letters Patent 6,021,018. Id .

On November 27, 2001, complainant Funai withdrew the complaint and moved to terminate the investigation on the basis of the withdrawal of the complaint. On November 28, 2001, respondents filed a response stating that they did not oppose the motion. On December 7, 2001, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. On April 10, 2002, the presiding ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 5) granting the motion. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

Considering the large number of applications that the Service will receive in the 60-day re-registration period, it is likely that many re-registrants will receive their new EAD after the expiration date of their current EAD. In order to prevent a gap in employment authorization for qualified re-registrants, the Service is extending the validity of applicable EADs to December 5, 2002.

To be eligible for an automatic extension of employment authorization, an individual must be a national of Honduras or Nicaragua (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras or Nicaragua) who previously applied for and received an EAD under the initial designation for Honduras or Nicaragua, or who later registered under the late initial registration provisions, and who timely re-registered for each subsequent TPS extension. This automatic extension is limited to EADs bearing an expiration date of July 5, 2002, and the notation: “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category” for EADs issued on Form I-766; or “274A.12(A)(12)” or 274A.12(C)(19)” on the face of the card under “Provision of Law” for EADs issued on Form I-688B.

No, qualified individuals do not have to apply for this automatic employment authorization extension to December 5, 2002. However, qualified individuals must re-register for TPS by July 2, 2002, in order to be eligible for a new EAD that is valid until July 5, 2003.

For completion of the Form I-9 at the time of hire or re-verification, qualified individuals who have received an extension of employment authorization by virtue of this Federal Register notice may present to their employer a TPS-related EAD as proof of valid employment authorization and identity until December 5, 2002. To minimize confusion over this extension at the time of hire or re-verification, qualified individuals may also present to their employer a copy of this Federal Register notice regarding the automatic extension of employment authorization to December 5, 2002. In the alternative, any legally acceptable document or combination of documents listed in List A, List B, or List C of the Form I-9 may be presented as proof of identity and employment eligibility, it is the choice of the employee.

For purposes of verifying identity and employment eligibility or re-verifying employment eligibility on the Form I-9 until December 5, 2002, employers of Honduran or Nicaraguan TPS class members whose employment authorization has been automatically extended by this notice must accept an EAD that contains an expiration date of July 5, 2002, and that bears one of the following notations: “A-12” or “C-19” on the face of the card under “Category” for EADs issued on Form I-766; or, “274A.12(A)(12)” or “274A.12(c)(19)” on the face of the card under “Provision of Law” for EADs issued on Form I-688B. New EADs or extension stickers showing the December 5, 2002 expiration date will not be issued. Employers should not request proof of Honduran or Nicaraguan citizenship. Employers presented with an EAD that this Federal Register notice has extended automatically and that appears to be genuine and to relate to the employee should accept the document as a valid “List A” document and should not ask for additional Form I-9 documentation. This action by the Service through this Federal Register notice does not affect the right of an employee to present any legally acceptable document as proof of identity and eligibility for employment.

Employers are reminded that the laws prohibiting unfair immigration-related employment practices remain in full force. For questions, employers may call the Service's Office of Business Liaison Employer Hotline at 1-800-357-2099 to speak to a Service representative. Also, employers may call the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) Employer Hotline at 1-800-255-8155. Employees or applicants may call the OSC Employee Hotline at 1-800-255-7688 for information regarding the automatic extension.

No, this notice does not affect any other portion of the Federal Register notices extending the TPS designation for Honduras and Nicaragua. All other TPS requirements contained in the Federal Register notices that extend the TPS designation for Honduras and Nicaragua until July 5, 2003 ( see notices for Honduras and Nicaragua, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register ), are accurate and remain in effect.

Section 244(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( Act) states that at least 60 days before the end of a designation, or any extension thereof, the Attorney General must review conditions in the foreign state for which the designation is in effect. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). If the Attorney General does not determine that the foreign state no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation, the period of designation is extended automatically for 6 months pursuant to section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Act, although the Attorney General may exercise his discretion to extend the designation for a period of 12 or 18 months. 8 U.S.C.1254a(b)(3)(C).

On January 5, 1999, the Attorney General initially designated Honduras under the TPS program for a period of 18 months based on the severe flooding and mudslides caused by Hurricane Mitch. (64 FR 524). The fierce storm that swept through the country killed more than 5,000 people, damaged over 440,000 homes, destroyed over 100 bridges and washed away countless roads. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Resource Information Center, Recommendation to Extend (April 2000). Following the initial designation, the Department of Justice kept a close watch over the progress of reconstruction in Honduras and consulted with relevant government agencies regularly. Given the amount of reconstruction necessary, the Attorney General extended the Honduras TPS designation twice, on May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30438) and May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23269). Each decision to extend the TPS designation was made on the determination that the conditions that warranted TPS designation initially continued to exist.

After the extension of Honduras' TPS designation on May 8, 2001, the Departments of State and Justice continued to monitor the conditions in that country. Prior to his decision to extend the Honduras TPS designation, the Attorney General consulted appropriate government agencies to determine whether conditions warranting the TPS designation continue to exist in Honduras. Although there are strong indications of progress in recovery efforts, recent droughts as well as flooding from Hurricane Michelle in 2001 have added to the humanitarian, economic, and social problems initially brought on by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, making the country unable, temporarily, to handle the return of approximately 105,000 nationals.

This assessment is consistent with a recent Department of State report that found that although a significant amount of reconstruction has been completed since Hurricane Mitch, “Honduras was also seriously affected by a drought and hurricane last year, causing further destruction and emergency conditions.” Recommendation for Extension of TPS (March 22, 2002). Hurricane Michelle affected more than 50,000 people and damaged 1,300 houses, compounding the reconstruction efforts following Hurricane Mitch. Id. Such repeated environmental catastrophes have interrupted Honduras' ability to recover from Hurricane Mitch and, as a result, the country continues to lack the needed stability and infrastructure to support the return of its nationals. The INS Resource Information Center reported in March 2002 that, in concert with Hurricane Mitch, these more recent disasters “have produced major problems of food insecurity, unemployment and displacement of citizens” and “resulted in significant setbacks to full economic recovery from the damages sustained in 1998.”

In addition to the environmental setbacks, Honduras' reconstruction efforts have been hindered by delays in disbursements of aid needed to rebuild. The Department of State reports that, in some instances, these delays in disbursement of funds from international donors and lending institutions have slowed the rehabilitation of Honduras' infrastructure. Continuing Mitch Reconstruction (March 2002). For example, delayed disbursements in foreign countries' pledges to rebuild bridges and roads resulted in approximately 1,724 meters of bridges remaining unfinished, and 558 kilometers of road left to be rehabilitated. Id. Further, approximately 64 percent of homes destroyed by Hurricane Mitch remain in need of rebuilding or repair. Id. These setbacks, in addition to problems caused by the subsequent flooding and droughts, render Honduras unable to handle adequately the return of its nationals. Consequently, the conditions under which Honduras was designated for TPS have not ceased to exist.

Based on this review, the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate government agencies, finds that the conditions that prompted designation of Honduras under the TPS program continue to be met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C). There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Honduras as a result of environmental disaster, and Honduras continues to be unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). On the basis of these findings, the Attorney General concludes that the TPS designation for Honduras should be extended for an additional 12-month period. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

Yes. If you already have been granted TPS through the Honduras TPS program, your status will expire on July 5, 2002. Accordingly, you must re-register for TPS in order to maintain your status through July 5, 2003. See the following re-registration instructions.

All persons previously granted TPS under the Honduras program who wish to maintain such status must apply for an extension by filing (1) a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, without the filing fee; (2) a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and (3) two identification photographs (1 1/2 inches x 1 1/2 inches). See the chart below to determine whether you must submit the one hundred and twenty dollar ($120) filing fee with the Form I-765. Applicants for an extension of TPS benefits do not need to be re-fingerprinted and thus need not pay the fifty-dollar ($50) fingerprint fee. Children beneficiaries of TPS who have reached the age of fourteen (14) but were not previously fingerprinted must pay the fifty dollar ($50) fingerprint fee with the application for extension.

Submit the completed forms and applicable fee, if any, to the INS service center office having jurisdiction over your place of residence during the 60-day re-registration period that begins May 3, 2002 and ends July 2, 2002 (inclusive of such end date).

An application for TPS does not affect an application for asylum or any other immigration benefit. A national of Honduras (or alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) who is otherwise eligible for TPS and has applied for, or plans to apply for, asylum, but who has not yet been granted asylum or withholding of removal, may also apply for TPS. Denial of an application for asylum or any other immigration benefit does not affect an applicant's ability to apply for TPS, although the grounds for denying one form of relief may also be grounds for denying TPS. For example, a person who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime is not eligible for asylum or TPS. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i).

No. This is a notice of an extension of the TPS designation for Honduras, not a notice of re-designation of Honduras under the TPS program. An extension of TPS does not change the required dates of continuous residence and continuous physical presence in the United States. This extension does not expand TPS availability to those who are not already TPS class members. To be eligible for this extension, Hondurans (or aliens having no nationality and who last habitually resided in Honduras) must have resided continuously in the United States since December 30, 1998 and have been continuously physically present in the United States since January 5, 1999.

Yes. Some persons may be eligible for late initial registration under 8 CFR 244.2. To apply for late initial registration an applicant must:

(1) Be a national of Honduras (or alien who has no nationality and who last habitually resided in Honduras);

(2) Have been continuously physically present in the United States since January 5 1999;

(3) Have continuously resided in the United States since December 30, 1998; and

(4) Be both admissible as an immigrant, except as provided under section 244(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and not ineligible under section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Act.

Additionally, the applicant must be able to demonstrate that during the initial registration period from January 5, 1999, through July 5, 2000, he or she:

(1) Was a nonimmigrant or had been granted voluntary departure status or any relief from removal;

(2) Had an application for change of status, adjustment of status, asylum, voluntary departure, or any relief from removal or change of status pending or subject to further review or appeal;

(3) Was a parolee or had a pending request for reparole; or

(4) Was the spouse or child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant. 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2).

An applicant for late initial registration must file an application for late registration within a 60-day period immediately following the expiration or termination of the conditions described above. 8 CFR 244.2(g).

By the authority vested in me as Attorney General under sections 244(b)(1)(B), (b)(3)(A), and (b)(3)(C) of the Act, I have consulted with the appropriate government agencies and determine that the conditions that prompted designation of Honduras for TPS continue to be met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, I order as follows:

(1) The designation of Honduras under section 244(b) of the Act is extended for an additional 12-month period from July 5, 2002, to July 5, 2003. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

(2) There are approximately 105,000 nationals of Honduras (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) who have been granted TPS and who are eligible for re-registration.

(3) To maintain TPS, a national of Honduras (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Honduras) who received TPS during the initial designation period must re-register for TPS during the 60-day re-registration period from May 3, 2002 until July 2, 2002.

(4) To re-register, the applicant must file the following: (1) Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status; (2) Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and (3) two identification photographs (1 1/2 inches by 1 1/2 inches). There is no fee for a Form I-821 filed as part of the re-registration application. If the applicant requests employment authorization, he or she must submit one hundred and twenty dollars ($120) or a properly documented fee waiver request, pursuant to 8 CFR 244.20, with the Form I-765. An applicant who does not request employment authorization must nonetheless file Form I-765 along with Form I-821, but is not required to submit the fee. The fifty dollar ($50) fingerprint fee is required only for children beneficiaries of TPS who have reached the age of 14 but were not previously fingerprinted. Failure to re-register without good cause will result in the withdrawal of TPS. 8 CFR 244.17(c). Some persons who had not previously applied for TPS may be eligible for late initial registration under 8 CFR 244.2.

(5) At least 60 days before this extension terminates on July 5, 2003, the Attorney General will review the designation of Honduras under the TPS program and determine whether the conditions for designation continue to be met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). Notice of that determination, including the basis for the determination, will be published in the Federal Register . 8 USC 1254a(b)(3)(A).

(6) Information concerning the extension of designation of Honduras under the TPS program will be available at local INS offices upon publication of this notice and the INS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will also be posted on the INS website at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov.

Section 244(b)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( Act) states that at least 60 days before the end of a designation, or any extension thereof, the Attorney General must review conditions in the foreign state for which the designation is in effect. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). If the Attorney General does not determine that the foreign state no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation, the period of designation is extended automatically for 6 months pursuant to section 244(b)(3)(C) of the Act, although the Attorney General may exercise his discretion to extend the designation for a period of 12 or 18 months. 8 U.S.C.1254a(b)(3)(C).

On January 5, 1999, the Attorney General initially designated Nicaragua under the TPS program for a period of 18 months based on the severe flooding and mudslides caused by Hurricane Mitch (64 FR 526). The fierce storm that swept through the country killed more than 3, 000 people, left 150,000 people homeless, and washed away roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Resource Information Center, Recommendation to Extend (April 2000). Following the initial designation, the Department of Justice kept a close watch over the progress of reconstruction in Nicaragua and consulted with relevant government agencies regularly. The Attorney General extended the Nicaragua TPS designation twice, on May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30440) and May 8, 2001 (66 FR 23271). Each decision to extend the TPS designation was made on the determination that the conditions that warranted TPS designation initially continued to exist.

After the extension of Nicaragua's TPS designation on May 8, 2001, the Departments of State and Justice continued to monitor the conditions in that country. Prior to his decision to extend the Nicaragua TPS designation, the Attorney General consulted appropriate government agencies to determine whether conditions warranting the TPS designation continue to exist in Nicaragua. Although there are strong indications of progress in recovery efforts, recent droughts as well as flooding from Hurricane Michelle in 2001 compounded the humanitarian, economic, and social problems initially brought on by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, making the country unable, temporarily, to handle the return of approximately 6,000 nationals.

This assessment is consistent with a recent Department of State report that found that although reconstruction efforts have occurred, in the last year drought and another hurricane significantly affected Nicaragua's full recovery from Hurricane Mitch. Recommendation for Extension of TPS (March 22, 2002). The severe flooding alone affected more than 25,000 people and damaged over 3,000 houses, hampering reconstruction efforts following Hurricane Mitch. Id. Additionally, an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Resource Information Center report dated March 2002 found that “[d]roughts and flooding from Hurricane Michelle in 2001 have added to the humanitarian, economic and social problems initially brought on by Hurricane Mitch in 1998.” The report also concludes that “[t]hese disasters, added to other serious natural disasters during the intervening years, have produced major problems in food insecurity and unemployment of citizens.” Id. Additionally, the Department of State reports that while the reconstruction projects for Hurricane Mitch funded by the United States are nearly complete, other donor projects continue. For example, the European Union began its disbursement of Hurricane Mitch reconstruction funding only in December 2001. This delay in acquiring foreign aid prevented rapid completion of reconstruction. Hurricane Michelle and the drought exacerbated the situation. Consequently, the conditions under which Nicaragua was designated for TPS have not ceased to exist and, therefore, Nicaragua remains temporarily unable to handle adequately the return of its nationals.

Based on this review, the Attorney General, after consultation with appropriate government agencies, finds that the conditions that prompted designation of Nicaragua under the TPS program continue to be met, and a 12-month extension is warranted. 8 U.S.C.1254a(b)(3)(C). There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Nicaragua as a result of environmental disaster, and Nicaragua continues to be unable, temporarily, to handle adequately the return of its nationals. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(1)(B)(i)-(ii). On the basis of these findings, the Attorney General concludes that the TPS designation for Nicaragua should be extended for an additional 12-month period. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

Yes. If you already have been granted TPS through the Nicaragua TPS program, your status will expire on July 5, 2002. Accordingly, you must re-register for TPS in order to maintain your status through July 5, 2003. See the following re-registration instructions.

All persons previously granted TPS under the Nicaragua program who wish to maintain such status must apply for an extension by filing (1) a Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, without the filing fee; (2) a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and (3) two identification photographs (1 1/2 inches x 1 1/2 inches). See the chart below to determine whether you must submit the one hundred and twenty dollar ($120) filing fee with the Form I-765. Applicants for an extension of TPS benefits do not need to be re-fingerprinted and thus need not pay the fifty dollar ($50) fingerprint fee. Children beneficiaries of TPS who have reached the age of fourteen (14) but were not previously fingerprinted must pay the fifty dollar ($50) fingerprint fee with the application for extension.

Submit the completed forms and applicable fee, if any, to the INS service center office having jurisdiction over your place of residence during the 60-day re-registration period that begins May 3, 2002 and ends July 2, 2002 (inclusive of such end date).

An application for TPS does not affect an application for asylum or any other immigration benefit. A national of Nicaragua (or alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) who is otherwise eligible for TPS and has applied for, or plans to apply for, asylum, but who has not yet been granted asylum or withholding of removal, may also apply for TPS. Denial of an application for asylum or any other immigration benefit does not affect an applicant's ability to apply for TPS, although the grounds for denying one form of relief may also be grounds for denying TPS. For example, a person who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime is not eligible for asylum or TPS. 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B)(i).

No. This is a notice of an extension of the TPS designation for Nicaragua, not a notice of re-designation of Nicaragua under the TPS program. An extension of TPS does not change the required dates of continuous residence and continuous physical presence in the United States. This extension does not expand TPS availability to those who are not already TPS class members. To be eligible for benefits under this extension, Nicaraguans (or aliens having no nationality and who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) must have resided continuously in the United States since December 30, 1998 and have been continuously physically present in the United States since January 5, 1999.

Yes. Some persons may be eligible for late initial registration under 8 CFR 244.2. To apply for late initial registration an applicant must:

(1) Be a national of Nicaragua (or alien who has no nationality and who last habitually resided in Nicaragua);

(2) Have been continuously physically present in the United States since January 5 1999;

(3) Have continuously resided in the United States since December 30, 1998; and

(4) Be both admissible as an immigrant, except as provided under section 244(c)(2)(A) of the Act, and not ineligible under section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Act.

Additionally, the applicant must be able to demonstrate that during the initial registration period from January 5, 1999, through July 5, 2000, he or she:

(1) Was a nonimmigrant or had been granted voluntary departure status or any relief from removal;

(2) Had an application for change of status, adjustment of status, asylum, voluntary departure, or any relief from removal or change of status pending or subject to further review or appeal;

(3) Was a parolee or had a pending request for reparole; or

(4) Was the spouse or child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant. 8 CFR 244.2(f)(2).

An applicant for late initial registration must file an application for late registration within a 60-day period immediately following the expiration or termination of the conditions described above. 8 CFR 244.2(g).

By the authority vested in me as Attorney General under sections 244(b)(1)(B), (b)(3)(A), and (b)(3)(C) of the Act, I have consulted with the appropriate government agencies and determine that the conditions that prompted designation of Nicaragua for TPS continue to be met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, I order as follows:

(1) The designation of Nicaragua under section 244(b) of the Act is extended for an additional 12-month period from July 5, 2002, to July 5, 2003. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C).

(2) There are approximately 6,000 nationals of Nicaragua (or aliens having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) who have been granted TPS and who are eligible for re-registration.

(3) To maintain TPS, a national of Nicaragua (or an alien having no nationality who last habitually resided in Nicaragua) who received TPS during the initial designation period must re- register for TPS during the 60-day re-registration period from May 3, 2002 until July 2, 2002.

(4) To re-register, the applicant must file the following: 1) Form I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status; 2) Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization; and 3) two identification photographs (1 1/2 inches by 1 1/2 inches). There is no fee for a Form I-821 filed as part of the re-registration application. If the applicant requests employment authorization, he or she must submit one hundred and twenty dollars ($120) or a properly documented fee waiver request, pursuant to 8 CFR 244.20, with the Form I-765. An applicant who does not request employment authorization must nonetheless file Form I-765 along with Form I-821, but is not required to submit the fee. The fifty dollar ($50) fingerprint fee is required only for children beneficiaries of TPS who have reached the age of 14 but were not previously fingerprinted. Failure to re-register without good cause will result in the withdrawal of TPS. 8 CFR 244.17(c). Some persons who had not previously applied for TPS may be eligible for late initial registration under 8 CFR 244.2.

(5) At least 60 days before this extension terminates on July 5, 2003, the Attorney General will review the designation of Nicaragua under the TPS program and determine whether the conditions for designation continue to be met. 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(A). Notice of that determination, including the basis for the determination, will be published in the Federal Register . 8 U.S.C 1254a(b)(3)(A).

(6) Information concerning the extension of designation of Nicaragua under the TPS program will be available at local INS offices upon publication of this notice and the INS National Customer Service Center at 1-800-375-5283. This information will also be published on the INS website at http://www.ins.usdoj.gov .

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

The Telecommunications Standard specified one collection of information (paperwork) requirement. The following section describes who uses the information collected under the requirement, as well as how they use it. Based on previous ICR approvals, OSHA has determined that the training requirement in paragraph (c) of the Standard is not a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Training (paragrah (c)). Under the paperwork requirement specified by paragraph (c) of the Standard, employers must certify that his or her employees have been trained as outlined in the Standard by preparing a certification record which includes the identity of the person trained, the signature of the employer or the person who conducted the training, and the date the training was completed. The certification record shall be prepared at the completion of training and shall be maintained on file for the duration of the employee's employment. The information collection would be used by compliance officers to determine that employees have been properly trained according to the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.268(c).

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection-of-information requirements specified in the Standard on Telecommunications (29 CFR 1910.28). OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of the information-collection requirement.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information-collection requirement.

Title: Telecommunications (Training Certification) (29 CFR 1910.268(c)).

OMB Number: 1218-0225.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: Varies, there are about 306 employers with approximately 1.1 million employees.

Frequency: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes (.03 hour) to 4 minutes (.07 hour).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 7,487.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

The Standard specifies two paperwork requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that equipment has been tested and is in safe operating condition.

• Test Records for Hooks (paragraphs 1915.113(b)(1)). This paragraph requires that the manufacturer's recommendations be followed in determining the safe working loads of the various sizes and types of hooks. If the manufacturer's recommendations are not available, the hook must be tested to twice the intended safe working load before it is initially put into use. The employer must maintain and keep readily available a certification record which includes the date of such test, the signature of the person who performed the test, and the identifier for the hook which was tested.

• Examination and Test Records for Unfired Pressure Vessels (paragraph 1915.172(d)). This paragraph requires that portable, unfired pressure vessels be examined quarterly by a competent person and subjected to a yearly hydrostatic pressure test. A certification record of such examinations and tests shall be maintained.

The records are used to assure that equipment has been properly tested. The records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection-of-information requirements specified by the Shipyard Employment Standards (29 CFR part 1915). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information-collection requirement.

Title: Shipyard Employment Standards (29 CFR part 1915).

OMB Number: 1218-0220.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government; State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 800.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: Varies from 20 minutes to 35 minutes.

Total Annual Hours Requested: 4,416 hours.

Total Annual Costs (O&M): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

The Servicing of Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels Standard (i.e., “the Standard”) specifies one paperwork requirement. The following section describes who uses the information collected under the requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce employees' risk of death or serious injury by ensuring that restraining devices used by them during the servicing of multi-piece and single piece rim wheels are in safe operating condition. Based on previous ICR approvals, OSHA has determined that the training requirements in paragraphs (c), (f), and (g) of the Standard are not collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Certification of Repair (paragraph (d)(3)(iv)) This paragraph requires that when restraining devices and barriers are removed from service because they have been found to be defective, they shall not be returned to service until they are repaired and reinspected. If the repair is of a structural nature, the manufacturer or a Registered Professional Engineer must certify that the strength requirements specified in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of the standard have been met.

The certification records are used to assure that equipment has been properly repaired. The certification records also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection-of-information requirements specified by the Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels Standard (29 CFR 1910.177). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information-collection requirement.

Title: Servicing Multi-Piece and Single Piece Rim Wheels (29 CFR 1910.177).

OMB Number: 1218-0219.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal government, State, local, or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 8.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: 5 minutes (.08 hour).

Total Annual Hours Requested: 1 hour.

Total Annual Costs (O&M): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).

Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, FY 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554), directed the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to issue guidelines that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB issued its final guidelines on September 28, 2001. Subsequent guidance was issued by OMB on February 22, 2002 (67 FR 8452). These guidelines require agencies subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, including the NRC, to:

1. Issue their own information quality guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, utility, integrity, and objectivity of information disseminated by the agency;

2. Establish an administrative mechanism allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with these guidelines; and

3. Report annually to the Director of OMB the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding compliance with these guidelines concerning the quality, utility, integrity, and objectivity of information and how such complaints were resolved.

The OMB guidelines further establish the following schedule:

• Submit a draft report to OMB providing NRC's information quality guidelines and explaining how these guidelines will ensure and maximize the quality, utility, integrity, and objectivity of information disseminated by the NRC.

• Publish the draft report in the Federal Register ; post the draft report on the NRC public Web site; ask for public comments on the report.

• Submit to OMB for review the agency's revised quality guidelines that reflect public comments.

October 1, 2002.

• Publish in the Federal Register a notice of availability of the final NRC guidelines and post the guidelines on the NRC public Web Site.

• Ensure that information covered by these guidelines and disseminated for the first time by NRC on or after this date has undergone reviews for quality.