The regulations in 7 CFR part 340, “Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering Which Are Plant Pests or Which There Is Reason to Believe Are Plant Pests,” regulate, among other things, the introduction (importation, interstate movement, or release into the environment) of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or that there is reason to believe are plant pests. Such genetically engineered organisms and products are considered “regulated articles.”

The regulations in § 340.6(a) provide that any person may submit a petition to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) seeking a determination that an article should not be regulated under 7 CFR part 340. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of § 340.6 describe the form that a petition for a determination of nonregulated status must take and the information that must be included in the petition.

On February 12, 2002, APHIS received a petition (APHIS Petition No. 02-042-01p) from Aventis CropScience (Aventis) of Research Triangle Park, NC, requesting a determination of nonregulated status under 7 CFR part 340 for cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) designated as Transformation Event LLCotton25 (LLCotton25), which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The Aventis petition states that the subject cotton should not be regulated by APHIS because it does not present a plant pest risk.

As described in the petition, LLCotton25 has been genetically engineered to contain a stably integrated bar gene isolated from Streptomyces hygroscopicus, strain ATCC21705. The bar gene encodes phosphinothricin-N-acetyltransferase (PAT), and the PAT enzyme catalyzes the conversion of L-phosphinothricin, the active ingredient in glufosinate, to an inactive form, thus conferring resistance to the herbicide. Expression of the added genes is controlled in part by gene sequences from the plant pathogens cauliflower mosaic virus and Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Agrobacterium -mediated gene transfer was used to transfer the added genes into the recipient Coker 312 cotton variety.

LLCotton25 has been considered a regulated article under the regulations in 7 CFR part 340 because it contains gene sequences from plant pathogens. This cotton has been field tested since 1999 in the United States under APHIS notifications. In the process of reviewing the notifications for field trials of the subject cotton, APHIS determined that the vectors and other elements were disarmed and that the trials, which were conducted under conditions of reproductive and physical containment or isolation, would not present a risk of plant pest introduction or dissemination.

In § 403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), “plant pest” is defined as any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of the foregoing. APHIS views this definition very broadly. The definition covers direct or indirect injury, disease, or damage not just to agricultural crops, but also to plants in general, for example, native species, as well as to organisms that may be beneficial to plants, for example, honeybees, rhizobia, etc.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. ). FIFRA requires that all pesticides, including herbicides, be registered prior to distribution or sale, unless exempt by EPA regulation. In cases in which genetically modified plants allow for a new use of a pesticide or involve a different use pattern for the pesticide, EPA must approve the new or different use. Accordingly, Aventis has submitted a pesticide petition to EPA to expand the registration of glufosinate to include use on LLCotton25.

When the use of the pesticide on the genetically modified plant would result in an increase in the residues in a food or feed crop for which the pesticide is currently registered, or in new residues in a crop for which the pesticide is not currently registered, establishment of a new tolerance or a revision of the existing tolerance would be required. Residue tolerances for pesticides are established by EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforces tolerances set by EPA under the FFDCA.

FDA published a statement of policy on foods derived from new plant varieties in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984-23005). The FDA statement of policy includes a discussion of FDA's authority for ensuring food safety under the FFDCA, and provides guidance to industry on the scientific considerations associated with the development of foods derived from new plant varieties, including those plants developed through the techniques of genetic engineering. The petitioner has begun consultation with FDA on the subject cotton.

In accordance with § 340.6(d) of the regulations, we are publishing this notice to inform the public that APHIS will accept written comments regarding the petition for determination of nonregulated status from interested persons for a period of 60 days from the date of this notice. We are also soliciting written comments from interested persons on the environmental assessment (EA) prepared to provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and analysis of any potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk associated with a proposed determination of nonregulated status for Aventis' LLCotton25.

The EA was prepared in accordance with (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). The petition and the environmental assessment and any comments received are available for public review, and copies of the petition and the environmental assessment may be ordered (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice).

After the comment period closes, APHIS will review the data submitted by the petitioner, all written comments received during the comment period, and any other relevant information. After reviewing and evaluating the comments on the petition and the environmental assessment and other data and information, APHIS will furnish a response to the petitioner, either approving the petition in whole or in part, or denying the petition. APHIS will then publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the regulatory status of Aventis' herbicide-tolerant LLCotton25 and the availability of APHIS' written decision.

The International Cooperation on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH) brings together the regulatory authorities of the European Union, Japan, and the United States and representatives from the animal health industry in the three regions. The purpose of VICH is to harmonize technical requirements for veterinary products (both drugs and biologics). Regulatory authorities and industry experts from Australia and New Zealand participate as observers. The VICH initiative is conducted under the auspices of the International Office of Epizootics. The World Federation of the Animal Health Industry (COMISA, the Confederation Mondiale de L'Industrie de la Sante Animale) provides the secretarial support for VICH activities. The U.S. Government is represented in VICH by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The FDA provides expertise regarding veterinary drugs, while APHIS fills a corresponding role for veterinary biological products. As VICH members, FDA and APHIS participate in efforts to enhance harmonization and have expressed their commitment to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical requirements for the development of veterinary drugs and biological products. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and reduce the differences in technical requirements for veterinary drugs and biologics among regulatory agencies in different countries.

This notice informs the public that a draft document, “Testing for the Detection of Mycoplasma Contamination” (VICH Topic GL34), has been made available for comments by the VICH Steering Committee. The draft guideline is intended to provide an international testing standard for the detection of mycoplasma contamination in veterinary biologics. Because the draft guideline applies to some veterinary biological products regulated by APHIS under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act, we are requesting comments on its provisions so that we may include any relevant public input on the draft in the Agency's comments to the VICH Steering Committee.

The draft document reflects current APHIS thinking on testing veterinary biologics for the detection of mycoplasma contamination. In accordance with the VICH process, once a final draft of “Testing for the Detection of Mycoplasma Contamination” has been approved, the guideline will be recommended for adoption by the regulatory bodies of the European Union, Japan, and the United States. As with all VICH documents, the final guideline will not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind APHIS or the public. Further, a VICH guideline specifically provides for the use of alternative approaches if those approaches are proven to be equivalent by scientifically accepted criteria.

Ultimately, APHIS intends to consider the VICH Steering Committee's final guidance document for use by U.S. veterinary biologics licensees, permittees, and applicants. In addition, APHIS will consider its use as a basis for testing veterinary biologics for mycoplasma contamination under 9 CFR 113.28. APHIS may also use the final guidance document as the basis for proposed additions or amendments to its regulations in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter E (Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Organisms and Vectors). Because we anticipate that applicable provisions of the final version of “Testing for the Detection of Mycoplasma Contamination” may be introduced into APHIS' veterinary biologics regulatory program in the future, we encourage your comments on the draft version.

The Forest Service is seeking a reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved, but now expired, information collection authorized under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 0596-0120 and required for participation of non-industrial private forest owners in the State and Private Forestry Stewardship Incentive Program. Several Forest Service information collection forms are approved under this authorization number: Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP)-36, Assignment of Payment; SIP-211, Power of Attorney; SIP-211-1, Power of Attorney for Husband and Wife; and SIP-502, Payment Limitation Review. The collected information is used to facilitate the participation of non-industrial private forest owners in the State and Private Forestry Stewardship Incentive Program.

An additional form, AD-245, SIP Request for Cost-Shares, also is used when applying for cost-share funds. A request for extension of approval for this information collection is being requested by the Farm Service Agency(OMB 0560-0082), which works cooperatively with the Forest Service to administer the Stewardship Incentive Program.

Data gathered in this information collection are not available from other sources.

The following describes the information collection to be reinstated:

Title: SIP-36, Assignment of Payment.

OMB Number: 0596-0120.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2002.

Type of request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information collection that has expired.

Abstract: The non-industrial private forest landowner completes SIP-36 to assign a cost-share payment to a third party. The information requested includes the payment amount assigned and the names, addresses, and signatures of assignor and assignee.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 10 minutes.

Types of Respondents: Non-industrial private forest owners.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 per form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 167 hours.

The following describes the information collection to be reinstated:

Title: SIP-211, Power of Attorney.

OMB Number: 0596-0120.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2002.

Type of request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information collection that has expired.

Abstract: The non-industrial private forest landowner completes SIP-211 to appoint power of attorney for the landowner. The landowner indicates in this form whether power of attorney is being granted for (1) all actions; (2) the signing of an application; (3) the receiving of payments; (4) pledge of agreements; (5) the making of reports; or (6) other. It is signed by the landowner and witnesses.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 5 minutes.

Types of Respondents: Non-industrial private forest owners.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 per form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 83 hours.

The following describes the information collection to be reinstated:

Title: SIP-211-1, Power of Attorney for Husband and Wife.

OMB Number: 0596-0120.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2002.

Type of request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information collection that has expired.

Abstract: Participants who are husband and wife and who wish to assign each other power of attorney complete Form SIP-211-1. It requires the husband and wife to print and sign their names on the form.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 5 minutes.

Types of Respondents: Non-industrial private forest owners.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 per form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 83 hours.

The following describes the information collection to be reinstated:

Title: SIP-502, Payment Limitation Review.

OMB Number: 0596-0120.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2002.

Type of request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information collection that has expired.

Abstract: To ensure they have not exceeded the cost-share payment limit for a fiscal year and also to meet Internal Revenue Service income reporting requirements, non-industrial private forest owners complete SIP-502. A landowner is not allowed to receive more than $10,000 in SIP cost-share payments in a single fiscal year. Program participants provide their name and address, entity identification number, and date entity formed. They also check off the type of entity ( e.g. , individual, irrevocable trust, revocable trust, corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, joint venture, estate, or other). Participants also list all stockholders, members, heirs, or beneficiaries having an interest in the entity.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 25 minutes.

Types of Respondents: Non-industrial private forest owners.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1 per form.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 417 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including name and address when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments received in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The committee will discuss the environmental analysis process and project monitoring, fuels projects, and the strategy for future projects. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

The committee will discuss and prioritize project proposals submitted by the public and Six Rivers National Forest. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

On August 22, 2002, President Bush established the Healthy Forests Initiative, directing the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality to improve regulatory processes to ensure more timely decisions, greater efficiency, and better results in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires by restoring forest health.

In response to this direction, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior propose two new categorical exclusions. The first, addressing hazardous fuels reduction projects, is intended to better protect lives, communities, and ecosystems from the risk of high-intensity wildland fire. The second, addressing rehabilitation and stabilization projects, is intended to better restore natural resources and infrastructure after a fire. These two proposed categorical exclusions will increase the ability of the agencies to expeditiously reduce hazardous fuels, thereby lowering the intensity and rapid spread of wildfires, and facilitate the agency's abilities to rapidly rehabilitate and stabilize burned areas to protect watersheds and resources.

As stated in the Administration's “Healthy Forests: An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities”, there are 190 million acres of Federal forests and rangelands in the 48 contiguous states at risk of severe wildland fires that threaten human safety, property, and ecosystem integrity. Drought conditions coupled with years of fuel buildup combine to make these lands vulnerable to intense, fast-moving fires that often are far more destructive than those in prior years. In the aftermath of wildland fires, timely rehabilitation and stabilization projects are critical to preventing additional threats to communities and ecosystems, such as soil erosion, mudslides, invasive species, and deteriorating watersheds.

The 2000 fire season, for example, was one of the worst in 50 years. Approximately 123,000 fires burned more than 8.4 million acres. The total acreage burned was more than twice the 10-year national average. At times, nearly 30,000 personnel were on the fire lines, including military and firefighters from other countries. More than $2 billion from Federal accounts was spent suppressing wildland fires. This amount does not include State and local firefighting suppression costs, direct and indirect economic losses to communities, loss of property, and damage to ecosystems.

The trend since 2000 has continued. During 2002, catastrophic wildfires continued to make national headlines, burning over 7.1 million acres. According to the General Accounting Office 1999 report, “Western National Forests—A Cohesive Strategy Is Needed to Address Catastrophic Wildfire Threats,” wildfires have increasingly become large, intense, and catastrophic in the currently denser stands of the national forests in the interior West. For example, the 2002 Rodeo Fire in Arizona grew from 800 to 46,000 acres in one day. In addition, Oregon and Colorado experienced unusually large fires, with Colorado's Hayman fire being five times larger than the previous largest recorded fire in that State's history.

Congress and the Executive Branch identified coordinated and strategic fuels treatment as necessary to undo a century of fuels buildup. In August 2000, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior began an effort designed to reduce fire impacts on communities and ensure effective firefighting capacity in the future. The result was the National Fire Plan, which Congress later supported through appropriations language in the fiscal year (FY) 2001 appropriations act for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. As part of its direction, Congress mandated the creation of a coordinated national 10-year comprehensive strategy. The resulting strategy, “A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy,” completed in August of 2001, was developed by Federal, State, tribal, and local government and non-governmental representatives. In May of 2002, these same parties completed the Implementation Plan for the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. The Implementation Plan establishes a performance-based framework for improving the management of wildland fire and hazardous fuels; meeting the need for ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation; implementing protective measures to reduce the risk of wildland fire to communities and environments and monitoring progress over time.

The unprecedented collaboration among Federal, State, tribal and local governments, citizens and groups reached a powerful consensus that immediate action was needed. Thus, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan set four primary goals: (1) Improve fire prevention and suppression; (2) reduce hazardous fuels; (3) restore fire-adapted ecosystems; and (4) promote community assistance. For each goal, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan identifies specific outcomes, performance measures, and implementation tasks that guide agency actions and measure performance. Moreover, a key implementation task under Goal Two of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan requires agencies to assess regulatory processes governing hazardous fuels projects and activities done in conformance with the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan and to identify measures to improve the timeliness of decisions. The proposed categorical exclusions respond to this task and the goal of restoring fire-adapted ecosystems under Goal Three of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan.

The proposed categorical exclusions will provide the departments with identical management tools that will improve consistency and cooperation among Federal agencies in the implementation of hazardous fuels reduction, stabilization, and rehabilitation projects. This improved cooperation will, in turn, foster more effective collaboration among Federal, State, tribal, and local governments and interested stakeholders consistent with the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and accompanying Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1500), require that each agency establish specific criteria for and identification of three types of actions: (1) Those that require preparation of an environmental impact statement; (2) those that require the preparation of an environmental assessment; and (3) those that are categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Actions qualify for (3), a categorical exclusion, if they do not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment and warrant no further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Agencies must, however, recognize the exceptions to the application of a categorical exclusion that extraordinary circumstances may require.

A categorical exclusion is not an exemption from the requirements of NEPA. Categorical exclusions are an essential part of NEPA that provide a categorical determination that the activities do not result in significant impacts, eliminating the need for individual analyses and lengthier documentation. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500.4(p), 1507.3 and 1508.4 direct agencies to use categorical exclusions to define categories of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and do not require the preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, thereby reducing excessive paperwork.

Current United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service procedures for complying with and implementing NEPA are set out in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30, which establishes two types of categorical exclusions. The first, set out at section 31.1, consists of categories of actions that are so routine and limited that a record is not required. The second type, set out at section 31.2, consists of categories of actions that require documentation in a Decision Memo that explains the rationale for applying a categorical exclusion and not preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. The two categorical exclusions proposed in this notice would fall within the Forest Service's second type of categorical exclusion that requires a Decision Memo.

Current Department of the Interior procedures for complying with NEPA are set out in Departmental Manual 516 DM. Department-wide categorical exclusions are established in 516 DM, chapter 2, Appendix 1. In applying the categorical exclusions, bureaus must make a determination that the exemptions do not apply. No specific form of documentation has previously been required for this determination. While the Department of the Interior has not required formal documentation of its department-wide categorical exclusions, many bureaus of the Department of the Interior prescribe some formal documentation for their bureau-specific categorical exclusions. Due to the desire to have comparable categorical exclusions and consistency in use, the Department of the Interior will issue instructions for documenting and distributing the rationale for applying either of these two proposed categorical exclusions, consistent with Forest Service procedures.

As directed by the CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.4, both the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior procedures provide for extraordinary circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect. Extraordinary circumstances occur, for example, where proposed actions would have adverse effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat, wilderness areas, inventoried roadless areas, wetlands, and archeological or historic sites. Where extraordinary circumstances occur, project analyses are documented in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. The proposed categorical exclusions would be applied in the absence of extraordinary circumstances in accordance with departmental procedures. The USDA Forest Service provisions for extraordinary circumstances are set out in FSH 1909.15, section 30.3. The Department of the Interior provisions for extraordinary circumstances, called exceptions, are set out in 516 DM, chapter 2, Appendix 2. USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior provisions for extraordinary circumstances may be viewed at http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/HFI.shtml.

The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are proposing two categorical exclusions. These categorical exclusions would apply to National Forest System lands and to lands managed by the Department of the Interior agencies, including lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Reclamation.

The first categorical exclusion proposed by the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior addresses hazardous fuels reduction projects. Hazardous fuels consist of combustible vegetation (live or dead), such as grass, leaves, ground litter, plants, shrubs, and trees, that contribute to the threat of ignition and high fire intensity and/or high rate of spread. Hazardous fuels reduction involves manipulation, including combustion or removal of fuels, to reduce the likelihood of ignition and/or to lessen potential damage to the ecosystem from intense wildfire and to create conditions where firefighters can safely and effectively control wildfires. Activities that could be conducted under this proposed categorical exclusion are the thinning of trees (commercial or pre-commercial as identified in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan) and the removal of combustible vegetation through mechanical means, grazing, and the use of prescribed fire.

The second proposed category addresses rehabilitation and stabilization of resources and infrastructure in the aftermath of a fire. Activities that could be conducted under this proposed categorical exclusion include rehabilitation of habitat, watersheds, and infrastructure impacted by wildfire and/or wildfire suppression. Reseeding or planting, fence construction, culvert repair, installation of erosion control devices, and repair of roads and trails are examples of activities necessary for the stabilization and rehabilitation of habitat, watersheds, historical, archeological, and cultural sites, and infrastructure impacted by wildfire and/or wildfire suppression.

The hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion will be applicable only to projects identified in a manner that is consistent with the collaborative framework in the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. Additionally, categorically excluded hazardous fuels reduction activities would not be conducted in wilderness areas or where they would impair the suitability of wilderness study areas for preservation as wilderness. Categorically excluded hazardous fuels reduction activities are further limited in that they cannot include the use of herbicides or pesticides or the construction of new permanent infrastructure. Infrastructure may be reconstructed, but no new permanent roads or new permanent construction may take place under this categorical exclusion.

Activities carried out under the rehabilitation and stabilization categorical exclusion would apply only to activities in the aftermath of a wildfire. Such activities are further limited in that they cannot include the use of pesticides or the construction of new permanent infrastructure. Infrastructure may be reconstructed, but no new permanent roads or new permanent construction may take place under this categorical exclusions.

Activities conducted using the proposed categorical exclusions must be consistent with agency and Departmental procedures, and with applicable land and resource management plans. For example, procedures and plans call for appropriate buffers from riparian areas or areas containing cultural or historical artifacts and for timing activities to avoid species of concern and sensitive species nesting periods. Products generated by use of mechanical methods under the proposed hazardous fuel reduction categorical exclusion would be sold or otherwise utilized or disposed of in accordance with agency and Departmental procedures.

In addition, the activities under both proposed categorical exclusions must meet all applicable Federal, State, and tribal laws or other requirements imposed for protection of the environment. For example, the Clean Air Act requires compliance with State standards for air quality. A categorical exclusion would not be used if air quality standards could not be met. Similarly, the Wilderness Act provides certain protections for areas designated by Congress as wilderness areas. Categorical exclusions would not be used where a proposed activity may have adverse effects on wilderness characteristics.

In addition, agencies can avoid significant environmental effects by following agency procedures related to compliance with other applicable laws. For example, effects on archeological and cultural resources can often be mitigated simply by identifying and avoiding those resources. As another example, the use of fire is coordinated with State regulatory agencies concerned with air quality to ensure that burning is carried out when atmospheric conditions are favorable to smoke dispersal.

In using categorical exclusions, agencies must continue conducting appropriate consultations with Federal and State regulatory agencies, such as those required by the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. Activities categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement must still be evaluated to assess effects on threatened and endangered species, and undergo an appropriate level of consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Similarly, categorically excluded activities undergo surveys and evaluation of effects on properties protected by the National Historic Preservation Act, along with appropriate consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers. Such consultations help ensure that cumulative effects across jurisdictions will not be significant. The USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior invite comments on any additional factors to consider in crafting the final categorical exclusions that address the scope of their implementation.

The Departments have extensive experience in hazardous fuels management, as well as in stabilization and rehabilitation of resources following a wildfire. In examining the basis for proposing these two categorical exclusions, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior reviewed projects that were undertaken for hazardous fuels reduction, and rehabilitation/stabilization. Some projects involved multiple activities of these types. The information review included 30 different data items for each project, including information on project location and size, vegetation cover type, fuels treatment type, predicted environmental effects, actual environmental effects after project completion, and mitigation measures. Environmental effects include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health effects as defined in 40 CFR 1508.8.

The agencies reviewed over 3,000 hazardous fuels reduction and rehabilitation/stabilization projects completed in FY 1998 through FY 2002; of these, over half were documented with environmental assessments, less than 50 were documented with environmental impact statements, and the remainder were categorically excluded from either of these types of documentation under existing categorical exclusions. Only 12 of these environmental impact statements contained predictions of significant environmental effects from hazardous fuels reduction and rehabilitation/stabilization activities. Current USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior NEPA procedures would preclude the application of any categorical exclusion to these 12 projects because of extraordinary circumstances. Had the 12 projects been considered for a categorical exclusion they would not have qualified because of extraordinary circumstances stemming from adverse effects on threatened and endangered species and uncertainty over the significance of effects on air quality and water quality.

The review indicates that hazardous fuels reduction activities and rehabilitation/stabilization activities, absent extraordinary circumstances, do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment. A summary of the review is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/HFI.shtml.

The CEQ regulations state that categorically excluded actions must not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment (40 CFR 1508.4). Based on the previously discussed application of environmental laws, agency procedures, and the aforementioned review of the over 3,000 hazardous fuels reduction and rehabilitation/stabilization activities, the agencies conclude that the proposed categories of actions do not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment and, therefore, do not require either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Under the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, the Secretaries of the Interior and the USDA have committed to a formal review process to monitor and evaluate performance, suggest revisions, and make necessary adaptations to the Strategy in collaboration with Federal, State, tribal, and local stakeholders. The agencies will conduct monitoring of selected collaboratively developed projects and activities to assess the progress and effectiveness of planning and implementation. Projects implemented under these proposed categorical exclusions will be included in this review.

Any revisions to the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan will integrate new information obtained from scientific research and on-the-ground experiences. As part of this monitoring and evaluation, the effectiveness of hazardous fuels reduction and rehabilitation/stabilization projects and the application of categorical exclusions will be reviewed. Based on monitoring results these categorical exclusions may be augmented or modified. Future modifications to these proposed categorical exclusions, if necessary, would be based in part on the results of monitoring and would involve additional public review.

The actual mechanism for monitoring will be the National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS).

At the onset of the National Fire Plan, the wildland fire agencies identified the need for tools to assist them in capturing, monitoring and reporting accomplishments. While each agency had some mechanisms in place to meet accountability requirements, the agencies did not have an overarching system capable of providing sufficient analysis and reporting. Instead, each organization relied on a variety of disparate mechanisms for tracking and reporting hazardous fuels accomplishments.

In order to provide a single, unified interagency system, the Department of Interior teamed with the USDA Forest Service to develop the NFPORS. The system will collect data in the areas of restoration and rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, community assistance, and the method of NEPA compliance (categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement).

The 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy provides a collaborative framework for the selection and prioritization of hazardous fuels reduction projects which includes extensive public participation. Use of the proposed hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion to meet the goals of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy will, therefore, include the public as provided in the collaborative framework.

Indeed, local involvement is the primary source of annual hazardous fuels project planning, prioritization, and resource allocation. The amount of collaboration at the local level will be consistent with the complexity of land ownership patterns, resource management issues, and the number of interested stakeholders. The hazardous fuels reduction categorical exclusion will be applicable only to projects identified consistent with this collaborative framework.

Consistent with direction provided by the President under the Healthy Forests Initiative and the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan, the agencies propose two new categorical exclusions: one for hazardous fuels reduction and one for stabilization and rehabilitation of resources and infrastructure after a fire. Based upon a review of field data, the agencies conclude that actions identified in the proposed categories would not individually or cumulatively have significant effects on the human environment and, therefore, would not require preparation of an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

These proposed categorical exclusions would permit timely response to forest health problems involving hazardous fuels and would provide for timely stabilization and rehabilitation of resources and infrastructure impacted by fire and/or wildfire suppression. Public comment is invited on this proposal and will be considered in adopting final categorical exclusions. The text of the proposed categorical exclusions is set out at the end of this notice.

These proposed categorical exclusions would add direction to guide field employees in the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior regarding requirements for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for fire management activities. Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, section 31.1b categorically excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” Department of the Interior Manual 516 DM, chapter 2, Appendix 1 categorically excludes from documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement “policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines of an administrative, financial, technical, or procedural nature.” The agencies' preliminary assessment is that these proposed categorical exclusions fall within these categories of actions in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. A final determination will be made upon adoption of the final categorical exclusions. In addition, pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3, the USDA Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are consulting with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to ensure full compliance with the purposes and provisions of NEPA and the CEQ implementing regulations.

These proposed categorical exclusions have been reviewed under Departmental procedures and Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed these proposed categorical exclusions.

This action to add two categorical exclusions to the agencies' NEPA procedures will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, tribal, or local governments. This action may interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency or raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this action is subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.

Moreover, this action has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), and it is hereby certified that the proposed categorical exclusions will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the act because it will not impose record-keeping requirements on them; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market.

The agencies have considered these proposed categorical exclusions under the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have concluded that they conform with the federalism principles set out in this Executive Order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States or the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the agencies have determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary.

These proposed categorical exclusions do not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with tribes is not required.

These proposed categorical exclusions have been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and it has been determined that the proposed categorical exclusions do not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property.

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, it has been determined that these categorical exclusions do not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

Pursuant to title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agencies have assessed the effects of these proposed categorical exclusions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. These proposed categorical exclusions do not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

These proposed categorical exclusions have been reviewed under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that these proposed categorical exclusions do not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order.

These proposed categorical exclusions do not contain any additional record keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use, and therefore, impose no additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

Following is the text of the two categorical exclusions:

• Hazardous fuels reduction activities (prescribed fire, and mechanical or biological methods such as crushing, piling, thinning, pruning, cutting, chipping, mulching, grazing and mowing) when the activity has been identified consistent with the framework described in A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. Such activities:

• Activities (such as reseeding or planting, fence construction, culvert repair, installation of erosion control devices, and repair of roads and trails) necessary for the stabilization and rehabilitation of habitat, watersheds, historical, archeological, and cultural sites and infrastructure impacted by wildfire and/or wildfire suppression. Such activities:

Title: RHS/Housing Preservation Grant Program.

OMB Number: 0575-0115.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2003.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary purpose of the Housing Preservation Grant Program is to repair or rehabilitate individual housing, rental properties, or co-ops owned or occupied by very low- and low-income rural persons. Grantees will provide eligible homeowners, owners of rental properties and owners of co-ops with financial assistance through loans, grants, interest reduction payments or other comparable financial assistance for necessary repairs and rehabilitation of dwellings to bring them up to code or minimum property standards. Where repair and rehabilitation assistance is not economically feasible or practical the replacement of existing, individual owner occupied housing is available.

These grants were established by Public Law 98-181, the Housing Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 1983, which amended the Housing Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 93-383) by adding section 533, 42 U.S.C. S 2490(m), Housing Preservation Grants (HPG). In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture has authority to prescribe rules and regulations to implement HPG and other programs under 42 U.S.C. S 1480(j).

Section 533(d) is prescriptive about the information applicants are to submit to RHS as part of their application and in the assessments and criteria RHS is to use in selecting grantees. An applicant is to submit a “statement of activity” describing its proposed program, including the specific activities it will undertake, and its schedule. RHS is required in turn to evaluate proposals on a set of prescribed criteria, for which the applicant will also have to provide information, such as: (1) Very low- and low-income persons proposed to be served by the repair and rehabilitation activities; (2) participation by other public and private organizations to leverage funds and lower the cost to the HPG program; (3) the area to be served in terms of population and need: (4) cost data to assure greatest degree of assistance at lowest cost; (5) administrative capacity of the applicant to carry out the program. The information collected will be the minimum required by law and by necessity for RHS to assure that it funds responsible grantees proposing feasible projects in areas of greatest need. Most data are taken from a localized area, although some are derived from census reports of city, county and Federal governments showing population and housing characteristics.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .96 hours per response.

Respondents: A public body or a public or private nonprofit corporation.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,850.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 6.5.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,614 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Jean Mosley, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch at (202 692-0041).

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RHS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RHS's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jean Mosley, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to Department of Commerce (Department) regulations refer to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 353 (1996).

On April 18, 1996, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation to determine whether imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) (61 FR 18377, April 25, 1996). On May 16, 1996, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) notified the Department of its affirmative preliminary injury determination.

On October 10, 1996, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement to suspend the antidumping investigation. On October 28, 1996, the Department preliminarily determined that imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico are being sold at LTFV in the United States. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 61 FR 56607 (November 1, 1996) ( Preliminary Determination ). On the same day on which the Department issued the Preliminary Determination, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed an agreement to suspend the investigation (1996 Suspension Agreement). See Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 61 FR 56618 (November 1, 1996).

On May 31, 2002, Mexican tomato growers/exporters accounting for a significant percentage of all fresh tomatoes imported into the United States from Mexico provided written notice to the Department of their withdrawal from the 1996 Suspension Agreement on fresh tomatoes from Mexico. Because the 1996 Suspension Agreement no longer covered substantially all imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico, effective July 30, 2002, the Department terminated the 1996 Suspension Agreement, terminated the sunset review of the suspended investigation, and resumed the antidumping investigation. See Notice of Termination of Suspension Agreement, Termination of Sunset Review, and Resumption of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico, 67 FR 50858 (August 6, 2002). With the termination of the 1996 Suspension Agreement, in accordance with section 734(i)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department resumed the underlying antidumping investigation.

On November 8, 2002, the Department and Mexican tomato growers/exporters initialed a proposed agreement suspending the resumed antidumping investigation on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. The Department provided parties an opportunity to submit comments on the initialed agreement, and on November 22, 2002, the Department received comments from several parties. The memorandum titled “Comments on the Proposed Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation” from Mark Ross, Program Manager, to the File explains the Department's response to these comments.

On December 4, 2002, the Department and certain growers/exporters of fresh tomatoes from Mexico signed a new suspension agreement (2002 Suspension Agreement). The 2002 Suspension Agreement is attached to this notice of Suspension of Antidumping Investigation.

On September 30, 1996, Desert Glory, Ltd. (Desert Glory), filed a letter requesting that the Department exclude cocktail tomatoes from the scope of the investigation. The petitioners responded to Desert Glory's letter on October 10, 1996, clarifying that the petition's scope did not include cocktail tomatoes. In the Preliminary Determination, the Department excluded cocktail tomatoes from the scope of the investigation.

On September 17, 2002, the petitioners filed a letter requesting the withdrawal of their October 10, 1996, scope-clarification letter and encouraged the Department to exercise its own authority to clarify the scope of the investigation so that it includes cocktail tomatoes. On November 15, 2002, the Department released a draft scope-clarification memorandum to the parties to the proceeding to communicate the Department's intent to include cocktail tomatoes in the scope of the investigation and give the parties the opportunity to present their views on this intention.

On November 20, 2002, Desert Glory submitted comments on the draft scope-clarification memorandum, and on November 25, 2002, the petitioners submitted rebuttal comments. After analysis of these comments and the information on the record, the Department determined to include cocktail tomatoes within the scope of the investigation. See December 4, 2002, memorandum entitled “Scope Clarification” from Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, available in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main building of the Commerce Department.

The Department consulted with the parties to the proceeding and has considered the comments submitted with respect to the proposal to suspend the antidumping investigation. In accordance with section 734(c) of the Act, we have determined that extraordinary circumstances are present in this case, as defined by section 734(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See the memorandum titled “Existence of Extraordinary Circumstances” from Laurie Parkhill, Office Director, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

The 2002 Suspension Agreement provides that the subject merchandise will be sold at or above the established reference price and, for each entry of each exporter, the amount by which the estimated normal value exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) will not exceed 15 percent of the weighted-average amount by which the estimated normal value exceeded the export price (or constructed export price) for all LTFV entries of the producer/exporter examined during the course of the investigation. We have determined that the 2002 Suspension Agreement will eliminate completely the injurious effect of exports to the United States of the subject merchandise and prevent the suppression or undercutting of price levels of domestic fresh tomatoes by imports of that merchandise from Mexico.

We have also determined that the 2002 Suspension Agreement is in the public interest and can be monitored effectively, as required under section 734(d) of the Act. See the memorandum titled “Public Interest Assessment of the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico” from Jeffrey May, Director of the Office of Policy, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

For the reasons outlined above, we find that the 2002 Suspension Agreement meets the criteria of section 734(c) of the Act.

In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, the Department has notified the ITC of the 2002 Suspension Agreement.

The suspension of liquidation ordered in the preliminary affirmative determination in this case published on November 1, 1996, and resumed on August 6, 2002 (see 67 FR 50858), shall continue to be in effect, subject to section 734(h)(3) of the Act. Section 734(f)(2)(B) of the Act provides that the Department may adjust the security required to reflect the effect of the 2002 Suspension Agreement. The Department has found that the 2002 Suspension Agreement eliminates completely the injurious effects of imports and, thus, the Department is adjusting the security required from signatories to zero. The security rates in effect for imports from non-signatory growers remain as published in the Preliminary Determination.

Notwithstanding the 2002 Suspension Agreement, the Department will continue the investigation if it receives such a request within 20 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , in accordance with section 734(g) of the Act.

To ensure effective enforcement of the 2002 Suspension Agreement, the Department worked closely with the U.S. Customs Service in drafting the terms of the 2002 Suspension Agreement. Pursuant to its obligations under section 734(i) of the Act, the U.S. Customs Service has informed the Department that it concurs with the enforcement provisions the Department included in the 2002 Suspension Agreement.

The Administrative Protective Orders (APOs) the Department granted in the original investigation segment of this proceeding remain in place. While the investigation is suspended, parties subject to those APOs may retain, but may not use, information received under those APOs. All parties wishing access to business proprietary information submitted during the administration of the 2002 Suspension Agreement must submit new APO applications. An APO for the administration of the 2002 Suspension Agreement will be placed on the record within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

We are publishing this notice in accordance with section 734 of the Act and 19 CFR 353.18.

On August 8, 2002, NIST published a notice in the Federal Register entitled “Notice of Intent to Update Infrared Spectral Library”, in which comments were invited concerning the addition of approximately 10,000 digitized, condensed-phase infrared spectra to an existing NIST gas-phase collection. NIST received two comments from one individual. One of those comments made to that notice raised the issue of what methods NIST will use to disseminate the database. Based upon that comment, NIST decided that the means of data dissemination should be opened for discussion. As a result, NIST has decided to re-open the comment period and request public comments on the issue of the means of data dissemination by NIST. Therefore, in this notice, we invite interested parties to provide comments concerning possible means of dissemination of this new data. Current NIST plans are to publish this data on the Internet via the NIST WebBook ( http://webbook.nist.gov/ ) in the same manner as currently employed for the gas-phase infrared data. This data is made freely available on a single-spectrum lookup basis, with individual spectra selected for display by users. No library searching or full or partial database downloading capabilities are planned.

The purpose of the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program is to assist, through matching funds, in the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities in order to achieve the following objectives:

• Extend delivery of public telecommunications services to as many citizens in the United States as possible by the most efficient and economical means, including the use of broadcast and non-broadcast technologies;

• Increase public telecommunications services and facilities available to, operated by, and owned by minorities and women; and

• Strengthen the capability of existing public radio and television stations to provide public telecommunications services to the public.

Paper form and the Internet.

OMB Number: 0660-0001.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions, state or local government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,950.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,268.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Public: 0.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to the notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

A statutory invention registration is not a patent. It has the defensive attributes of a patent but does not have the enforceable attributes of a patent. In other words, a person occasionally invents something solely for personal use (not for production or sale) and does not want to go through the effort and expense of obtaining a patent on the invention. At the same time, the inventor wants to prevent someone else from later obtaining a patent on a like invention. In that situation, the inventor can register a statutory invention and have it published. Once published, it cannot be claimed by another person.

37 U.S.C. 157 authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to publish a statutory invention registration containing the specifications and drawings of a regularly filed application for a patent without examination, providing the patentee meets all the requirements for printing, waives the right to receive a patent on the invention within a certain period of time prescribed by the USPTO, and pays all application, publication and other processing fees.

The USPTO administers 35 U.S.C. 157 through 37 CFR 1.293-1.297. Under these rules, an applicant for an original patent may request, at any time during the pendency of the applicant's pending complete application, that the specifications and drawings be published as a statutory invention registration. Any request for a statutory invention registration may be examined to determine if the requirements have been met, if the subject matter of the application is appropriate for publication, and if the requirements for publication are met.

The public may petition the USPTO to review rejection decisions within one month or such other time as is set forth in the decision refusing publication. The public may also petition the USPTO to withdraw a request to publish a statutory invention registration prior to the date of the notice of the intent to publish.

If the request for a statutory invention registration is approved, a notice to that effect will be published in the USPTO's Official Gazette. Each statutory invention registration published will include a statement relating to the attributes of a statutory invention registration.

A Change Worksheet was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on November 29, 2001, which decreased the number of responses for this collection by 10 (from 83 to 73) due to the availability of 18-month publications of patent applications. Consequently, the total burden hours were also reduced by 4, (from 33 to 29) as a program change.

The public uses form PTO/SB/94, Request for Statutory Invention Registration, to request and authorize publication of a regularly-filed patent application as a Statutory Invention Registration, to waive the right to receive a United States patent on the same invention claimed in the identified patent application, to agree that the waiver will be effective upon publication of the statutory invention registration, and to state that the identified patent application complies with the requirements for printing. No forms are associated with the petition for a review of the refusal to publish a statutory invention registration or the petition to withdraw the request for publication of a statutory invention registration.

By mail, facsimile, or hand delivery to the USPTO when the applicant or agent files a statutory invention registration with the USPTO.

OMB Number: 0651-0036.

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/94.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and state, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 73 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 24 minutes each to gather, prepare, and submit the request for statutory invention registration, the petition to review the rejection decision, and the petition to withdraw the publication request, depending upon the complexity of the situation. This collection contains 1 form and 2 petitions.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 29 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $7,308. Using the professional hourly rate of $252 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates $7,308 per year for salary costs associated with respondents.

Estimated Total Annual Nonhour Respondent Cost Burden: $107,146. There are no capital start-up costs or maintenance costs associated with this information collection. However this collection does have postage costs and filing fees.

The public may submit the paper forms and petitions in this collection to the USPTO by mail through the United States Postal Service. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 49 cents, and that customers filing the documents associated with this information collection may choose to mail their submissions to the USPTO. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that up to 73 submissions per year may be mailed to the USPTO at an average first-class postage cost of 49 cents, for a total postage cost of $36.

There is annual nonhour cost burden in the way of filing fees associated with this collection. Since the filing fees have not previously been included in this collection, the total number of filings is being used to calculate these costs.

The estimated filing costs for this collection of $107,110 are calculated in the accompanying chart.

The USPTO estimates that the total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of postage costs and filing fees amounts to $107,146.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (Title I of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-2000)(AGOA) provides preferential tariff treatment for imports of certain textile and apparel products of beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. In a letter to the Commissioner of Customs dated January 18, 2001, the United States Trade Representative directed Customs to require that importers provide an appropriate export visa from a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country to obtain preferential treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA (66 FR 7837). The first digit of the visa number corresponds to one of nine groupings of textile and apparel products that are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. Grouping “9” is reserved for handmade, handloomed, or folklore articles.

Under Section 2 of Executive Order 13191 of January 17, 2001, CITA is authorized to “consult with beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries and to determine which, if any, particular textile and apparel goods shall be treated as being handloomed, handmade, or folklore articles” (66 FR 7272). Consultations with Malawi were held on November 13, 2002, and CITA has now determined that handloomed fabrics produced in and exported from Malawi and handmade articles produced in and exported from Malawi made from such handloomed fabrics are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under section 112(a) of the AGOA. In the letter published below, CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to allow entry of such products of Malawi under Harmonized Tariff Schedule provision 9819.11.27, when accompanied by an appropriate export visa in grouping “9”.

None.

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Application for 34 CFR part 602 The Secretary's Recognition of Accrediting Agencies.

Frequency: Annually and every 5 years.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 61.

Burden Hours: 1,036.

Abstract: This information is needed to determine if an accrediting agency complies with the Criteria for Recognition and should be recognized by the Secretary.

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 directed to her e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be 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 Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@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.

Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On November 14, 2002, AEI applied to the Office of Fossil Energy, of the Department of Energy (DOE) for authority to export electric energy from the United States to Canada. AEI was incorporated in New York in 1997 and operates as a power marketer and broker of electric power with its principal place of business in Buffalo, New York.

In FE Docket No. EA-272, AEI proposes to export electric energy to Canada and to arrange for the delivery of those exports to Canada over the international transmission facilities owned by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, International Transmission Co., Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Long Sault, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power, Inc., Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc., New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power Company and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. AEI will purchase the power to be exported from electric utilities and federal power marketing agencies as defined in the FPA.

The construction of each of the international transmission facilities to be utilized by AEI has previously been authorized by a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Comments on the AEI application to export electric energy to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-272. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Kevin H. Schoener, Executive Vice President/COO, 3556 Lake Shore Road, Suite 120, Buffalo, NY 14219.

A final decision will be made on this application after the environmental impact has been evaluated pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and a determination is made by the DOE that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system.

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Regulatory Programs,” then “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0334. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crstal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

The Exposure Modeling Workgroup meets on a roughly quarterly interval to discuss current issues in modeling pesticide fate, transport, and exposure to pesticides in support of risk assessments in a regulatory context.

You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

This unit provides tentative agenda topics for the 1-day meeting.

1. Welcome and introductions.

2. Old action items.

• EPA's pesticide root zone model/exposure analysis modeling system (PRZM/EXAMS) model.

• Spray drift task force progress.

• Rice modeling.

• European union activities.

• United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agricultural research service activities.

• Environmental fate data base.

• New meteorological files.

• Turf umbrella.

• WARP model.

•  EFED water quality priorities for FY 2003 - themes for 2003.

•  European Union activities: FOCUS ground water and surface water assessment methods, mitigation measures and processes for refining risk assessments.

•  Prospective ground water data base - data reporting and formatting issues.

•  USDA research service - efforts to address needs of regulators in their pesticide mitigation and modeling research, results of recent workshop.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2002-0072. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e- mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e- mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select“ search,” and then key in docket ID number-- OPPT-2002-0072. The system is an“ anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2002-0072 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2002-0072 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action and the specific PMN number you are commenting on in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from November 2, 2002, to November 19, 2002, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA, FFDCA, or FIFRA, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0325. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ .You may also obtain copies of test guidelines from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm .

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit II.A. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

EPA is announcing the availability of the revised final test guideline for Series 870-Health Effects Test Guidelines, OPPTS 870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity. An improved Up-and-Down Procedure (UDP) protocol for acute oral toxicity testing was developed, by a team of regulatory and industry scientists, that is better able to provide the types of testing data needed for U.S. agencies to make regulatory decisions. The revised protocol includes a primary test, a limit test, and determination of the confidence intervals for the LD50. A software program to assist laboratory users in the conduct of the test was also developed. The revised final test guideline was reviewed by EPA's SAP in a public meeting on December 12, 2001, which was announced in the Federal Register on November 15, 2001 (66 FR 57438) (FRL-6811-1), and recommendations of the SAP were incorporated into the test protocol. The ICCVAM reviewed the protocol at an open meeting on July 25, 2000, and again in a public teleconference meeting held on July 21, 2001, where changes recommended in the earlier meeting were reviewed and accepted. The improved UDP was adopted as test guideline 425 by OECD in December 2001. The UDP in this guideline is of value in reducing the number of animals required to determine the acute oral toxicity of a chemical. In addition to the estimation of LD50 and confidence intervals, the test allows the observation of signs of toxicity. Moreover, use of OECD guidance for humane endpoints should reduce the overall suffering of animals in this type of test. The Agency strongly recommends the use of the revised UDP to meet the testing requirements for industrial chemicals and registration of pesticides. Acute oral toxicity studies using the UDP which are initiated after December 17, 2002, should be in accordance with the UDP described in this guideline. Two other alternative guidelines are available through OECD (420 Acute Oral Toxicity-Fixed Dose Method and 423 Acute Oral Toxicity-Acute Toxic Class Method). These methods assess lethality within a dose range. The Agency is also making available revised final test guideline OPPTS 870.1000 Acute Toxicity Testing-Background to reflect revision of the OPPTS 870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity test guideline and acceptability of two other OECD alternative guidelines.

This notice of availability does not involve a proposed regulatory action that would require the Agency to consider voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Section 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide an explanation to Congress, through Office of Management and Budget (OMB), when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards when the NTTAA directs the Agency to do so.

On October 30, 1998, the Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (63 FR 58524) to amend its Pay-Per-Call Rule 16 CFR part 308. 1 The Rule, which implements Titles II and III of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act, 15 U.S.C. 5711 et seq. , requires the disclosure of cost and other information with regard to pay-per-call services and establishes dispute resolution procedures for telephone-billed purchases ( i.e. , charges for pay-per-call services or other charges appearing on a telephone bill other than telecommunications charges). As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Rule contains certain reporting and disclosure requirements that are subject to OMB review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. 2 Accordingly, the FTC submitted the Rule with proposed amendments to OMB ( see 64 FR 70031, Dec. 15, 1999) for its approval, which was granted until December 31, 2002 (OMB control number 3084-0102). Because that approval is expiring and the Commission has not yet adopted the proposed amendments in final form, the Commission is submitting the Rule with proposed amendments for approval again under the same control number through December 31, 2005.

As required by the PRA, the Commission's NPRM, 63 FR 58556-57, invited public comment on the Rule's information collection requirements and proposed amendments before their submission to OMB. Although the Commission received no comments directly responding to the Commission's specific PRA questions, the Commission received one comment, from U.S. West, stating that its current cost for making an annual disclosure of dispute resolution procedures under the Rule was $53,000 and that this annual cost would increase to $819,000 if the disclosures were required with every billing cycle under a proposed amendment to § 308.20(m)(1). This comment and others (available on the FTC's Web site, http://www.ftc.gov ) are being considered by the staff to determine whether to recommend that the Commission not adopt that proposed amendment so as to minimize the Rule's compliance burden.

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D) and 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)(B), the Commission publishes the following additional information, and invites any further public comment to OMB and the Commission, regarding the information collection requirements and proposed amendments being submitted again to OMB.

Title: Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Pay-Per-Call Services and Other Telephone-Billed Purchases (“Pay-Per-Call Rule”).

Summary of the collection of information: Reporting and disclosure requirements to implement Titles II and III of the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 1992, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 5711 et seq. , which requires the disclosure of cost and other information with regard to pay-per-call services and establishes dispute resolution procedures for telephone-billed purchases.

Brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information: The reporting and disclosure requirements are mandated by statute and are necessary to help prevent unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the advertising and operation of pay-per-call services and in the collection of charges for telephone-billed purchases. The information obtained by the Commission pursuant to the reporting requirement is used for law enforcement purposes. The disclosure requirements ensure that consumers are adequately informed of the costs they can expect to incur in using a pay-per-call service, that they will not be liable for unauthorized non-toll charges on their telephone bills, and that they have certain dispute resolution rights and obligations with respect to such telephone-billed purchases.

Likely respondents, including estimated number and proposed frequency of response: Respondents are common carriers (subject to the reporting requirement only, unless acting as a billing entity), information providers (vendors) offering one or more pay-per-call services or programs, and billing entities. The Commission, to obtain OMB approval of the Rule, had previously estimated that it would request information pursuant to the reporting requirement from no more than approximately 25 common carriers per year, and that the disclosure requirements would apply to 20,000 information vendors and 1400 billing entities. See 61 FR 43764, 43767-78 (Aug. 26, 1996). In October 1998, when the Commission issued its NPRM, and in December 1999, when the Commission first submitted its proposal to OMB for approval, the Commission increased its prior burden estimates by 12% to account for industry growth in information vendors and/or pay-per-call services since the prior estimates. See 63 FR 58556-57 (NPRM); 64 FR 70031 (submission to OMB). In submitting the Rule and proposed amendments for OMB approval again, the Commission is increasing the burden estimate this time by 5% to account for additional growth, if any, in the industry since the agency's December 1999 submission. 3

Estimated annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: The total estimated annual hours burden of the information collection requirements of the Rule, including the proposed amendments, is 5,386,983 (or 5,387,000 rounded). This burden consists entirely of reporting and disclosure requirements; as explained earlier (n. 2), there are no recordkeeping requirements. The burden hour estimate for each reporting or disclosure requirement has been multiplied by a special “blended” wage rate (expressed in dollars per hour), based on the particular skill mix needed to carry out that requirement, to determine the total annual cost of that requirement. The blended rate calculations are based on the following skill categories and average wage rates: $75/hour for professional (attorney) services; $20/hour for skilled clerical workers; $25/ hour for computer programmers; and $50/hour for management time. Annual burden hour estimates (and the estimated total cost of those hours) have been provided below.

The burden estimates do not contain a separate set of figures for other annual “cost” burdens, if any— i.e. , (a) capital and start-up costs or (b) operation, maintenance and purchase of outside services not already reflected in the above burden hour estimates and associated annual costs. Capital or start-up costs are generally subsumed in activities otherwise undertaken in the ordinary course of business ( e.g. , business records from which only existing information must be reported to the Commission, pay-per-call advertisements or audiotexts to which cost or other disclosures are added, etc.). To the extent that entities incur operating or maintenance expenses, or purchase outside services to satisfy the Rule's requirements, staff believe those expenses are also included in (or, if contracted out, would be comparable to) the burden hours and estimated annual burden estimates provided below (where such expenses are labor-related), or are otherwise included in the ordinary cost of doing business (where the expenses are other than labor-related).

Reporting requirement: This requirement is currently set forth in § 308.6 of the Rule, to be amended and redesignated § 308.19(a). The previous estimated hours burden for this reporting requirement ( i.e. , to provide certain information to the Commission upon request) was 140 hours annually (based on 25 common carriers each spending 5 hours annually plus a 12% increase), which is being increased by 5% to 147 hours annually, at an average revised wage rate of $75/hour (100 percent of each hour for attorney services) or a total annual cost of $11,025.

Disclosure requirements: (1) Advertising. The advertising disclosure requirements of the current Rule would be consolidated into §§ 308.3, 308.4 and 308.7 of the Rule, as amended. The current estimated annual burden on the industry is 129,360 hours. This figure reflects the Commission's original estimate of 20,000 vendors each making certain basic cost disclosures (one hour per disclosure) in three advertisements for pay-per-call services (60,000 burden hours total) plus one hour for an additional disclosure in each of the estimated 50 percent of ads that are directed to individuals under 18 (30,000 burden hours) and each of the estimated 30 percent of all pay-per-call ads relating to sweepstakes or information on federal programs (18,000 burden hours), or a total of 108,000 burden hours (rounded to 110,000), which was increased in the 1999 submission to OMB by 12% for industry growth to 123,200, and has been increased again in this submission by 5% to 129,360 hours. The total estimated annual cost of these burden hours is $5,821,200 using a blended wage rate of $45/hour (40 percent attorney services, 50 percent skilled clerical workers, and 10 percent for management time).

Two proposed amendments, §§ 308.4(a)(1)(iii)(B) and 308.6(b), 4 would add 31,752 annual burden hours to the total, or a total annual cost of $1,428,840 using the $45/hour blended wage rate discussed above. The first of these amendments, requiring disclosures when a call is billed on a variable time rate basis, assumes that 20 percent of the estimated 70,560 advertised pay-per-call services ( i.e. , after the 5 and 12 percent increases) would need to contain such a disclosure, thereby accounting for 14,112 burden hours, at an annual cost of $635,040. The burden associated with the second amendment, requiring an audio signal to indicate ( i.e. , disclose) the end of free time used to advertise certain pay-per-call services, is estimated at 17,640 burden hours, assuming this requirement applies to 25 percent of advertised pay-per-call services, or an annual cost of $793,800.

(2) Preamble. The Rule's existing preamble disclosure requirement, set forth in § 308.9, imposes an estimated burden of 10 hours annually, for an annual burden of 705,600 burden hours based on 70,560 advertised pay-per-call services. The cost associated with these burden hours is $31,752,000, using a blended wage rate of $45/hour ( i.e. , similar to the blended rate used for advertising disclosures). As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the estimated burden of a proposed amendment of the preamble disclosure requirement, § 308.4(a)(2)(iii)(B), is one additional hour for approximately 30 percent of the advertised pay-per-call services, or an estimated 21,168 hours, for a total annual cost of $952,560.

(3) Telephone-billed charges in billing statements. This requirement is currently set forth in § 308.5(j) of the Rule, which the Commission proposes to redesignate and incorporate into § 308.18, as amended. The blended rate used to calculate the cost of these disclosures was $51.50/hour (50 percent attorney services, 20 percent skilled technical workers, 20 percent computer programming, and 10 percent for management time). The estimated annual burden of this disclosure requirement was 28,224 hours ( i.e. , 10 percent of 20,000 vendors making spot checks at 12 hours per spot check, or 24,000 burden hours, plus 5 and 12 percent), so the annual cost would be $1,453,536. As explained in the notice of proposed rulemaking, no additional burden is anticipated from any amendments of this requirement.

(4) Dispute resolution procedures in billing statements. This disclosure requirement is currently set forth in § 308.7(c), to be redesignated § 308.20, as amended. The blended rate being used for these disclosures is $36/hour (40 percent computer programming, 20 percent attorney services, 30 percent skilled clerical workers, and 10 percent for management time). The estimated hour burden for the annual notice component of this requirement is 8,232 burden hours (based on 1,400 billing entities taking 5 hours to review, revise and provide disclosures annually, as explained in the NPRM, plus 5 and 12 percent), or a total cost of $296,352. An additional 2,940,000 burden hours would be associated with specific notices in those cases where a customer reports a billing error ( i.e. , 5 percent of an estimated 50 million calls plus 5 and 12 percent, requiring one hour per billing error), or $105,840,000 annually. The additional burden hours for proposed amendments to § 308.2(i) and (j), requiring new disclosures of certain information regarding personal identification numbers issued to customers for access and billing purposes, have been estimated at 52,500 hours ( i.e. , 5% over the 1999 estimate) or an annual cost of $1,890,000. The additional burden hours for proposed amendments to require certain new disclosures in connection with billing dispute resolution, § 308.18(n)(2) and § 308.18(n)(4), would entail 1,470,000 hours for an annual cost of $52,920,000.

Section 108 of the IHCIA, as amended by Pub. L. 100-713 and 102-573, authorizes the IHS LRP and provides in pertinent part as follows:

Section 4(n) of the IHCIA, as amended by the Indian Health Care Improvement Technical Corrections Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-313, provides that:

For the purposes of this program, the term “Indian health program” is defined in Section 108(a)(2)(A), as follows: * * * any health program or facility funded, in whole or in part, by the IHS for the benefit of Indians and administered:

a. Directly by the Service; (or)

b. By any Indian tribe or tribal or Indian organization pursuant to a contract under:

(1) The Indian Self-Determination Act: or

(2) Section 23 of the Act of April 30, 1908, (25 U.S.C. 47), popularly known as the Buy Indian Act; or

(3) By an urban Indian organization pursuant to Title V of this act.

Applicants may sign contractual agreements with the Secretary for 2 years. The IHS will repay all, or a portion of the applicant's health profession educational loans (undergraduate and graduate) for tuition expenses and reasonable educational and living expenses in amounts up to $20,000 per year for each year of contracted service. Payments will be made annually to the participant for the purpose of repaying his/her outstanding health profession educational loans. Payment of health profession education loans will be made to the participant within 120 days, from the date the contract becomes effective.

The Secretary must approve the contract before the disbursement of loan repayments can be made to the participant. Participants will be required to fulfill their contract service agreements through full-time clinical practice at an Indian health program site determined by the Secretary. Loan repayment sites are characterized by physical, cultural, and professional isolation, and have histories of frequent staff turnover. All Indian health program sites are annually prioritized with the Agency by discipline, based on need or vacancy.

All health professionals will receive up to $20,000 per year for the length of their contract. Where the amount of the LRP award may result in an increase in Federal income tax liability, the IHS will pay an additional 20 percent of the participant's total loan repayments to the Internal Revenue Service for the increased tax liability.

For FY 2003 new LRP applicants who are or will be stationed in an IHS Health care facility with a health professional vacancy rate of at least 40% for 6 consecutive months and has been deemed a health professional critical shortage site by the Director of IHS may receive up to $30,000 per year plus an additional 31 percent for Federal Withholding if funding is available. Current LRP participants at critical shortage sites will continue to receive up to $20,000 a year and a 20 percent tax subsidy rate until their current contracts have expired. However, LRP participants stationed at critical shortage sites who wish to extend their contracts will be eligible to receive up to the amount of $30,000 a year and a 31 percent tax subsidy for the additional contract period if funds are available and the funding will not exceed the total of the individual's outstanding eligible health profession educational loans.

Pursuant to section 108(b), to be eligible to participate in the LRP, an individual must:

(1) A. Be enrolled:

(i) In a course of study or program in an accredited institution, as determined by the Secretary, within any State and be scheduled to complete such course of study in the same year such individual applies to participate in such program; or

(ii) In an approved graduate training program in a health profession; or

B. Have a degree in a health profession and a license to practice; and

(2) A. Be eligible for, or hold an appointment as a Commissioned Officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public Health Service (PHS); or

B. Be eligible for selection for civilian service in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the (PHS); or

C. Meet the professional standards for civil service employment in the IHS; or

D. Be employed in an Indian health program without service obligation; and

(3) Submit to the Secretary an application for a contract to the Loan Repayment Program

All program must sign and submit to the Secretary, a written contract agreeing to accept repayment of educational loans and to serve for the applicable period of obligated service in a priority site as determined by the Secretary, and submit a signed affidavit attesting to the fact that they have been informed of the relative merits of the U.S. PHS Commissioned Corps and the Civil Service as employment options.

Once the applicant is approved for participation in the LRP, the applicant will receive confirmation of his/her loan repayment award and the duty site at which he/she will serve his/her loan repayment obligation.

The IHS has identified the positions in each Indian health program for which there is a need or vacancy and ranked those position in order of priority by developing discipline-specific prioritized lists of sites. Ranking criteria for these sites include the following:

• Historically critical shortages caused by frequent staff turnover;

• Current unmatched vacancies in a Health Profession Discipline;

• Projected vacancies in a Health Profession Discipline;

• Ensuring that the staffing needs of Indian health program administered by an Indian Tribe or Tribal or health organization receive consideration on an equal basis with programs that are administered directly by the Service; and

• Giving priority to vacancies in Indian health programs that have a need for health professionals to provide health care services as a result of individuals having breached LRP contracts entered into under this section.

• Consistent with this priority ranking, in determining applications to be approved and contracts to accept, the IHS will give priority to applications made by American Indians and Alaska Natives and to individuals recruited through the efforts of Indian Tribes or Tribal or Indian organizations.

• Funds appropriated for the LRP in FY 2003 will be distributed among the health profession as follows: allophathic/osteopathic practitioners will receive 27 percent, registered nurses 20 percent, mental health professionals 10 percent, dentists 12 percent, pharmacies 10 percent, optometrists 5 percent, physician assistants/advanced practice nurses 6 percent, podiatrists 4 percent, physical therapists 2 percent, other professions 4 percent. This requirement does not apply if the number of applicants from these groups, respectively, is not sufficient to meet the requirement.

Applicants whose applications were complete by September 30, 2000, and who want to complete in the FY 2003 award cycle, will receive a site score equal to either their FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, or the FY 2003 score, whichever is higher.

The following factors are equal in weight when applied, and are applied when all other criteria are equal and a selection must be made between applicants.

One or all of the following factors may be applicable to an applicant, and the applicant who has the most of these factors, all other criteria being equal, would be selected.

• An applicant's length of current employment in the IHS, Tribal, or urban program.

• Availability for service earlier than other applicants (first come, first served).

• Date the individual's application was received.

Any individual who enters this program and satisfactorily completes his or her obligated period of service may apply to extend his/her contract on a year-by-year basis, as determined by the IHS. Participants extending their contracts will receive up to the maximum amount of $20,000 per year plus an additional 20 percent for Federal Withholding. Participants who were awarded loan repayment contracts prior to FY 2000 will be awarded extensions up to the amount of $30,000 a year and 31 percent in tax subsidy if funds are available, and will not exceed the total of the individual's outstanding eligible health profession educational loans.

Any individual who owes an obligation for health professional service to the Federal Government, a State, or other entity is not eligible for the LRP unless the obligation will be completely satisfied before they begin service under this program.

The IHS Area Offices and Services Units are authorized to provide additional funding to make awards to applicants in the LRP, but must be in compliance with any limits in the appropriation and Section 108 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act not to exceed the amount authorized in the IHS appropriation (up to $22,000,000 for FY 2003.)

Should an IHS Area Office contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Area. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, the Albuquerque Area Office identifies supplemental monies for dentists. Only the dental positions within the Albuquerque Area will be funded with the supplemental monies consistent with the national ranking and site index within that Area.

Should an IHS Service Unit contribute to the LRP, those funds will be used for only those sites located in that Service Unit. Those sites will retain their relative ranking from the national site-ranking list. For example, Chinle Service Unit identifies supplemental monies for pharmacies. The Chinle Service Unit consists of two facilities, namely the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility and the Tsaile PHS Indian Health Center. The national ranking will be used for the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility (Score =44) and the Tsaile PHS Indian Health Center (Score =46). With a score of 46, the Tsaile PHS Indian Center would receive priority over the Chinle Comprehensive Health Care Facility.

This program is not subject to review under Executive Order 12372.

The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative is administered by the Office of Economic Development under the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. The Office of Economic Development administers HUD's ongoing grant programs to assist local governments, nonprofit organizations and the private sector in economic development efforts.

The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) was enacted in section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. Eligible applicants include units of general local government eligible for assistance under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, as well as urban counties that are eligible under the CDBG program. Each unit of general local government or CDBG-eligible urban county must use its BEDI award to enhance the security of a loan guaranteed by HUD under section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, for the same project, or to improve the viability of a project financed with the section 108-guaranteed loan. The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative provides each grantee up to $2,000,000 for the redevelopment of abandoned, idled or underutilized industrial or commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.246.

On March 26, 2002 (67 FR 14135) HUD published a Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA) announcing the availability of $29,008,155 in FY 2002 funds for the Browonfields Economic Development Initiative. The Department reviewed, evaluated and scored the applications received based on the criteria in the SuperNOFA. As a result, HUD has funded the applications announced below, and in accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing details concerning the recipients of funding awards, as set forth below.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

Applicant: The Boy Scouts of America Capitol Area Council #564 plans to develop and operate a high adventure Boy Scout Camp on the 4,848-acre Griffith League Ranch, Bastrop County, Texas. This action would eliminate up to approximately 498 acres of habitat and moderately impact up to 416 acres of Houston toad habitat resulting in take of the Houston toad. The Applicant proposes to compensate for this incidental take of the Houston toad by setting aside and managing under a long-term conservation easement up to 748 acres of the Griffith League Ranch for the benefit of the toad depending on the actual acres impacted. The Boy Scouts expect that balance of the Houston toad habitat on the Griffith League Ranch will have little or no impact from activities such as day hiking, backpacking, orienteering and nature studies. The Boy Scouts of America Capitol Area Council #564 believe they could use their resources to manage the Griffith League Ranch in such a manner as to avoid impacts and protect the toad as much as possible while carrying out their primary mission. They will also incorporate information regarding the conservation of the Houston toad into the educational program at Griffith League Ranch and facilitate scientific studies aimed at increasing the available information about the toad by making the Griffith League Ranch available for such studies.

Alternatives to this action were rejected because not developing the subject property with federally listed species present was not economically feasible, would not provide a valuable social service, and would not contribute to positive management and increased knowledge of the Houston toad. Alteration of the project design increased the level of impacts and was rejected.

A determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy to the species and a decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

Exeter LXI, L.L.C. plans to construct a residential development on 103-acres of the 515-acre Skyranch property. This action will eliminate 103 acres or less of cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat. The Service and the Applicant have prepared a draft EA/HCP that outlines the measures necessary to minimize and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable the incidental take of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The Applicant proposes to compensate for the incidental take of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl by preserving 413 acres of the 515-acre Skyranch property as a Reserve, which will be buffered from development by development setbacks.

A determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy to the species and a decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in New Mexico. At this meeting, we will have briefings/discussion on:

• Report from the RAC Chairs' and Collaborative Land Use Planning Meetings.

• What is the RAC's role.

• Where can the RAC's influence be most effective over the next 1-2 years.

• Future planning and problem solving.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. New Mexico RAC meetings are coordinated with the representative of the Governor of the State of New Mexico, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

the 13-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Alaska. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include:

• The Resource Advisory Council's 2003 work plan.

• Outdated withdrawals on federal public lands in Alaska.

• Status of planning in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPR-A).

• Other topics the Council may rise.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allotted for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact BLM.

This patent-based section 337 investigation is before the Commission for a determination of whether to review, in whole or in part, the final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), in which he found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

The Commission voted to institute this investigation on July 19, 2001, based upon a complaint filed on June 25, 2001, by Rapistan Systems Advertising Corp. and Siemens Dematic Corp., both of Grand Rapids, Michigan. 66 FR 38741 (July 25, 2001). Named as respondents were Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV of the Netherlands, and Vanderlande Industries of Atlanta, Georgia (collectively referred to as “Vanderlande”). Vanderlande Industries Nederland BV of the Netherlands designs and manufactures the accused sortation systems, and Vanderlande Industries of Atlanta imports, sells, and installs the accused sortation systems.

Complainants alleged that respondents had violated section 337 by importing into the United States, selling for importation, and selling within the United States after importation certain sortation systems, or components thereof, covered by independent claims 1, 13, 23, 30, and 42 and dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 27, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of U.S. Patent No. 5,127, 510 (“the ‘510 patent”), owned by Rapistan Systems and exclusively licensed to Siemens Dematic. On April 5, 2002, complainants filed an unopposed motion asking for the termination of the investigation with respect to claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 18, 24, 36, 37, 29, 46, 47, and 49. On May 16, 2002, the ALJ granted the motion in an ID (Order No. 32) and the Commission determined not to review that ID. The claims of the ‘510 patent at issue are therefore claims 1, 4, 13, 17, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 42, 43, and 45. The complaint further alleged that an industry in the United States exists, as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.

An evidentiary hearing was held on June 4-17, 2002. On October 22, 2002, the ALJ issued his final ID, in which he determined that respondents’ sortation systems, and parts thereof, infringe claims 1 and 4 of the ‘510 patent, and that the ‘510 patent is valid and enforceable. Based upon these findings, he found a violation of section 337.

The ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order barring importation of the accused Mark 2 Posisorter and its parts and components. He recommended excluding spare parts destined for UPS’s Hub 2000 facility in Louisville, Kentucky from the scope of the limited exclusion order. He also recommended a bond during the Presidential review period in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the infringing products.

On November 4, 2002, Vanderlande and the IA petitioned for review of the ALJ's final ID, and Rapistan submitted a contingent petition for review asking that the Commission review certain issues if it decided to review the ID. On November 12, 2002, Vanderlande, Rapistan, and the IA filed reply submissions.

Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the parties' written submissions, the Commission has determined to review the ID on the following issues: (1) The ID's construction of the element “contiguous, generally planar surfaces sloping downward from an upper extent of said diverting surface laterally inward and longitudinally forward or rearward” in independent claim 30, and dependent claims 33, and 35, and the infringement findings related to this claim element; and (2) the ID's findings regarding the elements of equitable estoppel.

In connection with final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result in Vanderlande being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or are likely to do so. For background information, see the Commission Opinion, Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Publication 2843 (Dec. 1994).

If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) The public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under a bond, in an amount to be determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed.

Written Submissions: The parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the violation issues under review, and on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding and the ALJ's conclusions concerning the two violation issues. Complainant and the IA are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on December 23, 2002. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on December 30, 2002. No further submissions will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.

Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the Secretary the original and 14 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment is granted by the Commission will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.

This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and sections 210.42, 210.43, 210.45, and 210.50 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.42, 210.43, 210.45, and 210.50.

Title XII section 1201 of the SSA provides for advances to States from the FUA. The law further sets out specific requirements to be met by a State requesting an advance:

• The Governor must apply for the advance;

• The application must cover a 3 month period and the Secretary of Labor must be furnished with estimates of the amounts needed in each month of the 3 month period;

• An application for an advance shall be made on such forms and shall contain such information and data (fiscal and otherwise) concerning the operation and administration of the State unemployment compensation law as the Secretary of Labor deems necessary or relevant to the performance of his duties under this title;

• The amount required by any State for the payment of compensation in any month shall be determined with due allowance for contingencies and taking into account all other amounts that will be available in the State's unemployment fund for the payment of compensation in such month;

• The term “compensation” means cash benefits payable to individuals with respect to their unemployment exclusive of expenses of administration.

Section 1202(a) of the SSA provides that the Governor of any State may at any time request that funds be transferred from the account of such State to the FUA in repayment of part or all of the balance of advances made to such State under section 1201. These applications and repayments may be requested by an individual designated for that authority in writing by the Governor. The DOL proposes to extend this procedure through January 2006.

The DOL is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed extension of the current procedure is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed extension of the current procedure, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the procedure; and

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

This action is requested to maintain the continuity of current procedures which have succeeded in the orderly application and repayment operations at both the State and Federal levels. This is not a data collection process.

Agency: Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor.

Title: Governor's requests for advances from the Federal unemployment account or requests for voluntary repayment of such advances.

OMB Number: 1205-0199.

Affected Public: State governments.

Total Respondents: 50 States, Washington, DC, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico are covered by this process. The DOL estimates eight States will request advances and make voluntary repayments over the next 3 years. The DOL estimates that there will be 10 annual actions for each State.

Frequency: As needed, based on a State's discretion.

Total Responses: 240.

Average Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 240.

Estimated Total Burden Cost: There are no startup or capital costs. The operating and maintenance costs for the States will be 240 hours × $25 per hour = $6,000. The operating and maintenance costs for the Federal government will be 240 responses × 3 hours per response × $60 per hour = $43,200.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees who lack a high school diploma or whose reading level or basic skills are at or below the eighth grade level, may be required by their employers to attend up to 10 hours per week of remedial education. Employees who are subject to the overtime provisions of the FLSA ordinarily must be paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek. The additional hours devoted to such remedial education would not have to be compensated at the same time and one-half overtime rate; however, employees must receive compensation at their regular rate of pay for time spent receiving such remedial education. Employers wishing to utilize the partial overtime exemption for such employees must record the hours of employees spent in remedial education. This information collection is currently approved for use through June 30, 2003.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

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

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

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

The Department seeks the extension of approval to collect this information in order to review and determine employer compliance with the applicable section of the FLSA.

This information collection is for recordkeeping only. There is no change in the information collection request since the last OMB approval.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: The Remedial Education Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

OMB Number: 1215-0175.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Total Recordkeepers: 15,000.

Frequency: Once per week for 10 weeks.

Average Time per Record: 1 minute per week for 10 weeks (10 min. per employee).

Total Burden Hours: 15,000.

Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

The Postal Service has revised its Privacy Act systems of records that relate to its customers. The systems of records have been issued in order to clearly communicate the Postal Service's data collection and management practices to all its customers.

The existing customer-related systems have been combined and recategorized into 16 new systems. The new systems have been updated in order to improve usability for customers, ensure inclusion of individuals who use business-oriented products and services, and revise and clarify routine uses of information for customer-related systems.

The new systems of records will enhance privacy protection by extending protections to business customers, expanding programs covered, incorporating privacy policies, refining disclosures of information, and establishing systems that are clearer and easier to use and understand.

The new systems of records are not expected to have any adverse effect on privacy rights.

Following are:

This notice includes Sections A-H relating to systems of records under the Privacy Act.

Section B is a complete index of Postal Service systems of records that incorporates all of the changes published in this notice. Section B is divided into two parts:

Part 1 includes all general systems, such as personnel systems, litigation systems, and other noncustomer systems.

Part 2 includes all systems that contain records relating to Postal Service customers.

Section C contains an overview of the Privacy Act, its protections, and a description of authorized disclosures.

Section D contains the routine uses that apply to all general systems of records.

Section E contains the routine uses that apply to all customer systems of records.

Section F is a listing of the 22 deleted systems of records with specific references for each deleted system to the new system containing the relevant records.

Section G is the advance notice of the 16 new systems of records, with a listing and brief description of each system.

Section H contains the complete text of the 16 new systems of records.

The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, applies to Federal agencies, including the Postal Service. The Privacy Act provides protections for personal information that an agency maintains in a system of records. A system of records describes a file, database, or program from which information is retrieved about an individual by name or other personal identifier.

The Privacy Act establishes recordkeeping, access, and nondisclosure requirements for information maintained in a system of records. The Privacy Act requires agencies to publish a description of each system of records to provide full information on how personal information within the system is treated. This includes how information is collected, used, disclosed, stored, and disposed of. It also includes how individuals can obtain access to, correct, and amend, information relating to themselves that is stored in the system.

The Privacy Act places limitations and requirements on how information from within a system can be disclosed, as described below. Sections D and E contain the complete description of routine uses that apply to the Postal Service systems of records.

Under the Privacy Act, information can only be disclosed from a system, internally or externally, under one of two conditions.

1. The individual has authorized the disclosure in writing.

2. The disclosure fits within one of 12 specified categories.

The following is a description of disclosures, including those authorized by the Privacy Act, Postal Service routine uses, and regulations.

The Privacy Act authorizes disclosures in the following 12 circumstances. To see the official text of the Privacy Act, see 5 U.S.C. 552a(b).

Under the Privacy Act, disclosures are authorized:

1. To agency employees who need the information to perform their job.

2. As required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

3. For routine uses for which the agency has provided proper notice.

4. To the Bureau of the Census for purposes related to census and survey activities.

5. To a recipient who provides advance written assurance that the information will only be used for statistical research or reporting, and the information provided does not identify individuals.

6. To the National Archives and Records Administration for historic preservation purposes.

7. To other domestic government agencies for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law. In such cases, the agency head must specify in writing both the law enforcement activity and the particular information needed.

8. To a person upon a showing of compelling circumstances affecting an individual's health or safety. The agency must send notice of the disclosure to the individual's last known address.

9. To Congress, or to any of its committees or subcommittees, to the extent the matter is within their jurisdiction.

10. To the Comptroller General in the performance of duties of the General Accounting Office.

11. Pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.

12. To a consumer reporting agency in order to collect claims owed to the Government.

The Privacy Act allows agencies to disclose information from a system of records if they establish a routine use describing the disclosure (see 3 above). Under the Privacy Act, routine uses are defined as disclosures that are compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected—in other words, disclosures that are appropriate and necessary for the efficient conduct of government business. Routine uses for each system of records are established by publishing them in a Federal Register notice that describes the system. They must also be disclosed in a notice given to an individual when information is collected directly from the individual. Routine uses that apply to general and customer systems of records are contained in Sections D and E, respectively.

The Privacy Act also allows disclosures required by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Postal Service regulations implementing the Privacy Act and FOIA are contained in 39 CFR parts 261-268. Postal Service regulations describe treatment for particular FOIA and other requests, and describe exemptions permitting nondisclosure for certain personal and business information as allowed by FOIA.

Section D includes routine uses for general systems of records. General systems include systems relating to employees, Finance, Postal Inspection Service, litigation, and other systems that are not primarily related to Postal Service customers.

The following are routine uses for general systems of records. ( Note: The letter “i” was not used.) Each system notice indicates which standard routine uses are incorporated, as well as any specific routine uses that apply.

a. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. When the Postal Service becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, or in response to the appropriate agency's request on a reasonable belief that a violation has occurred, the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

b. Disclosure Incident to Litigation. Records from this system may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice or the other counsel representing the Postal Service, or may be disclosed in a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body before which the Postal Service is authorized to appear, when (a) the Postal Service; or (b) any Postal Service employee in his or her official capacity; or (c) any Postal Service employee in his or her individual capacity whom the Department of Justice has agreed to represent; or (d) the United States when it is determined that the Postal Service is likely to be affected by the litigation, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and such records are determined by the Postal Service or its counsel to be plausibly relevant to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the Postal Service determines that disclosure of the records is a use of the information that is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected. This routine use specifically contemplates that information may be released in response to relevant discovery and that any manner of response allowed by the rules of the forum may be employed.

c. Disclosure Incident to Requesting Information. Records may be disclosed to a Federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement or other pertinent information, such as licenses, when necessary to obtain information from such agency that is relevant to a Postal Service decision about the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, permit, or other benefit.

d. Disclosure to Requesting Agency. Records may be disclosed to a Federal, state, local, or foreign agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the conduct of a security or suitability investigation of an individual, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance or a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

e. Congressional Inquiries. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the prompting of that individual.

f. Disclosure to Agents and Contractors. Records or information from this system may be disclosed to an expert, consultant, or other individual who is under contract to the Postal Service to fulfill an agency function, but only to the extent necessary to fulfill that function. This may include disclosure to any individual with whom the Postal Service contracts to reproduce by typing, photocopy, or other means, any record for use by Postal Service officials in connection with their official duties or to any individual who performs clerical or stenographic functions relating to the official business of the Postal Service.

g. Storage. Inactive records may be transferred to a Federal records center for Storage prior to destruction.

h. Disclosure to Office of Management and Budget. Records from this system may be disclosed to the Office of Management and Budget in connection with the review of private relief legislation as set forth in OMB Circular No. A-19 at any stage of the legislative coordination and clearance process as set forth in that circular.

j. Disclosure to Outside Auditors. Records in this system may be subject to review by an independent certified public accountant during an official audit of Postal Service finances.

k. Disclosure to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Records from this system may be disclosed to an authorized investigator, administrative judge, or complaints examiner appointed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, when requested in connection with the investigation of formal complaint of discrimination filed against the U.S. Postal Service under 29 CFR Part 1614.

l. Disclosure to Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of the Special Counsel. Records from this system may be disclosed to the Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of the Special Counsel for the purpose of litigation, including administrative proceedings, appeals, special studies, investigations of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices, and such other functions as may be authorized by law.

m. Disclosure to Labor Organizations. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, records from this system may be furnished to a labor organization when needed by that organization to properly perform its duties as the collective bargaining representative of Postal Service employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.

Section E includes routine uses for systems of records containing information relating to Postal Service customers.

The following standard routine uses apply to Postal Service systems of records for customer information. The routine uses fall into three categories: (1) Disclosures that are legally required (such as in a legal proceeding); (2) disclosures that facilitate the customer transaction (such as sharing data with contractors assisting in the program); and (3) disclosures for the benefit of the customer (such as sharing with a congressional office at a customer's behest). A system may have an additional routine use or uses on occasion. Those routine uses will be disclosed in each system notice.

1. Disclosure for Law Enforcement Purposes. Relevant records may be disclosed to appropriate law enforcement agencies to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding suspected illegal activities against the Postal Service. Records may be disclosed to other law enforcement agencies as required by law.

2. Disclosure Incident to Legal Proceedings. When the Postal Service has an interest in litigation or other legal proceedings before a state, Federal, local, administrative, or foreign adjudicative body, relevant records may be disclosed before that adjudicative body and/or to the Department of Justice or other legal counsel representing the Postal Service or its employees, and in response to relevant discovery.

3. Disclosure to Government Agencies. Relevant records may be disclosed to a Federal, state, local or foreign government agency when necessary in connection with decisions by the requesting agency, or by the Postal Service, regarding personnel matters, issuance of security clearances, letting of contracts, or decisions to issue licenses, grants, or other benefits.

4. Congressional Inquiries. Relevant records about an individual may be disclosed to a congressional office in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the prompting of that individual.

5. Disclosure to Agents, Contractors, and Partners. Relevant records may be disclosed to entities under contract or agreement with the Postal Service, when necessary to fulfill a Postal Service function or to provide Postal Service products and services to customers.

6. Disclosure to Agencies and Entities for Financial Transactions. Relevant records may be disclosed to credit bureaus, government agencies, and service providers that perform identity verification and credit risk assessment services; to financial institutions or payees to facilitate or resolve issues with payment services; or to collection agencies for the purposes of debt collection.

7. Disclosure to Auditors. Relevant records may be disclosed to government agencies and other entities authorized to audit the Postal Service and Postal Service activities, including financial and other audits of the Postal Service.

8. Disclosure for Customer Service Purposes. Relevant records may be disclosed to entities if the disclosure is part of the service to the customer. This includes disclosures to addressees of mail to process inquiries and claims; entities to which the customer wants to provide identity verification; the State Department for passport processing; international posts or agents to process international services or inquiries; or disclosures to mailers of sexually oriented advertisements of a list of individuals who do not want to receive them.

9. Disclosure to Labor Organizations. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act, records may be furnished to a labor organization when needed by that organization to perform properly its duties as the collective bargaining representative of Postal Service employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.

The following systems have been deleted. The records from the deleted systems are contained in the 16 new systems of records as follows:

010.010 Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services Records is incorporated into 500.000 Address Change, Mail Forwarding, and Related Services.

400.010 USPS eServices Registration System Records is incorporated into 510.100 usps.com Registration Services.

040.050 Customer Electronic Document Preparation and Delivery Records is incorporated into 510.200 www.usps.com Ordering, Payment and Fulfillment Services.

220.030 Postal Products Sales and Distribution is incorporated into 510.300 Offline Registrations, Payment, and Fulfillment.

010.050 Delivery of Mail Through Agents, 010.060 Free Matter for Blind and Visually Handicapped Persons, 010.070 Mailbox Irregularities, and 040.020 Sexually Oriented Advertisements are incorporated into 540.000 Customer Delivery Instructions.

040.030 Auction Customer Address File is incorporated into 550.000 Auction Files.

040.060 Customer Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment Records; 050.050 International Money Transfer Transaction and Inquiry Records; 050.070 Funds Transaction/Transfer Reports; and 050.080 Suspicious Transaction Reports are incorporated into 560.000 Financial Transactions.

220.020 Express Mail Service Customer Mailing List is incorporated into 570.100 Trust Funds and Transaction Records

140.020 Postage—Postage Evidencing System Records is incorporated into 570.200 Meter Postage and PC Postage Customer Data and Transaction Records.

010.020 Boxholder Records, 090.020 Passport Application Records, 160.010 Domestic Insured, Registered, Collect on Delivery (COD), and Express Mail Claim and Inquiry Records, and 160.020 International Ordinary, Insured, Registered, and Express Mail Inquiry and Application for Indemnity Records are incorporated into 580.000 Post Office and Retail Services.

220.010 Marketing Database—Customer Records and 040.010 Memo to Mailers Address File are incorporated into 590.000 Sales, Marketing, Events, and Publications.

010.090 Customer Public Key Certificate Records is incorporated into 610.000 Identity and Document Verification Services.

Reports of new systems of records, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a (o), have been submitted to OMB and Congress pursuant to paragraph 4b of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals.”

The following 16 new systems contain records relating to Postal Service customers:

This system includes records relating to change of address, mail forwarding, and related services performed online or offline.

This system includes records relating to customers who register on http://www.usps.com.

Customers are required to provide information when ordering products or services on http://www.usps.com . This system includes records relating to the ordering, payment, and fulfillment for these products and services. Products and services include stamps, Postal Service products, shipping supplies, and shipping services, such as obtaining delivery status information, receipts, and labels.

This system includes records relating to customers who register, and/or order products or services by offline means. This system includes records related to the following activities: stamps and products by mail, catalog, phone, or fax; customer loyalty programs; package service pick-up; and shipping supplies ordering and fulfillment offline.

This system includes records relating to customers who wish to use mail management and tracking products and services. This includes records relating to applications and approvals for programs including the following: CONFIRM, PostalOne!, presort accuracy systems, drop ship appointments, ePubWatch, and registration for Confirmation Services and Special Services.

This system includes records relating to customers who use mail management and tracking services. This includes records related to orders for redelivery and hold mail services; schedule drop ship appointments; receive feedback on mailing efficiency; track their mailings; order mail transportation equipment; and receive electronic transmissions of mail scan information. Programs covered include: PostalOne!, CONFIRM, ePubWatch, drop ship appointments, Delivery Unit Notification, Confirmation Services, and Special Services for which the customer has registered.

This system includes records related to customer service interactions. The system includes records related to customer service support provided by or for the following: Business Service Networks, Nonprofit Mailing Support; mail management and tracking products and services; Delivery Confirmation service and Special Services; and other telephone, e-mail and correspondence-based customer service interactions.

This system includes records relating to special delivery requirements. The system includes delivery instructions for the following customers: Customers who receive mail delivery through agents; customers who are visually disabled and receive free mail matter; customers with noncompliant mailboxes; and customers who request that certain types of mail not be delivered.

This system includes records relating to individuals who request information about or participate in auctions of surplus and/or undeliverable items. This system includes records relating to online and offline auctions, performed directly by the Postal Service or by third parties.

This system includes records relating to financial transactions. Financial transactions include funds transfers and online payment services, claims and inquiries related to online payment services, funds transfers, money orders, and stored-value cards. The records include documentation of certain transactions required by anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

This system includes records collected from customers who open, maintain, and use trust fund payment accounts. This system includes records relating to Permit, CAPS, PostalOne!, and Express Mail Corporate Accounts.

This system includes records relating to meter and PC Postage registration, usage, and payment.

This system includes records relating to retail transactions conducted at Post Offices and other locations. This includes records relating to the following: Passport applications and payment; Post Office box and caller services; and the use of self-service equipment. The system also contains records relating to special mail services including: Domestic Insured Mail or Registered Mail; collect on delivery (COD); insured, registered, and recorded international mail; domestic and international Express Mail; and inquiries and claims related to special mail services. ( Note: Financial services, such as funds transfers, are covered by the system of records for Financial Transactions.)

This system includes records relating to customer interactions with sales personnel, responses to marketing messages, orders for Postal Service publications, and attendance at events. This system includes records relating to the following activities: Sales; marketing (including business reply cards, e-mail campaigns, and telephone-based marketing interactions); subscriptions to Postal Service publications such as “Memo to Mailers”; customer contests and surveys; and Postal Service events such as the National Postal Forum (NPF) and meetings of Postal Customer Councils (PCCs) and the Mailers Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC).

This system includes records relating to international transactions and services, including compliance with domestic and foreign customs requirements. This includes records relating to Customs Pre-Advisory System (CPAS), International Customized Mail Agreements, and international tray label tracking.

This system contains records related to Postal Service identity and document verification and authentication services. The services provide verification and authentication services, enhanced mail security, and enhanced customer service. Programs in the system include authentication services (such as verifying identities at Postal Service facilities), public key certificates, and electronic postmarks.

This part contains the complete text of the Postal Service's customer-related Privacy Act systems of records.