In July and August 2002, the Easy Fire burned approximately 5,839 acres on the Malheur National Forest. The decision area for the Easy Fire Recovery Project is located in the Upper Middle Fork John Day River watershed and the Upper John Day River Watershed. The project area is entirely within National Forest System lands.

Purpose and Need for Action. The purposes and need for actions “here” within the Easy Fire Recovery Project area and “now” are:

• Capture the economic value of the dead and dying trees that are in excess to other resource needs;

• Reduce the fuels levels of dead standing and down;

• Improve resiliency of forest vegetation to insect and disease outbreaks, and restore ecologically appropriate forest structure in the surviving stands;

• Replant and restore forest vegetation for the benefit of wildlife, fish, and timber products;

• Replace Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth areas that burned and are not longer suitable;

• Reduce road and skid trail impacts to meet Forest Plan standards for wildlife, fisheries, and water quality; and

• Provide safe access for administrative, recreational, and fire recovery activities.

Proposed Action. The following actions are proposed to respond to the purpose and need for action: approximately 3,200 acres, in areas of moderate and high burned severity, would be salvaged (including dead, dying, and green trees) and replanted; approximately 400 acres of lower severity burned forest would be salvaged and replanted to improve stand resiliency to insects and disease outbreak; approximately 160 acres of fire-killed or damaged post and pole-sized stands will be salvaged; designate new Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth areas to replace areas now unsuitable due to fire damage; and hazard trees would be removed along system roads. About 50 percent of the proposed timber salvage units would be harvested using ground-based logging systems, 10 percent would be harvested using skyline logging systems, and 40 percent would be harvested by helicopter. No new system road construction is proposed for the salvage harvest. Construction of approximately 0.6 miles of temporary roads and approximately 69 miles of road maintenance would be required for timber salvage. The temporary roads would be decommissioned after project activities. Connected actions in association with salvage include water barring and erosion control measures such as scattering of slash on skid trails and treatment of slash.

Approximately 3,760 acres would be planted following salvage and site preparation. Snag retention levels would meet Forest Plan standards. Fuels would be reduced to within the range of historic variability throughout the project area. A variety of fuel treatment methods would be used (salvage, burning in place, piling and burning, and whole-tree yarding). Selection of new Dedicated and Replacement Old Growth areas would require a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan.

Alternatives. A full range of alternatives will be considered, including a “no-action” alternative in which none of the activities proposed above would be implemented. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives would differ in: the silvicultural and post-harvest treatments prescribed; the amount and location of harvest; or the amount and location of fuels reduction activity. Other management activities which will be used to develop other alternatives may include: avoid salvage harvest on the steeper slopes above Clear Creek and Easy Creek to reduce sediment delivery to these streams (which are habitat or tributary to habitat for threatened fish species); consider various regeneration strategies ( i.e. low stocking levels); and consider current science on snag and coarse woody debris dependent species habitat (this could result in site-specific Forest Plan amendment to update standards and guidelines).

Scoping. The scoping process will include: identifying potential issues, identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth, eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by a relevant environmental analysis, and identifying potential environmental effects of this proposed action and alternatives ( i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions). The public will have the opportunity to participate at several points during the analysis process. The public will be kept informed of the EIS process through the quarterly publication of the “Malheur National Forest's Schedule of Proposed Actions” and letters to agencies, organizations, and individuals who have previously indicated their interest in similar activities.

Issues. Preliminary issues include effects of proposed actions on: Water quality and fish habitat for resident and anadromous threatened species; snags and downed wood habitat; noxious weeds; late and old growth structure; Armillaria root rot; restoration of historic vegetation composition, structure, and pattern; potential loss of commercial timber value; and economic viability of timber salvage.

Comments. Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in properly scoping issues, determining how to best manage the resources, and fully analyzing environmental effects. Comments received to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 214 and 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and made available for public review by July 2003. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The final EIS is scheduled to be available in October 2003. Implementation is expected to occur in 2004.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

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

The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest. The Responsible Official will decide which, if any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. The Responsible Official may also decide on site-specific Forest Plan amendments regarding standards and guidelines for snag and coarse woody debris, as well as big game habitat, if warranted by the analysis of those components in light of recent science. The Responsible Official will document the Easy Fire Recovery Project decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

In July and August of 2002, the Monument Fire burned approximately 24,525 acres, of which 20,186 occur on the Malheur National Forest. The remainder of the fire includes approximately 3,711 acres of land administered by the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, and 628 acres of private land. The 8,600-acre decision area for the Monument Fire Recovery Projects includes those portions of the Monument Fire that occurred within the Little Malheur and North Fork Malheur Watersheds on the Malheur National Forest.

Proposed Action. Approximately 4,800 acres of timber harvest is proposed: 3,500 acres of salvage only, 700 acres of salvage plus removal/thinning of some live trees to improve stand resiliency, and 600 acres of salvage in Riparian Conservation Habitat Areas (RHCAs) primarily to reduce standing fuel. Salvage harvest would include removal of trees killed or having high probability of dying as a result of the fire. These areas would be harvested using ground-based and helicopter logging techniques. Approximately 87 percent of the harvest area would be salvaged by helicopter. Following site preparation, approximately 4,200 acres would be planted with conifer seedlings. Due to snag density deficiencies, a Forest Plan amendment may be necessary for the implementation of the salvage proposals. The site-specific snag densities, based on local landscape and ecological conditions, may fall below the levels identified in the Forest Plan. In the fire area, appropriate stands (acres) will be designated to replace Dedicated Old Growth burned or no longer in suitable old-growth condition. Road activities associated with salvage and restoration include: approximately 0.4 miles of temporary road construction; approximately 17.3 miles of road decommissioning; 2.2 miles of skid trail restoration; and 7.0 miles of gated closures. The Little Malheur trailhead would be relocated approximately 2 miles below its present location.

Purpose and Need Action. The identified reasons why we propose and need this action now are: reduce levels of dead standing and down fuels that contribute to high severity fires within the natural return cycle for low-intensity/frequent-fire regime areas; capture the economic value of those trees that are surplus to other resource needs; improve timber stand resiliency to insects, disease, wildfire, and other disturbances; restore ecologically structural and compositional characteristics of upland vegetation; replace Dedicated Old Growth and Replacement Old Growth areas that burned and are no longer in suitable old-growth condition; re-vegetate fire-damaged riparian areas that have lost shade, bank stability, and the ability to filter overland erosion; and minimize the effects of runoff and precipitation that become concentrated flow when intercepted by road surfaces.

Possible Alternatives. A full reasonable range of alternatives will be considered, including a “no-action” alternative in which none of the activities proposed above would be implemented. Based on the preliminary issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives could differ in: (1) The silvicultural and post-harvest treatments prescribed, (2) the amount and location of harvest, and (3) the amount and location of fuels reduction activity. Other alternatives to the proposed action could include: An alternative which does not require the construction of additional temporary roads and does not consider salvage removal from RHCAs; an alternative which emphasizes removal of dead timber in the size classes most likely to re-burn; and an alternative which considers various regeneration strategies, such as planting at relatively low stocking levels. Alternative development will be based, in part, on currently available science on snag and coarse woody debris-dependent species habitat. This could result in a proposal of a site-specific Forest Plan amendment to update standards and guidelines for these species.

Scoping Process. The scoping process will include: Identifying potential issues, identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth, eliminating non-significant issues or those previously covered by a relevant environmental analysis, considering additional alternatives based on themes which will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities, and identifying potential environmental effects of this proposed action and alternatives ( i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions). Public participation will be sought at several points during the analysis process. The public will be kept informed of the EIS process through the quarterly publication of the “Malheur National Forest's Schedule of Proposed Actions” and letters to agencies, organizations, and individuals who have previously indicated their interest in such activities.

Issues. Preliminary issues identified include: Maintenance of soil and water quality; retention of snags; connectivity of wildlife habitat and big game cover; protection of fish habitat; deterioration of sawtimber; reduction of fuels; advancement of project economic viability; and maintenance of community stability.

Comments. Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in scoping issues properly, determining how to best manage the resources, and analyzing environmental effects fully. Comments received to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action, and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality. Where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted, with or without name and address, within a specified number of days.

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and made available for public review by June 2003. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The final EIS is scheduled to be available September 2003.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal, so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are not raised until after the completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Inc. v. Harris , 490 F.Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action, participate by the close of the 45-day comment period, so that substantive comments and objectives are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

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

The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Responsible Official is the Forest Supervisor, Malheur National Forest. The Responsible Official will decide which, if any, of the proposed projects will be implemented. The Responsible Official may also decide on site-specific Forest Plan amendments regarding standards and guidelines for snag and coarse woody debris, as well as big game habitat, if warranted by the analysis of those components in light of recent science. The Responsible Official will document the Monument Fire Recovery Project decision and reasons for the decision, in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

1. To salvage timber killed by the fire before the commercial value is lost. There is an urgent need for harvest, because fire-killed trees typically do not maintain their merchantability for lumber for more than 1 to 3 years, depending upon species and size. Sapwood staining, checking, woodborer damage, and decay will affect volume and quality after that time. Smaller diameter trees typically will not be merchantable for lumber within a year while larger diameter trees can retain their merchantability longer but will lose their value as wood products in time.

2. Contributing opportunities for industry and communities in Utah and Wyoming that are dependent on national forest timber for a portion of their supply and economy.

The proposal to salvage includes timber harvesting, construction of temporary roads, and minor reconstruction of existing system roads. Treatment will be limited to the salvage harvest of trees killed by the fire or expected to die within the next year due to fire damage. Primarily spruce, lodgepole pine, and subalpine fir trees will be salvaged. The proposal includes removing merchantable trees, while retaining green trees, unmerchantable trees, and large diameter snags for wildlife habitat. Approximately 1,148 acres within 24 units would be treated under the proposal. An estimated 6.5 miles of temporary roads would be needed to harvest timber under the proposal.

Proposed new road construction would be limited to that needed for access for harvest activities. These roads would be temporary, and decomissioned (restored) following harvest activities. There is no proposed road construction or timber harvest in inventioned roadless areas.

Some existing roads that will be used as haul routes would be reconstructed to improve the drainage design of the roads near stream crossings or relocated where the roads are near stream channels.

The Responsible Official is Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84138.

The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed activities listed above.

A determination of effects on Canada lynx will be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Forest Service invites comments and suggestions on the scope of the analysis to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). In addition, the Forest Service gives notice that it is beginning a full environmental analysis and decision-making process for this proposal so that interested or affected people may know how they can participate in the environmental analysis and contribute to the final decision. A public “scoping” open house is scheduled for March 18, 2003, in Evanston, Wyoming, at the Historic Railroad Depot on Front Street in Evanston, Wyoming, from 4 to 7 p.m. The purpose of this open house is to learn what issues members of the public or interested agencies believe are involved in the proposal. Knowledge of the issues will help establish the scope of the Forest Service environmental analysis and define the kind and range of alternatives to be considered. Forest Service officials will describe and explain the proposed actions and the process of environmental analysis and disclosure to be followed in evaluating this proposal. The Forest Service welcomes any public comments on the proposal.

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate at that time. To be the most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the statement or merits of the alternatives discussed.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 443 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.) Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

This meeting will focus on the review and discussion of proposals received by the RAC for funding under Title II of the Payments to States legislation (Pub. L. 106-393). No new proposals (initial reading) will be discussed at this meeting. This meeting will serve as the second reading for proposals received for the February 2003 meeting; the RAC may recommend funding for some or all of these proposals during this meeting. The RAC may also review, discuss or make recommendations for funding for projects received for the January 2003 meeting. 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. It is anticipated that this will be the last meeting of the RAC until sometime in the fall of 2003.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the January 29, 2003, Federal Register (68 FR 4445), GIPSA announced that the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce is voluntarily ceasing their official inspection operations effective June 30, 2003, and asked persons interested in providing official services in the Mississippi area to submit an application for designation by February 28, 2003. There was one applicant. Memphis Grain Inspection Service (Memphis), a designated official agency, main office located in Memphis, Tennessee, applied for the entire area specified in the January 29, 2003, Federal Register .

GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicant. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicant. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above addresses. Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the Federal Register , and GIPSA will send the applicant written notification of the decision.

Under DOC regulations implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq. (Title VI), recipients of federal financial assistance have a responsibility to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by persons with LEP. See 15 CFR 8.4(b)(2). The purpose of the LEP Guidance is to assist recipients in complying with their Title VI responsibilities to ensure that access to their programs or activities, normally provided in English, are accessible to LEP persons. It clarifies existing statutory and regulatory requirements for LEP persons by providing a description of the factors recipients should consider in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons. It also reiterates DOC's longstanding position that in order to avoid discrimination against LEP persons on grounds of national origin, recipients must take adequate steps to ensure that such persons receive the language assistance necessary to afford them meaningful access to the programs, services, and information those recipients provide, free of charge.

Executive Order 13166 (E.O.), reprinted at 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000), directs each federal agency that extends assistance subject to the requirements of Title VI to publish guidance for its respective recipients clarifying that obligation. The E.O. further directs that all such guidance documents be consistent with the compliance standards and framework detailed in DOJ Policy Guidance entitled “Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” See 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000). On March 14, 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a Report to Congress titled “Assessment of the Total Benefits and Costs of Implementing Executive Order No. 13166: Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” Among other things, the Report recommended the adoption of uniform guidance across all Federal agencies, with flexibility to permit tailoring to each agency's specific recipients. Consistent with this OMB recommendation, DOJ published LEP Guidance for DOJ recipients which was drafted and organized to also function as a model for similar guidance documents by other Federal grant agencies. See 67 FR 41455 (June 18, 2002). The LEP Guidance is consistent with the goals set forth in E.O. 13166, and with the DOJ policy guidance documents dated August 16, 2002, and June 18, 2002.

Because this guidance must adhere to the federal-wide compliance standards and framework detailed in the model DOJ LEP Guidance, DOC specifically solicits comments on the nature, scope and appropriateness of the DOC-specific examples set out in this guidance explaining and/or highlighting how those consistent federal-wide compliance standards are applicable to recipients of federal financial assistance through the DOC.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice are exempt from notice and comment. Because this policy guidance is a general statement of policy without the force and effect of law, it falls within this exception and prior notice and opportunity for public comment is not required. This policy guidance is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12866.

Most individuals living in the United States read, write, speak and understand English. There are many individuals, however, for whom English is not their primary language. For instance, based on the 2000 census, over 26 million individuals speak Spanish and almost 7 million individuals speak an Asian or Pacific Island language at home. If these individuals have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, they are limited English proficient, or “LEP.” While detailed data from the 2000 census has not yet been released, 26% of all Spanish-speakers, 29.9% of all Chinese-speakers, and 28.2% of all Vietnamese-speakers reported that they spoke English “not well” or “not at all” in response to the 1990 census.

Language for LEP individuals can be a barrier to accessing important benefits or services, understanding and exercising important rights, complying with applicable responsibilities, or understanding other information provided by federally funded programs and activities. The Federal Government funds an array of services that can be made accessible to otherwise eligible LEP persons. The Federal Government is committed to improving the accessibility of these programs and activities to eligible LEP persons, a goal that reinforces its equally important commitment to promoting programs and activities designed to help individuals learn English. Recipients should not overlook the long-term positive impacts of incorporating or offering English as a Second Language (ESL) programs in parallel with language assistance services. ESL courses can serve as an important adjunct to a proper LEP plan. However, the fact that ESL classes are made available does not obviate the statutory and regulatory requirement to provide meaningful access for those who are not yet English proficient. Recipients of federal financial assistance have an obligation to reduce language barriers that can preclude meaningful access by LEP persons to important government services. 1

In certain circumstances, failure to ensure that LEP persons can effectively participate in or benefit from federally assisted programs and activities may violate the prohibition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d and Title VI regulations against national origin discrimination. The purpose of this policy guidance is to assist recipients in fulfilling their responsibilities to provide meaningful access to LEP persons under existing law, including the preparation of a LEP plan, as appropriate. This policy guidance clarifies existing legal requirements for LEP persons by providing a description of the factors recipients should consider in fulfilling their responsibilities to LEP persons. 2 These are the criteria the Department of Commerce (DOC) will use in evaluating whether recipients are in compliance with Title VI and Title VI regulations.

As with most government initiatives, this requires balancing several principles. While this Guidance discusses that balance in some detail, it is important to note the basic principles behind that balance. First, we must ensure that federally-assisted programs aimed at the American public do not leave some behind simply because they face challenges communicating in English. This is of particular importance because, in some cases, LEP individuals may form a substantial portion of those encountered in federally-assisted programs. Second, we must achieve this goal while finding constructive methods to reduce the costs of LEP requirements on small businesses, small local governments, or small non-profits that receive federal financial assistance.

There are many productive steps that the federal government, either collectively or as individual grant agencies, can take to help recipients reduce the costs of language services without sacrificing meaningful access for LEP persons. Without these steps, certain smaller grantees may well choose not to participate in federally assisted programs, threatening the critical functions that the programs strive to provide. To that end, the Department, in conjunction with DOJ, plans to continue to provide assistance and guidance in this important area. In addition, DOC plans to work with recipients, state and local administrative agencies, and LEP persons to identify and share model plans, examples of best practices, and cost-saving approaches. Moreover, DOC intends to explore how language assistance measures, resources and cost-containment approaches developed with respect to its own Federally conducted programs and activities can be effectively shared or otherwise made available to recipients, particularly small businesses, small localgovernments, and small non-profits. An interagency working group on LEP has developed a Web site, http://www.lep.gov, to assist in disseminating this information to recipients, federal agencies, and the communities being served.

Many commentators have noted that some have interpreted the case of Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001), as impliedly striking down the regulations promulgated under Title VI that form the basis for the part of the E.O. that applies to federally assisted programs and activities. Consistent with the position of DOJ detailed below, DOC takes n the position that this is not the case, and will continue to do so. Accordingly, DOC will strive to ensure that federally assisted programs and activities work in a way that is effective for all eligible beneficiaries, including those with limited English proficiency.

Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, provides that no person shall “on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Section 602 authorizes and directs federal agencies that are empowered to extend federal financial assistance to any program or activity “to effectuate the provisions of [section 601] * * * by issuing rules, regulations, or orders of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. 2000d-1.

The DOC regulations promulgated pursuant to section 602 forbid recipients from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.” 15 CFR 8(b)(2).

The Supreme Court, in Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), interpreted regulations promulgated by the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, including a regulation similar to that of DOC, 45 CFR 80.3(b)(2), to hold that Title VI prohibits conduct that has a disproportionate effect on LEP persons because such conduct constitutes national-origin discrimination. In Lau, a San Francisco school district that had a significant number of non-English speaking students of Chinese origin was required to take reasonable steps to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to participate in federally funded educational programs.

On August 11, 2000, the E.O. was issued—“Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” 65 FR 50121 (August 16, 2000). Under that order, every federal agency that provides financial assistance to non-federal entities must publish guidance on how their recipients can provide meaningful access to LEP persons and thus comply with Title VI regulations forbidding funding recipients from “restrict[ing] an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program” or from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.”

On that same day, DOJ issued a general guidance document addressed to “Executive Agency Civil Rights Officers” setting forth general principles for agencies to apply in developing guidance documents for recipients pursuant to the E.O. “Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin Discrimination Against Persons With Limited English Proficiency,” 65 FR 50123 (August 16, 2000) (“DOJ LEP Guidance”). The DOJ role under the (E.O.) is unique. The E.O. charges DOJ with responsibility for providing LEP Guidance to other Federal agencies and for ensuring consistency among each agency-specific guidance. Consistency among Departments of the Federal Government is particularly important. Inconsistency or contradictory guidance could confuse recipients of federal funds and needlessly increase costs without rendering the meaningful access for LEP persons that this Guidance is designed to address.

Subsequently, federal agencies raised questions regarding the requirements of the E.O., especially in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001). On October 26, 2001, Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, issued a memorandum for “Heads of Departments and Agencies, General Counsels and Civil Rights Directors.” This memorandum clarified and reaffirmed the DOJ LEP Guidance in light of Sandoval . 3 The Assistant Attorney General stated that because Sandoval did not invalidate any Title VI regulations that proscribe conduct that has a disparate impact on covered groups—the types of regulations that form the legal basis for the part of the E.O. that applies to federally assisted programs and activities—the E.O. remains in force.

The DOC regulations, 15 CFR 8.4(b)(2), require all recipients of federal financial assistance to provide meaningful access to LEP persons. 4 Federal financial assistance includes grants, training, use of equipment, donations of surplus property, and other assistance. The fundamental premise of the E.O. is that the Federal Government provides and funds an array of services that can be made accessible to otherwise eligible persons who are not proficient in the English language.

To this end, the E.O. provides that federal agencies shall work to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance (recipients) provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries. In general, the DOC does not fund recipients who, in turn, provide services and benefits of the entitlement-type to the general public. The DOC does, however, fund recipients of the following DOC programs who provide information and services to the public relating to various aspects of business or economic development:

• Economic Development Administration's Economic Adjustment Program and Trade Adjustment Program;

• International Trade Administration's Trade Development and Commercial Service programs; and

• Minority Business Development Agency's Minority Business Development Centers; Native American Business Development Centers; and Minority Business Opportunity Committee Program.

Coverage extends to a recipient's entire program or activity, i.e. , to all parts of a recipient's operations. This is true even if only one part of the recipient receives the federal assistance. 5

Example: DOC provides assistance to a university to provide business development services to minority firms. All operations of the university—not just the business department—are covered.

Finally, some recipients operate in jurisdictions in which English has been declared the official language. Nonetheless, these recipients continue to be subject to federal non-discrimination requirements, including those applicable to the provision of federally assisted services to persons with LEP.

Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, write, speak, or understand English can be limited English proficient, or “LEP,” entitled to language assistance with respect to a particular type of service, benefit, or encounter.

Examples of populations likely to include LEP persons who are encountered and/or served by DOC recipients and should be considered when planning language services include, but are not limited to:

• Persons who are seeking technical assistance about starting or expanding a business.

• Persons in rural and urban areas of the nations experiencing high unemployment, low income, or other severe economic distress.

• Persons in underserved communities interested in accessing telecommunications and information technologies.

Recipients are required to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs and activities by LEP persons. While designed to be a flexible and fact-dependent standard, the starting point is an individualized assessment that balances the following four factors: (1) The number or proportion of LEP persons eligible to be served or likely to be encountered by the program or grantee; (2) the frequency with which LEP individuals come in contact with the program; (3) the nature and importance of the program, activity, or service provided by the program to people's lives; and (4) the resources available to the grantee/recipient and costs. As indicated above, the intent of this guidance is to suggest a balance that ensures meaningful access by LEP persons to critical services while not imposing undue burdens on small business, small local governments, or small nonprofits.

After applying the above four-factor analysis, a recipient may conclude that different language assistance measures are sufficient for the different types of programs or activities in which it engages. For instance, some of a recipient's activities will be more important than others and/or have greater impact on or contact with LEP persons, and thus may require more in the way of language assistance. The flexibility that recipients have in addressing the needs of the LEP populations they serve does not diminish, and should not be used to minimize, the obligation that those needs be addressed. DOC recipients should apply the following four factors to the various kinds of contacts that they have with the public to assess language needs and decide what reasonable steps they should take to ensure meaningful access for LEP persons.

One factor in determining what language services recipients should provide is the number or proportion of LEP persons from a particular language group served or encountered in the eligible service population. The greater the number or proportion of these LEP persons, the more likely language services are needed. Ordinarily, persons “eligible to be served, or likely to be directly affected, by” a recipient's program or activity are those who are served or encountered in the eligible service population. This population will be program-specific, and includes persons who are in the geographic area that has been approved by a federal grant agency as the recipient's service area. However, where, for instance, a geographic area serves a large LEP population, the appropriate service area is most likely the geographic area, and not the entire population served by the department. Where no service area has previously been approved, the relevant service area may be that which is approved by state or local authorities or designated by the recipient itself, provided that these designations do not themselves discriminatorily exclude certain populations.

Recipients should first examine their prior experiences with LEP encounters and determine the breadth and scope of language services that were needed. In conducting this analysis, it is important to include language minority populations that are eligible for their programs or activities but may be underserved because of existing language barriers. Other data should be consulted to refine or validate a recipient's prior experience, including the latest census data for the area served, data from school systems and from community organizations, and data from state and local governments. 6 Community agencies, school systems, religious organizations, legal aid entities, and others can often assist in identifying populations for whom outreach is needed and who would benefit from the recipients' programs and activities were language services provided.

Recipients should assess, as accurately as possible, the frequency with which they have or should have contact with an LEP individual from different language groups seeking assistance. The more frequent the contact with a particular language group, the more likely that enhanced language services in that language are needed. The steps that are reasonable for a recipient that serves an LEP person on a one-time basis will be very different than those expected from a recipient that serves LEP persons daily. It is also advisable to consider the frequency of different types of language contacts. For example, frequent contacts with Spanish-speaking people who are LEP may require certain assistance in Spanish. Less frequent contact with different language groups may suggest a different and less intensified solution. If an LEP individual accesses a program or service on a daily basis, a recipient has greater duties than if the same individual's program or activity contact is unpredictable or infrequent. But even recipients that serve LEP persons on an unpredictable or infrequent basis should use this balancing analysis to determine what to do if an LEP individual seeks services under the program in question. This LEP plan need not be intricate. It may be as simple as being prepared to use one of the commercially-available telephonic interpretation services to obtain immediate interpreter services. In applying this standard, recipients should take care to consider whether appropriate outreach to LEP persons could increase the frequency of contact with LEP language groups.

The more important the activity, information, service, or program, or the greater the possible consequences of the contact to the LEP individuals, the more likely language services are needed. The obligations to communicate rights to emergency benefits or assistance to a person who has been the victim of a sudden natural disaster differ, for example, from those applicable to internet forums for beta testers of proposed small business software. A recipient needs to determine whether denial or delay of access to services or information could have serious or even life-threatening implications for the LEP individual. Decisions by a Federal, State, or local entity to make an activity compulsory can serve as strong evidence of the program's importance.

A recipient's level of resources and the costs that would be imposed on it may have an impact on the nature of the steps it should take. Smaller recipients with more limited budgets are not expected to provide the same level of language services as larger recipients with larger budgets. In addition, “reasonable steps” may cease to be reasonable where the costs imposed substantially exceed the benefits.

Resource and cost issues, however, can often be reduced by technological advances; the sharing of language assistance materials and services among and between recipients, advocacy groups, and Federal grant agencies; and reasonable business practices. Where appropriate, training bilingual staff to act as interpreters and translators, information sharing through industry groups, telephonic and video conferencing interpretation services, pooling resources and standardizing documents to reduce translation needs, using qualified translators and interpreters to ensure that documents need not be “fixed” later and that inaccurate interpretations do not cause delay or other costs, centralizing interpreter and translator services to achieve economies of scale, or the formalized use of qualified community volunteers, for example, may help reduce costs. 7 Recipients should carefully explore the most cost-effective means of delivering competent and accurate language services before limiting services due to resource concerns. Large entities and those entities serving a significant number or proportion of LEP persons should ensure that their resource limitations are well-substantiated before using this factor as a reason to limit language assistance. Such recipients may find it useful to be able to articulate, through documentation or in some other reasonable manner, their process for determining that language services would be limited based on resources or costs.

This four-factor analysis necessarily implicates the “mix” of LEP services required. Recipients have two main ways to provide language services: Oral interpretation either in person or via telephone interpretation service (hereinafter “interpretation”) and written translation (hereinafter “translation”). Oral interpretation can range from on-site interpreters for critical services provided to a high volume of LEP persons to access through commercially-available telephonic interpretation services. Written translation, likewise, can range from translation of an entire document to translation of a short description of the document. In some cases, language services should be made available on an expedited basis while in others the LEP individual may be referred to another office of the recipient for language assistance.

The correct mix should be based on what is both necessary and reasonable in light of the four-factor analysis. For instance, a Minority Business Development Center in a largely Asian-Pacific community may need immediately available oral interpreters and should give serious consideration to hiring some bilingual staff. In contrast, there may be circumstances where the importance and nature of the activity and number or proportion and frequency of contact with LEP persons may be low and the costs and resources needed to provide language services may be high—such as in the case of a voluntary general public tour of a recipient's facility—in which pre-arranged language services for the particular service may not be necessary. Regardless of the type of language service provided, quality and accuracy of those services can be critical in order to avoid serious consequences to the LEP person and to the recipient. Recipients have substantial flexibility in determining the appropriate mix.

Recipients have two main ways to provide language services: Oral and written language services. Quality and accuracy of the language service is critical in order to avoid serious consequences to the LEP person and to the recipient.

Interpretation is the act of listening to something in one language (source language) and orally translating it into another language (target language). Where interpretation is needed and is reasonable, recipients should consider some or all of the following options for providing competent interpreters in a timely manner:

Competence of Interpreters. When providing oral assistance, recipients should ensure competency of the language service provider, no matter which of the strategies outlined below are used. Competency requires more than self-identification as bilingual. Some bilingual staff and community volunteers, for instance, may be able to communicate effectively in a different language when communicating information directly in that language, but not be competent to interpret in and out of English. Likewise, they may not be able to do written translations.

Competency to interpret, however, does not necessarily mean formal certification as an interpreter, although certification is helpful. When using interpreters, recipients should ensure that they:

Demonstrate proficiency in and ability to communicate information accurately in both English and in the other language and identify and employ the appropriate mode of interpreting ( e.g. , consecutive, simultaneous, summarization, or sight translation);

Have knowledge in both languages of any specialized terms or concepts peculiar to the entity's program or activity and of any particularized vocabulary and phraseology used by the LEP person;  8 and understand and follow confidentiality and impartiality rules to the same extent the recipient employee for whom they are interpreting and/or to the extent their position requires.

Understand and adhere to their role as interpreters without deviating into a role as counselor, legal advisor, or other roles.

Some recipients may have additional self-imposed requirements for interpreters. Where individual rights depend on precise, complete, and accurate interpretation or translations, the use of certified interpreters is strongly encouraged.

While quality and accuracy of language services is critical, the quality and accuracy of language services is nonetheless part of the appropriate mix of LEP services required. The quality and accuracy of language services in responding to someone who has suffered from a natural disaster, for example, must be extraordinarily high, while the quality and accuracy of language services in a bicycle safety class need not meet the same exacting standards.

Finally, when interpretation is needed and is reasonable, it should be provided in a timely manner. To be meaningfully effective, language assistance should be timely. While there is no single definition for “timely” applicable to all types of interactions at all times by all types of recipients, one clear guide is that the language assistance should be provided at a time and place that avoids the effective denial of the service, benefit, or right at issue or the imposition of an undue burden on or delay in important rights, benefits, or services to the LEP person. For example, when the timeliness of services is important, such as with certain activities of DOC recipients providing dislocation services to someone whose business was destroyed in an earthquake or hurricane, a recipient would likely not be providing meaningful access if it had one bilingual staffer available one day a week to provide the service. Such conduct would likely result in delays for LEP persons that would be significantly greater than those for English proficient persons. Conversely, where access to or exercise of a service, benefit, or right is not effectively precluded by a reasonable delay, language assistance can likely be delayed for a reasonable period.

Hiring Bilingual Staff. When particular languages are encountered often, hiring bilingual staff offers one of the best, and often most economical, options. Recipients can, for example, fill public contact positions with staff who are bilingual and competent to communicate directly with LEP persons in their language. If bilingual staff are also used to interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to orally interpret written documents from English into another language, they should be competent in the skill of interpreting. Being bilingual does not necessarily mean that a person has the ability to interpret. In addition, there may be times when the role of the bilingual employee may conflict with the role of an interpreter . Effective management strategies, including any appropriate adjustments in assignments and protocols for using bilingual staff, can ensure that bilingual staff are fully and appropriately utilized. When bilingual staff cannot meet all of the language service obligations of the recipient, the recipient should turn to other options.

Hiring Staff Interpreters. Hiring interpreters may be most helpful where there is a frequent need for interpreting services in one or more languages. Depending on the facts, sometimes it may be necessary and reasonable to provide on-site interpreters to provide accurate and meaningful communication with an LEP person.

Contracting for Interpreters. Contract interpreters may be a cost-effective option when there is no regular need for a particular language skill. In addition to commercial and other private providers, many community-based organizations and mutual assistance associations provide interpretation services for particular languages. Contracting with and providing training regarding the recipient's programs and processes to these organizations can be a cost-effective option for providing language services to LEP persons from those language groups.

Using Telephone Interpreter Lines. Telephone interpreter service lines often offer speedy interpreting assistance in many different languages. They may be particularly appropriate where the mode of communicating with an English proficient person would also be over the phone. Although telephonic interpretation services are useful in many situations, it is important to ensure that, when using such services, the interpreters used are competent to interpret any technical or legal terms specific to a particular program that may be important parts of the conversation. Nuances in language and non-verbal communication can often assist an interpreter and cannot be recognized over the phone. Video teleconferencing may sometimes help to resolve this issue where necessary. In addition, where documents are being discussed, it is important to give telephonic interpreters adequate opportunity to review the document prior to the discussion and any logistical problems should be addressed.

Using Community Volunteers. In addition to consideration of bilingual staff, staff interpreters, or contract interpreters (either in-person or by telephone) as options to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons, use of recipient-coordinated community volunteers, working with, for instance, community-based organizations may provide a cost-effective supplemental language assistance strategy under appropriate circumstances. They may be particularly useful in providing language access for a recipient's less critical programs and activities. To the extent the recipient relies on community volunteers, it is often best to use volunteers who are trained in the information or services of the program and can communicate directly with LEP persons in their language. Just as with all interpreters, community volunteers used to interpret between English speakers and LEP persons, or to orally translate documents, should be competent in the skill of interpreting and knowledgeable about applicable confidentiality and impartiality rules. Recipients should consider formal arrangements with community-based organizations that provide volunteers to address these concerns and to help ensure that services are available more regularly.

Use of Family Members or Friends as Interpreters. Although recipients should not plan to rely on an LEP person's family members, friends, or other informal interpreters to provide meaningful access to important programs and activities, where LEP persons so desire, they should be permitted to use, at their own expense, an interpreter of their own choosing (whether a professional interpreter, family member or friend) in place of or as a supplement to the free language services expressly offered by the recipient. LEP persons may feel more comfortable when a trusted family member or friend acts as an interpreter. In addition, in exigent circumstances that are not reasonably foreseeable, temporary use of interpreters not provided by the recipient may be necessary. However, with proper planning and implementation, recipients should be able to avoid most such situations.

Recipients, however, should take special care to ensure that family, legal guardians, caretakers, and other informal interpreters are appropriate in light of the circumstances and subject matter of the program, service or activity, including protection of the recipient's own administrative or enforcement interest in accurate interpretation. In many circumstances, family members (especially children) or friends are not competent to provide quality and accurate interpretations. Issues of confidentiality, privacy, or conflict of interest may also arise. LEP individuals may feel uncomfortable revealing or describing sensitive, confidential, or potentially embarrassing personal, family, or financial information to a family member, friend, or member of the local community. In addition, such informal interpreters may have a personal connection to the LEP person or an undisclosed conflict of interest. For these reasons, when oral language services are necessary, recipients should generally offer competent interpreter services free of cost to the LEP person. For DOC recipient programs and activities, this is particularly true in situations in which health, safety, or access to important benefits and services are at stake, or when credibility and accuracy are important to protect an individual's rights and access to important services.

While issues of competency, confidentiality, and conflict of interest in the use of family members (especially children) or friends often make their use inappropriate, the use of these individuals as interpreters may be an appropriate option where proper application of the four factors would lead to a conclusion that recipient-provided services are not necessary. An example of this is a voluntary educational tour of a recipient's facility offered to the public. There, the importance and nature of the activity may be relatively low and unlikely to implicate issues of confidentiality, conflict of interest, or the need for accuracy. In addition, the resources needed and costs of providing language services may be high. In such a setting, an LEP person's use of family, friends, or others may be appropriate.

If the LEP person voluntarily chooses to provide his or her own interpreter, a recipient should consider whether a record of that choice and of the recipient's offer of assistance is appropriate. Where precise, complete, and accurate interpretations or translations of information and/or testimony are critical for adjudicatory, or legal reasons, or where the competency of the LEP person's interpreter is not established, a recipient might decide to provide its own, independent interpreter, even if an LEP person wants to use his or her own interpreter as well. Extra caution should be exercised when the LEP person chooses to use a minor as the interpreter. While the LEP person's decision should be respected, there may be additional issues of competency, confidentiality, or conflict of interest when the choice involves using children as interpreters. The recipient should take care to ensure that the LEP person's choice is voluntary, that the LEP person is aware of the possible problems if the preferred interpreter is a minor child, and that the LEP person knows that a competent interpreter could be provided by the recipient at no cost.

Translation is the replacement of a written text from one language (source language) into an equivalent written text in another language (target language).

What Documents Should be Translated? After applying the four-factor analysis, a recipient may determine that an effective LEP plan for its particular program or activity includes the translation of vital written materials into the language of each frequently-encountered LEP group eligible to be served and/or likely to be affected by the recipient's program.

Such written materials could include, for example:

• Surveys and questionnaires.

• Intake forms with the potential for important consequences.

• Notices advising LEP persons of free language assistance.

• Applications to participate in a recipient's program or activity or to receive recipient benefits or services.

Whether or not a document (or the information it solicits) is “vital” may depend upon the importance of the program, information, encounter, or service involved, and the consequence to the LEP person if the information in question is not provided accurately or in a timely manner. For instance, applications for bicycle safety courses should not generally be considered vital, whereas applications for business counseling could be considered vital. Where appropriate, recipients are encouraged to create a plan for consistently determining, over time and across its various activities, what documents are “vital” to the meaningful access of the LEP populations they serve.

Classifying a document as vital or non-vital is sometimes difficult, especially in the case of outreach materials like brochures or other information on rights and services. Awareness of rights or services is an important part of “meaningful access.” Lack of awareness that a particular program, right, or service exists may effectively deny LEP individuals meaningful access. Thus, where a recipient is engaged in community outreach activities in furtherance of its activities, it should regularly assess the needs of the populations frequently encountered or affected by the program or activity to determine whether certain critical outreach materials should be translated. Community organizations may be helpful in determining what outreach materials may be most helpful to translate. In addition, the recipient should consider whether translations of outreach material may be made more effective when done in tandem with other outreach methods, including utilizing the ethnic media, schools, religious, and community organizations to spread a message.

Sometimes a document includes both vital and non-vital information. This may be the case when the document is very large. It may also be the case when the title and a phone number for obtaining more information on the contents of the document in frequently-encountered languages other than English is critical, but the document is sent out to the general public and cannot reasonably be translated into many languages. Thus, vital information may include, for instance, the provision of information in appropriate languages other than English regarding where a LEP person might obtain an interpretation or translation of the document.

Into What Languages Should Documents be Translated? The languages spoken by the LEP individuals with whom the recipient has contact determine the languages into which vital documents should be translated. A distinction should be made, however, between languages that are frequently encountered by a recipient and less commonly-encountered languages. Many recipients serve communities in large cities or across the country. They regularly serve LEP persons who speak dozens and sometimes over 100 different languages. To translate all written materials into all of those languages is unrealistic. Although recent technological advances have made it easier for recipients to store and share translated documents, such an undertaking would incur substantial costs and require substantial resources. Nevertheless, well-substantiated claims of lack of resources to translate all vital documents into dozens of languages do not necessarily relieve the recipient of the obligation to translate those documents into at least several of the more frequently-encountered languages and to set benchmarks for continued translations into the remaining languages over time. As a result, the extent of the recipient's obligation to provide written translations of documents should be determined by the recipient on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of the circumstances in light of the four-factor analysis. Because translation is a one-time expense, consideration should be given to whether the upfront cost of translating a document (as opposed to oral interpretation) should be amortized over the likely lifespan of the document when applying this four-factor analysis.

Safe Harbor. Many recipients would like to ensure with greater certainty that they comply with their obligations to provide written translations in languages other than English. Paragraphs (a) and (b) outline the circumstances that can provide a “safe harbor” for recipients regarding the requirements for translation of written materials. A “safe harbor” means that if a recipient provides written translations under these circumstances, such action will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation obligations.

The failure to provide written translations under the circumstances outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) does not mean there is non-compliance. Rather, they provide a common starting point for recipients to consider whether and at what point the importance of the service, benefit, or activity involved; the nature of the information sought; and the number or proportion of LEP persons served call for written translations of commonly-used forms into frequently-encountered languages other than English. Thus, these paragraphs merely provide a guide for recipients that would like greater certainty of compliance than can be provided by a fact-intensive, four-factor analysis.

Safe Harbor Guides. The following actions will be considered strong evidence of compliance with the recipient's written-translation obligations:

(a) The DOC recipient provides written translations of vital documents for each eligible LEP language group that constitutes five percent or 1,000, whichever is less, of the population of persons eligible to be served or likely to be affected or encountered. Translation of other documents, if needed, can be provided orally; or

(b) If there are fewer than 50 persons in a language group that reaches the five percent trigger in (a), the recipient does not translate vital written materials but provides written notice in the primary language of the LEP language group of the right to receive competent oral interpretation of those written materials, free of cost.

These safe harbor provisions apply to the translation of written documents only. They do not affect the requirement to provide meaningful access to LEP individuals through competent oral interpreters where oral language services are needed and are reasonable. For example, Minority Business Development Centers should, where appropriate, ensure that basic information to assist LEP individuals in obtaining information about how to start a business is explained.

Competence of Translators. As with oral interpreters, translators of written documents should be competent. Many of the same considerations apply. However, the skill of translating is very different from the skill of interpreting, and a person who is a competent interpreter may or may not be competent to translate.

Particularly where legal or other vital documents are being translated, competence can often be achieved by use of certified translators. Certification or accreditation may not always be possible or necessary. 9 Competence can often be ensured by having a second, independent translator “check” the work of the primary translator. Alternatively, one translator can translate the document, and a second, independent translator could translate it back into English to check that the appropriate meaning has been conveyed. This is called “back translation.”

Translators should understand the expected reading level of the audience and, where appropriate, have fundamental knowledge about the target language group's vocabulary and phraseology. Sometimes direct translation of materials results in a translation that is written at a much more difficult level than the English language version or has no relevant equivalent meaning. 10 Community organizations may be able to help consider whether a document is written at a good level for the audience. Likewise, consistency in the words and phrases used to translate terms of art, legal, or other technical concepts helps avoid confusion by LEP individuals and may reduce costs. Creating or using already-created glossaries of commonly-used terms may be useful for LEP persons and translators and cost effective for the recipient. Providing translators with examples of previous accurate translations of similar material by the recipient, other recipients, or federal agencies may be helpful.

While quality and accuracy of translation services is critical, the quality and accuracy of translation services is nonetheless part of the appropriate mix of LEP services required. For instance, documents that are simple and have no legal or other consequence for LEP persons who rely on them may use translators that are less skilled than important documents with legal or other information upon which reliance has important consequences (including, e.g. , information or documents of DOC recipients regarding certain health, and safety services and certain legal rights). The permanent nature of written translations, however, imposes additional responsibility on the recipient to ensure that the quality and accuracy permit meaningful access by LEP persons.

After completing the four-factor analysis and deciding what language assistance services are appropriate, a recipient should develop an implementation plan to address the identified needs of the LEP populations they serve. Recipients have considerable flexibility in developing this plan. The development and maintenance of a periodically-updated written plan on language assistance for LEP persons (“LEP plan”) for use by recipient employees serving the public will likely be the most appropriate and cost-effective means of documenting compliance and providing a framework for the provision of timely and reasonable language assistance. Moreover, such written plans would likely provide additional benefits to a recipient's managers in the areas of training, administration, planning, and budgeting. These benefits should lead most recipients to document in a written LEP plan their language assistance services, and how staff and LEP persons can access those services. Despite these benefits, certain DOC recipients, such as recipients serving very few LEP persons and recipients with very limited resources, may choose not to develop a written LEP plan. However, the absence of a written LEP plan does not obviate the underlying obligation to ensure meaningful access by LEP persons to a recipient's program or activities. Accordingly, in the event that a recipient elects not to develop a written plan, it should consider alternative ways to articulate in some other reasonable manner a plan for providing meaningful access. Entities having significant contact with LEP persons, such as schools, religious organizations, community groups, and groups working with new immigrants can be very helpful in providing important input into this planning process from the beginning.

The following five steps may be helpful in designing an LEP plan and are typically part of effective implementation plans.

The first two factors in the four-factor analysis require an assessment of the number or proportion of LEP individuals eligible to be served or encountered and the frequency of encounters. This requires recipients to identify LEP persons with whom it has contact.

One way to determine the language of communication is to use language identification cards (or “I speak cards”), which invite LEP persons to identify their language needs to staff. Such cards, for instance, might say “I speak Spanish” in both Spanish and English, “I speak Vietnamese” in both English and Vietnamese, etc. To reduce costs of compliance, the Federal Government has made a set of these cards available on the Internet. The Census Bureau “I speak card” can be found and downloaded at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/13166.htm. When records are normally kept of past interactions with members of the public, the language of the LEP person can be included as part of the record. In addition to helping employees identify the language of LEP persons they encounter, this process will help in future applications of the first two factors of the four-factor analysis. In addition, posting notices in commonly encountered languages notifying LEP persons of language assistance will encourage them to self-identify.

An effective LEP plan would likely include information about the ways in which language assistance will be provided. For instance, recipients may want to include information on at least the following:

• Types of language services available.

• How staff can obtain those services.

• How to respond to LEP callers.

• How to respond to written communications from LEP persons.

• How to respond to LEP individuals who have in-person contact with recipient staff.

• How to ensure competency of interpreters and translation services.

Staff should know their obligations to provide meaningful access to information and services for LEP persons. An effective LEP plan would likely include training to ensure that:

• Staff know about LEP policies and procedures.

• Staff having contact with the public are trained to work effectively with in-person and telephone interpreters.

Recipients may want to include this training as part of the orientation for new employees. It is important to ensure that all employees in public contact positions are properly trained. Recipients have flexibility in deciding the manner in which the training is provided. The more frequent the contact with LEP persons, the greater the need will be for in-depth training. Staff with little or no contact with LEP persons may only have to be aware of an LEP plan. However, management staff, even if they do not interact regularly with LEP persons, should be fully aware of and understand the plan so they can reinforce its importance and ensure its implementation by staff.

Once a recipient has decided, based on the four factors, that it will provide language services, it is important for the recipient to let LEP persons know that those services are available and that they are free of charge. Recipients should provide this notice in a language LEP persons will understand. Examples of notification that recipients should consider include:

• Posting signs in intake areas and other entry points. When language assistance is needed to ensure meaningful access to information and services, it is important to provide notice in appropriate languages in intake areas or initial points of contact so that LEP persons can learn how to access those language services. This is particularly true in areas with high numbers of LEP persons seeking access to certain health, safety, dislocation or business assistance services or activities run by DOC recipients. For instance, signs in intake offices could state that free language assistance is available. The signs should be translated into the most common languages encountered. They should explain how to get the language help. 11

• Stating in outreach documents that language services are available from the agency. Announcements could be in, for instance, brochures, booklets, and in outreach and recruitment information. These statements should be translated into the most common languages and could be “tagged” onto the front of common documents.

• Working with community-based organizations and other stakeholders to inform LEP individuals of the recipients' services, including the availability of language assistance services.

• Using a telephone voice mail menu. The menu could be in the most common languages encountered. It should provide information about available language assistance services and how to get them.

• Including notices in local newspapers in languages other than English.

• Providing notices on non-English-language radio and television stations about the available language assistance services and how to get them.

• Presentations and/or notices at schools and religious organizations.

Recipients should, where appropriate, have a process for determining, on an ongoing basis, whether new documents, programs, services, and activities need to be made accessible for LEP individuals, and they may want to provide notice of any changes in services to the LEP public and to employees. In addition, recipients should consider whether changes in demographics, types of services, or other needs require annual reevaluation of their LEP plan. Less frequent reevaluation may be more appropriate where demographics, services, and needs are more static. One good way to evaluate the LEP plan is to seek feedback from the community.

In their reviews, recipients may want to consider assessing changes in:

• Current LEP populations in service area or population affected or encountered.

• Frequency of encounters with LEP language groups.

• Nature and importance of activities to LEP persons.

• Availability of resources, including technological advances and sources of additional resources, and the costs imposed.

• Whether existing assistance is meeting the needs of LEP persons.

• Whether staff knows and understands the LEP plan and how to implement it.

• Whether identified sources for assistance are still available and viable.

In addition to these five elements, effective plans set clear goals, management accountability, and opportunities for community input and planning throughout the process.

The goal for Title VI and Title VI regulatory enforcement is to achieve voluntary compliance. The requirement to provide meaningful access to LEP persons is enforced and implemented by DOC through the procedures identified in the Title VI regulations. These procedures include complaint investigations, compliance reviews, efforts to secure voluntary compliance, and technical assistance.

The Title VI regulations provide that DOC will investigate whenever it receives a complaint, report, or other information that alleges or indicates possible noncompliance with Title VI or its regulations. If the investigation results in a finding of compliance, DOC will inform the recipient in writing of this determination, including the basis for the determination. However, if a case is fully investigated and results in a finding of noncompliance, DOC must inform the recipient of the noncompliance through a Letter of Findings that sets out the areas of noncompliance and the steps that must be taken to correct the noncompliance. It must attempt to secure voluntary compliance through informal means. If the matter cannot be resolved informally, DOC must secure compliance through the termination of federal assistance after the DOC recipient has been given an opportunity for an administrative hearing and/or by referring the matter to a DOC litigation section to seek injunctive relief or pursue other enforcement proceedings. The DOC engages in voluntary compliance efforts and provides technical assistance to recipients at all stages of an investigation. During these efforts, DOC proposes reasonable timetables for achieving compliance and consults with and assists recipients in exploring cost-effective ways of coming into compliance. In determining a recipient's compliance with the Title VI regulations, DOC's primary concern is to ensure that the recipient's policies and procedures provide meaningful access for LEP persons to the recipient's programs and activities.

While all recipients must work toward building systems that will ensure access for LEP individuals, DOC acknowledges that the implementation of a comprehensive system to serve LEP individuals is a process and that a system will evolve over time as it is implemented and periodically reevaluated. As recipients take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities for LEP persons, DOC will look favorably on intermediate steps recipients take that are consistent with this Guidance, and that, as part of a broader implementation plan or schedule, move their service delivery system toward providing full access to LEP persons. This does not excuse noncompliance but instead recognizes that full compliance in all areas of a recipient's activities and for all potential language minority groups may reasonably require a series of implementing actions over a period of time. However, in developing any phased implementation schedule, DOC recipients should ensure that the provision of appropriate assistance for significant LEP populations or with respect to activities having a significant impact on the health, safety, legal rights, or livelihood of beneficiaries is addressed first. Recipients are encouraged to document their efforts to provide LEP persons with meaningful access to federally assisted programs and activities.

The BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, provides a variety of measures of the overall operations of nonbank U.S. parent companies and their nonbank foreign affiliates, including total assets, sales, net income, employment and employee compensation, research and development expenditures, and exports and imports of goods. The survey is a cut-off sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates (and their U.S. parent companies) above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in nonbenchmark years by extrapolating forward similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies.

The data from the survey are primarily intended as general purpose statistics. They should be readily available to answer any number of research and policy questions related to U.S. direct investment abroad. Policy areas of particular and lasting interest are trade in both goods and services, employment and employee compensation, taxes, and technology.

The form remains the same as in the past. No changes in language, data collected, or exemption levels are proposed.

The survey will be sent each year to potential respondents in March and responses are due by May 31. A report must be filed by, or on behalf of, each nonbank U.S. business enterprise (U.S. Reporter) that owned 10 percent or more of the voting stock (or the equivalent) of a nonbank foreign business enterprise owned at least 20 percent by all U.S. Reporters of the foreign business enterprise combined, whether held directly or indirectly, for which any one of the following three items was greater than $30 million (positive or negative) at the end of, or for, the foreign business enterprise's fiscal year: (1) Total assets, (2) sales or gross operating revenues excluding sales taxes, or (3) net income after provision for foreign income taxes.

Potential respondents are the nonbank U.S. parent companies of nonbank foreign business enterprises that reported in the last benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad, which covered the year 1999, along with the nonbank U.S. parent companies of those nonbank foreign business enterprises that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The data collected are cut-off sample data. Universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.

OMB Number: 0608-0053.

Form Number: BE-11.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,600.

Estimated Time Per Response: 74 hours is the average, but may vary according to the number, size, and complexity of the businesses covered by the response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 118,400 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $3,552,000 (based on an estimated reporting burden of 118,400 hours and an estimated hourly cost of $30).

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 has 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 and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Form BE-577, Direct Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate, obtains quarterly data on transactions and positions between U.S.-owned foreign business enterprises and their U.S. parent companies. The survey is a cut-off sample survey that covers all foreign affiliates above a size-exemption level. The sample data are used to derive universe estimates in nonbenchmark years by extrapolating forward similar data reported in the BE-10, Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, which is taken every five years. The data are used in the preparation of the U.S. international transactions accounts, the input-output accounts, and the national income and product accounts. The data are needed to measure the size and economic significance of direct investment abroad, measure changes in such investment, and assess its impact on the U.S. and foreign economies.

The data from the survey are primarily intended as general purpose statistics. They should be readily available to answer any number of research and policy questions related to U.S. direct investment abroad.

The form remains the same as in the past. No changes in data collected, or exemption levels are proposed.

Survey forms will be sent to U.S. parent companies each quarter; responses will be due within 30 days after the close of each fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the fiscal year, when reports should be filed within 45 days. A report must be filed for every foreign business enterprise whose voting stock (or the equivalent) is owned 10 percent or more by a U.S. business enterprise and for which any one of the following three items was greater than $30 million (positive or negative) at the end of, or for, the foreign business enterprise's fiscal year: (1) Total assets, (2) sales or gross operating revenues excluding sales taxes, or (3) net income after provision for foreign income taxes.

Potential respondents are the U.S-owned foreign business enterprises that were reported in the last benchmark survey of U.S. direct investment abroad, which covered the year 1999, along with the foreign business enterprises that subsequently entered the direct investment universe. The data collected are cut-off sample data. Universe estimates are developed from the reported sample data.

OMB Number: 0608-0004.

Form Number: BE-577.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,500 per quarter; 54,000 annually.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.25 hours is the average, but may vary according to the number, size, and complexity of the businesses covered by the response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 67,500 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,025,000 (based on an estimated reporting burden of 67,500 hours and an estimated hourly cost of $30).

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 has 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 and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Both activities are services to exporters who have either lost the original license record and require a duplicate, or wish to transfer their ownership of approved license to another party. Both activities are currently approved under OMB control numbers 0694-0031 ans 0694-0051. BIS wishes to combine these activities into one collection authority as they both are services provided to the public after licenses have been issued.

Written notification from respondent.

OMB Number: None.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission of a new collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 to 15 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 38.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No capital expenditures are required.

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 and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.

On July 6, 1992, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings from Thailand (57 FR 29702). On July 1, 2002, the Department published a “Notice of Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” on pipe fittings from Thailand (67 FR 44172). On July 31, 2002, the petitioner in this proceeding, Trinity Fitting Group, requested, in accordance with section 351.213(b) of the Department's regulations, an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on pipe fittings from Thailand covering the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002. On August 15, 2002, TBC submitted a letter certifying that neither it nor its U.S. affiliate, Benkan America, Inc., sold, exported or shipped for entry and/or consumption in the United States subject merchandise during the period of review (POR). We published a notice of initiation of the review with respect to TBC on August 27, 2002. See Notice of Initiation .

The product covered by this order is certain carbon steel butt-weld pipe fittings, having an inside diameter of less than 14 inches, imported in either finished or unfinished form. These formed or forged pipe fittings are used to join sections in piping systems where conditions require permanent, welded connections, as distinguished from fittings based on other fastening methods ( e.g. , threaded, grooved, or bolted fittings). Carbon steel pipe fittings are currently classified under subheading 7307.93.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

As stated above, TBC submitted a letter certifying that neither it nor its U.S. affiliate Benkan America, Inc., sold, exported, or shipped for entry and/or consumption in the United States during the POR. Based on the Department's shipment data query, we are preliminarily treating TBC as a non-shipper for the purpose of this review. See Data Query (September 10, 2002). Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review. Interested parties may submit comments on these preliminary results. See e.g., Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico: Preliminary Notice of Intent to Rescind Administrative Review , (67 FR 56531) (September 4, 2002); Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review , (65 FR 12209) (March 8, 2000).

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 351.309. Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette.

The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written comments or at the hearing, within 120 days from the publication of these preliminary results.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.213(d) of the Department's regulations.

On February 11, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the Final Results of this administrative review. 1 In the Final Results, Linao and Tecmar received a de minimis margin of 0.29 percent. On February 11, 2003, L.R. Enterprises made a timely allegation that the Department had made an error in the calculation of the final margin for Linao and Tecmar. Specifically, L.R. Enterprises alleged that the Department incorrectly calculated the constructed export price (CEP) profit ratio in the margin program for the second sub-period. 2 See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien, Case Analyst, to Holly Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group 2 concerning the ministerial error allegation, dated March 12, 2003 ( Ministerial Error Memo ).

After analyzing the ministerial error comment submitted by L.R. Enterprises, we have determined, in accordance with section 771(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.224, that a ministerial error in the margin calculation for Linao and Tecmar was made.

After correcting the ministerial error the revised weighted-average margin is 0.31 percent, which is de minimis . The importer specific assessment rates are unchanged.

Absent an injunction from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within fifteen days of publication of these amended final results of review.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (e.g., cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) plate (i.e., flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire (i.e., cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note”1(d).

In response to comments by interested parties, the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.”  1

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.”  2

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.”  3

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (e.g., carpet knives). 4 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420 F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.”  5

On February 10, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published its final results for its review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Germany for the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative: Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany , ( Final Results ) 68 FR 6716 (February 10, 2003).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(c), on February 11, 2003, ThyssenKrupp Nirosta GmbH and ThyssenKrupp VDM GmbH (hereafter referred to as TKN) timely filed an allegation that the Department made ministerial errors in the Final Results . Petitioners did not comment on the Final Results .

TKN contends that in its Final Results , the Department inadvertently did not convert the U.S. sales and expense data of Ken-Mac, an affiliated reseller, from a per-pound basis to a per-hundredweight basis, consistent with other U.S. sales and expenses. In addition, TKN notes that the Department deducted indirect selling expenses incurred in the home market (DINDIRSU) from U.S. price for only Krupp Hoesch Steel Products, Inc. (KHSP)'s U.S. sales. The Department, however, did not include DINDIRSU in the CEP offset. See TKN's February 10, 2003 submission.

The Department's regulations define a ministerial error as one involving “addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” 19 CFR 351.224(f).

After reviewing TKN's allegations we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, that the Final Results includes several ministerial errors. We agree with both allegations: we unintentionally overlooked converting Ken-Mac's U.S. sales and expense data from a per-pound basis to a per-hundredweight basis. Moreover, we unintentionally omitted DINDIRSU in the CEP offset for KHSP's U.S. sales. See 19 CFR 351.412(f). Therefore, we are amending the Final Results to the reflect the correction of the above-cited ministerial errors described above. All changes to the margin program can be found in the analysis memorandum. See Memorandum to the File from Patricia Tran through Robert James, Program Manager, “Analysis for TKN for the Amended Final Results of the Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany” for the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, dated March 17, 2003.

The revised weighted-average dumping margin is as follows:

Consequently, we are issuing and publishing these amended final results and notice in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act.

On July 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on SSSS from Taiwan. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). On July 30, 2002, Yieh United Steel Corporation (“YUSCO”) and Chia Far Industrial Factory Co. Ltd.(“Chia Far”), Taiwanese producers of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of their sales of subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). On July 31, 2002, petitioners  1 requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Chia Far, YUSCO, Tung Mung Development Co., Ltd. (“Tung Mung”) and Ta Chen Stainless Pipe Co., Ltd. (“Ta Chen”). On August 27, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of a review of SSSS from Taiwan covering the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002). The preliminary results of review are currently due on April 2, 2003.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, state that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by 120 days. Completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is impracticable for the following reasons:

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 90 days until July 1, 2003. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations.

On July 1, 2002, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Italy. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 67 FR 44172 (July 1, 2002). On July 29, 2002, Thyssen Krupp Acciai Speciali S.p.A. (“TKAST”), an Italian producer of subject merchandise requested that the Department conduct an administrative review. On August 27, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, for the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 67 FR 55000 (August 27, 2002). The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than April 2, 2003.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review if it determines that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the statutory time limit of 245 days from the date on which the review was initiated. Due to the complexity of issues present in this administrative review, such as home market affiliated downstream sales, and complicated cost accounting issues, the Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete this review within the original time period provided in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. Therefore, we are extending the due date for the preliminary results by 120 days, until no later than July 31, 2003. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

On March 5, 2003, the Department of Commerce published its Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty New Shipper Review: Certain Pasta from Italy, 68 FR 10446. In that notice, the intiation of the review was dated February 21, 2003. Further, we indicated that pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i), we intend to issue the preliminary results of the review not later than 180 days from the date of publication of the notice.

We issue this notice to correct and amend the initiation and preliminary result dates of the review because of a typographical error. The intiation of the review should be dated February 27, 2003, and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i), we intend to issue the preliminary results of the review not later than 180 days from this corrected date of initiation.

This notice is published pursuant to section 751(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.

The National Marine Sanctuary System was established under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; previously known as title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to identify and designate certain areas of the marine environment which are of special national significance as National Marine Sanctuaries, and provides authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner that complements existing regulatory authorities. Further, section 312 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1443) provides that any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any Sanctuary resource is liable to the United States for response costs and damages. Monies received are used to reimburse the Secretary for response actions and damage assessments and to fund the restoration, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of injured, destroyed, or lost Sanctuary resources.

To help protect and manage the ecological, historical, educational, recreational, and aesthetic qualities of the National Marine Sanctuaries, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (NMSP) and OR&R will prepare a seagrass restoration PEIS for Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) and a coral reef restoration PEIS for the FKNMS and Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The PEISs, among other objectives, will set forth methodologies and guidelines for restoration actions arising out of injuries to Sanctuary resources. It is NMSP's intent to prepare these PEISs such that a tiered process can be used in the preparation of future environmental documents concerning restoration actions within National Marine Sanctuaries. Accordingly, the PEISs will facilitate the development of both subsequent environmental assessments (EAs) and individual restoration plans designed to restore Sanctuary resources.

Public scoping meetings were held in Marathon, FL, on March 6, 2003. Extensive local media and notification through targeted electronic mail listings are being used prior to the preparation of the Draft PEISs for those persons, agencies, and/or organizations interested in contributing comments for the development of the Draft PEISs. Public meetings will also be held concurrent with the public comment period to accept comments on the Draft PEIS. Notice of these subsequent meetings will be published in the Federal Register. All substantive comments provided during the public comment period, both written and oral, will be considered in the preparation of the Final PEIS and will become part of the public record ( i.e., names, addresses, letters of comment, comment provided during public meetings). Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action and all significant issues are identified. Comments and/or questions concerning the preparation of these PEISs should be directed to Harriet Sopher at the address or phone listed above.

The following draft outlines will form the basis for the scoping discussion.

Proposed draft outline for the Coral Reef Restoration PEIS:

The public hearing will be convened on the Council's proposed Amendment 21 to extend the time period for the Madison/Swanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves beyond their June 16, 2004, expiration date.

The Madison/Swanson and Steamboat Lumps marine reserves were implemented on June 19, 2000, with a 4-year sunset provision. The Madison/Swanson site is approximately 115 square nautical miles in size and is located about 40 nautical miles southwest of Apalachicola City, FL. Steamboat Lumps is approximately 104 square nautical miles in size and is located about 95 nautical miles west of Tarpon Springs, FL. Within each area, fishing is prohibited for all species except for highly migratory species, i.e., tunas, marlin, oceanic sharks, sailfishes, and swordfish. These marine reserves were created primarily to protect a portion of the gag spawning aggregations and to protect a portion of the offshore population of male gag. The areas are also suitable habitat and provide protection for many other species, such as scamp, red grouper, warsaw grouper, speckled hind, red snapper, red porgy, and others.

It was the Council's intent to prohibit the use of any fishing gear within the closed areas in order to maximize enforceability of the closed area as well as minimize the negative impact from incidental catch and release of reef fish while targeting other species. For this reason, the Council asked that the NMFS Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Division implement compatible closed area regulations for the species under their management jurisdiction (tunas, swordfish, oceanic sharks, and billfishes). This led to a legal challenge from a recreational fishing organization. The recreational organization felt that restrictions on fishing for migratory species higher up in the water column were unwarranted because they would have no impact on the bottom reef fish species. As part of a settlement to the legal challenge, NMFS agreed to hold the Council's request to implement an HMS closure in abeyance while research is conducted into the impact of the no-take areas, the effect of pelagic trolling on and ability to reach reef fish species, and the impact on enforceability by allowing pelagic trolling in the no-take areas. Reports on the results of the research into these areas are scheduled to be presented at the May 12-15, 2003, Council meeting where final action is to be taken. No action will result in the two reserves expiring on June 16, 2004, and the areas re-opening to all fishing.

The public hearing will be held from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.Wednesday, April 9, 2003, Tampa Airport Hilton, 2225 Lois Avenue, Tampa, FL; telephone: 813-877-6688.

In addition, public testimony will be taken at the May 12-15, 2003, Council meeting at the Edgewater Beach Resort, 11212 Front Beach Road, Panama City Beach, FL. (The exact date and time for public testimony at the May Council meeting will be announced at a later time.)

Copies of the draft amendment for these meetings can be obtained by calling 813-228-2815.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) by April 2, 2003.

Monday, April 7, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. - Joint Enforcement Committee and Advisory Panel Meeting.

Location: New England Fishery Management Council Office, 50 Water Street, Mill #2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

The committee and advisory panel will discuss and review the Monkfish enforcement analysis. They will also discuss and review the Habitat enforcement analyses for Amendment 10 to the Scallop Fishery Management Plans (FMP) and Groundfish Amendment 13 FMP. They also plan to discuss and recommend Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements in the U.S./Canada agreement area. The U.S.Coast Guard is concerned if there are (1) vessels required to have VMS, and (2) vessels in the area that just sign-in for a fixed period, at the same time. Given time they will review other business.

The ATPDEA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns and fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The ATPDEA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13277 (FR 70305) and the United States Trade Representative's Notice of Redelegation of Authority and Further Assignment of Functions (FR Doc. 02-30427), the President's authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the ATPDEA has been delegated to CITA.

On March 17, 2003, the Chairman of CITA received a petition from Breaker Jeanswear/ARC International of Miami, Florida, alleging that certain dyed cotton corduroy fabrics, (see Annex I for product specifications), classified in subheading 5801.22.90 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), for use in apparel articles including men's and boys' jackets and pants, women's and girls' jackets, dresses, skirts, shorts, and pants, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting quota- and duty-free treatment under the ATPDEA for apparel articles that are both cut and sewn in one or more ATPDEA beneficiary countries from such fabrics.

CITA is soliciting public comments regarding this request, particularly with respect to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. Also relevant is whether other fabrics that are supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner are substitutable for these fabrics for purposes of the intended use. Comments must be received no later than April 8, 2003. Interested persons are invited to submit six copies of such comments or information to the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements, room 3100, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230.

If a comment alleges that these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, CITA will closely review any supporting documentation, such as a signed statement by a manufacturer of the fabrics stating that it produces the fabrics that are the subject of the request, including the quantities that can be supplied and the time necessary to fill an order, as well as any relevant information regarding past production.

CITA will protect any business confidential information that is marked business confidential from disclosure to the full extent permitted by law. CITA will make available to the public non-confidential versions of the request and non-confidential versions of any public comments received with respect to a request in room 3100 in the Herbert Hoover Building, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Persons submitting comments on a request are encouraged to include a non-confidential version and a non-confidential summary.

In 1982, the Commission issued the Safety Standard for Omnidirectional Citizens Band Antennas (16 CFR part 1204) to reduce risks of death and serious injury that may result if an omnidirectional antenna contacts an overhead power line while being erected or removed from its site. The standard contains performance tests to demonstrate that an antenna will not transmit a harmful electric current if it contacts an electric power line with a voltage of 14,500 volts phase-to-ground. Certification regulations implementing the standard require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas subject to the standard to perform tests to demonstrate that those products meet the requirements of the standard, and to maintain records of those tests. The certification regulations are codified at 16 CFR Part 1204, Subpart B.

The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of antennas subject to the standard to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas. More specifically, this information helps the Commission determine that antennas subject to the standard comply with all applicable requirements. The Commission also uses this information to obtain corrective actions if omnidirectional citizens band base station antennas fail to comply with the standard in a manner which creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. The Office of Management and Budget approved the collection of information in the certification regulations under control number 3041-0006. OMB's most recent extension of approval expires on May 31, 2003. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval without change for the collection of information in the certification regulations.

The Commission staff estimates that about 5 firms manufacture or import citizens band base station antennas subject to the standard. The Commission staff estimates that the certification regulations will impose an average annual burden of about 220 hours on each of those firms. That burden will result from conducting the testing required by the regulations and maintaining records of the results of that testing. The total annual burden imposed by the regulations on manufacturers and importers of citizens band base station antennas is approximately 1,100 hours.

The hourly wage for the testing and recordkeeping required to conduct the testing and maintain records required by the regulations is about $42.32, for an estimated annual cost to the industry of $46,552.

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

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

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: State educational agency local educational agency, and school data collection and reporting under ESEA, title I, part A.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary), Federal government (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 33759.

  Burden Hours: 2586428.

Abstract: Title I, part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act, requires State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools to collect and disseminate information to document progress, inform parents and the public, and provide services to at-risk students and their teachers.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2142. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Type of Review: New collection.

Title: Federal Perkins Loan Program Master Promissory Note (JS).

Frequency: On occasion, annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household (primary), businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 690,000.

Burden Hours: 345,000.

Abstract: The promissory note is the means by which a Federal Perkins Loan borrower promises to repay his or her loan.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2185. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe 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.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Fiscal Operations Report for 2002-2003 and Application to Participate for 2004-2005 (FISAP) and Reallocation Form E40-4P (JS).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary), businesses or other for-profit, State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 1.

Burden Hours: 25876.

Abstract: This application data will be used to compute the amount of funds needed by each school for the 2004-2005 award year. The Fiscal Operations Report data will be used to assess program effectiveness, account for funds expended during the 2002-2003 award year, and as part of the school funding process. The reallocation form is part of the FISAP on the web. Schools will use it in the summer to return unexpended funds for 2002-2003 and request supplemental FWS funds for 2003-2004.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2208. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe 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.

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

Under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I), each State, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was required to develop or adopt, by the 1997-98 school year, challenging content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that describe what the State expects all students to know and be able to do. Each State also was required to develop or adopt performance standards aligned with its content standards that describe three levels of proficiency to determine how well students are mastering the content standards. Finally, by the 2000-2001 school year, each State was required to develop or adopt a set of student assessments in at least reading/language arts and mathematics that would be used to determine the yearly performance of schools in enabling students to meet the State's performance standards.

OPI submitted, and the Department approved, evidence that it has content standards in at least reading/language arts and mathematics. In November 2000, OPI submitted evidence of its final assessment system. The Department submitted that evidence to a panel of three assessment experts for peer review. Following that review, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education (Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary) concluded that OPI's proposed final assessment system did not meet a number of the Title I requirements.

Section 454 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, sets out the remedies available to the Department when it determines that a recipient “is failing to comply substantially with any requirement of law” applicable to Federal program funds the Department administers. Specifically, the Department is authorized to—

(1) Withhold funds;

(2) Obtain compliance through a cease and desist order;

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with the recipient; or

(4) Take any other action authorized by law.

In a letter dated July 6, 2001 to Linda H. McCulloch, Superintendent of Public Instruction for Montana, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary notified OPI that, in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds, it must enter into a compliance agreement with the Department. The purpose of a compliance agreement is “to bring the recipient into full compliance with the applicable requirements of law as soon as feasible and not to excuse or remedy past violations of such requirements.” 20 U.S.C. 1234f(a). In order to enter into a compliance agreement with a recipient, the Department must determine, in written findings, that the recipient cannot comply until a future date with the applicable program requirements, and that a compliance agreement is a viable means for bringing about such compliance.

On April 4, 2002, the Assistant Secretary issued written findings, holding that compliance by OPI with the Title I standards and assessment requirements is genuinely not feasible until a future date. Having submitted its assessment system for peer review in November 2000, OPI was not able to make the significant changes to its system that the Department's review required in time to meet the spring 2001 statutory deadline to have approved assessments in place. As a result, OPI administered its unapproved assessment system in 2001. The Assistant Secretary also determined that a compliance agreement represents a viable means of bringing about compliance because of the steps OPI has already taken to comply and the plan it has developed for further action. The agreement sets out the action plan that OPI must meet to come into compliance with the Title I requirements. This plan, coupled with specific reporting requirements, will allow the Assistant Secretary to monitor closely OPI's progress in meeting the terms of the compliance agreement. The Superintendent of Public Instruction for Montana, Linda H. McCulloch, signed the agreement on April 1, 2002 and the Assistant Secretary signed the compliance agreement on April 4, 2002.

As required by section 457(b)(2) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2), the text of the Assistant Secretary's written findings is set forth as appendix A and the compliance agreement is set forth as appendix B of this notice.

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

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

After the May 2000 Cerro Grande Fire event, NNSA developed a Wildfire Hazard Reduction Program for LANL. This program includes the improvement of firebreaks (also known as “fuel brakes”) and fire roads for access to remote portions of LANL through the upgrade and maintenance of the existing fire road network. There are about 12 firebreaks and 40 fire roads at LANL that will be improved as part of this project ( see the attached figure). These improvements will require the following: (1) Clearing each road of hazard trees (mostly these are dead or dying trees) to keep the road open and passable; (2) grading of the roads and realignment of sharp curves to improve drainage; (3) cut and fill of road areas where needed to accommodate heavy fire fighting equipment; and (4) installation of culverts only in areas where the substrate is unstable, so as to minimize the number of culverts requiring maintenance. Disturbed soil will be revegetated after work is completed. Firebreak and road improvements will commence in fiscal year 2003 and be completed over the next 9 months.

In accordance with DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review requirements (10 CFR part 1022), NNSA prepared a floodplain/wetland assessment for this action. The NNSA published a Notice of Floodplain Involvement (volume 68, number 39). This notice announced that the floodplain/wetland assessment document was available for a 15-day review period at two public DOE reading rooms in Los Alamos and Albuquerque, New Mexico, and that copies of the document could be obtained by contacting Ms. Withers at the above address. No comments were received from the Federal Register notice on the proposed floodplain action.

Project Description: Implementing the proposed improvements to firebreaks and fire roads would allow the passage of emergency fire fighting vehicles into remote portions of LANL. Each road would be graded and drainage crossings would be improved. All of the drainage crossings on the roads in the project area receive intermittent flow during seasonal storms and spring runoff.

Hazard trees that impede emergency vehicle passage would first be removed. Drainages would be graded to existing channel depth or crossed with a culvert. Most of the drainages are composed of hard substrate, and would not need a culvert. Where the substrate is soft and unstable and where the channel is much deeper than the roadbed, a culvert would be installed. Because of the high maintenance costs associated with culvert crossings, this method of drainage improvement would be limited to the extent practicable.

All roads would be stabilized with drainage improvements. At appropriate locations, water bars and off-drains would be constructed in the improved road. Each of these drainage features would be stabilized with rock or erosion matting to prevent erosion. They would be built to temporarily impede flow without impounding water. This would reduce erosion and sediment transport into the streams. Steep slopes created by the road improvements would be rehabilitated using revegetation, soil stabilization mats, hydro mulching, and other soil stabilization methods, as appropriate. Fuel breaks would be treated the same as fire roads.

Alternatives: Alternative methods were considered for constructing improvements to the firebreaks and fire roads at LANL. A combination of methods were selected that would minimize the environmental impacts and be the least disruptive to existing environmental resources in the area.

Floodplain Impacts: The proposed action would have the potential for minimal impacts to the floodplain. Possible impacts of the proposed project on the floodplains would include movement or ponding of water within the project area and the subsequent displacement of sediment; however, these improvements are anticipated to improve existing conditions in the floodplain by correcting erosion problems with road crossings. Should a rain event occur during this activity, there may be some sediment movement down canyon because of the loosened condition of the soil from the clearing and construction activities.

Floodplain Mitigation: Impacts to the floodplain would be minimized by following Best Management Practices at the construction area (such as the placement of silt fences, straw bales or wattles, or wooden or rock structures to slow down water runoff and run-on at cleared sites). Post-construction reseeding and re-vegetation along the sides of the stream channel will minimize soil disturbance and reduce or prevent the potential for soil erosion. Specific local mitigation actions for each fire road are described in section 6.1 of the floodplain/wetland assessment.

No debris will be left at the work site. No vehicle maintenance or fueling would occur within 100 feet of the stream channel. Any sediment movement from the site would be short term and temporary.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

The information collection requirements are contained in 12 CFR 344. The regulation's purpose is to ensure that purchasers of securities in transactions effected by insured state nonmember banks are provided with adequate information concerning the transactions. The regulation is also designed to ensure that insured state nonmember banks maintain adequate records and controls with respect to the securities transactions they effect.

OMB Reviewer: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr. (202) 395-4741, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503.

FDIC Contact: Tamara R. Manly, (202) 898-7453, Legal Division, Room MB-3109, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Comments: Comments on these collections of information are welcome and should be submitted on or before April 21, 2003 to both the OMB reviewer and the FDIC contact listed above.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 18, 2003), on the World Wide Web, at “ http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/03/index.htm. ” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following email box: consentagreement@ftc.gov . Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with § 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted for public comment an Agreement Containing Consent Order with Indiana Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc. (“IHM&W” or “Respondent”). The Agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by IHM&W that the law has been violated as alleged in the Complaint or that the facts alleged in the Complaint, other than jurisdictional facts, are true.

The proposed Complaint alleges that Respondent Indiana Household Movers and Warehousemen, Inc., a corporation, has violated and is now violating section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Specifically, the proposed Complaint alleges that Respondent has agreed to engage, and has engaged, in a combination and conspiracy, an agreement, concerted action or unfair and unlawful acts, policies and practices, the purpose or effect of which is to unlawfully hinder, restrain, restrict, suppress or eliminate competition among household goods movers in the household goods moving industry.

Respondent is an association organized for and serving its members, which are approximately 70 household goods movers that conduct business within the State of Indiana. One of the primary functions of Respondent is preparing, and filing with the Indiana Department of Revenue, tariffs and supplements on behalf of its members. These tariffs and supplements contain rates and charges for the intrastate and local transportation of household goods and for related services.

The proposed Complaint alleges that Respondent is engaged in initiating, preparing, developing, disseminating, and taking other actions to establish and maintain collective rates, which have the purpose or effect of fixing, establishing or stabilizing rates for the transportation of household goods in the State of Indiana. The Respondent files uniform rates that are agreed upon by all of its members.

The proposed Complaint further alleges that Respondent organizes and conducts meetings that provide a forum for discussion or agreement between competing carriers concerning or affecting rates and charges for the intrastate transportation of household goods.

The proposed Complaint further alleges that Respondent's conduct is anticompetitive because it has the effect of raising, fixing, and stabilizing the prices of household goods moves. The acts of Respondent also have the effect of depriving consumers of the benefits of competition.

The proposed Order would provide relief for the alleged anticompetitive effects of the conduct principally by means of a cease and desist order barring Respondent from continuing its practice of filing tariffs containing collective intrastate rates.

Paragraph II of the proposed Order bars Respondent from filing a tariff that contains collective intrastate rates. This provision will terminate Respondent's current practice of filing tariffs that contain intrastate rates that are the product of an agreement among movers in the State of Indiana. This paragraph also prohibits Respondent from engaging in activities such as exchanges of information that would facilitate member movers in agreeing on the rates contained in their intrastate tariffs. It also bars Respondent from maintaining a tariff committee or agreeing with movers to institute any automatic intrastate rate increases.

Paragraph III of the proposed Order requires Respondent to cancel all tariffs that it has filed that contain intrastate collective rates. This provision will ensure that the collective intrastate rates now on file in the State of Indiana will no longer be in force, allowing for competitive rates in future individual mover tariffs. Paragraph III of the proposed Order also requires Respondent to cancel any provisions in its governing documents that permit it to engage in activities barred by the Order.

Paragraph IV of the proposed Order requires Respondent to send to its members a letter explaining the terms of the Order. This will make clear to members that they can no longer engage in collective rate-making activities.

Paragraphs V and VI of the proposed Order require Respondent to inform the Commission of any change in Respondent that could affect compliance with the Order and to file compliance reports with the Commission for a number of years. Paragraph VII of the proposed Order states that the Order will terminate in twenty years.

Respondent can seek to modify the proposed Order to permit it to engage in collective rate-making if it can demonstrate that the “state action” defense would immunize its conduct. 1 The state action doctrine dates back to the Supreme Court's 1943 opinion in Parker v. Brown , which held that, in light of the States' status as sovereigns, and given basic principles of federalism, Congress would not have intended the Sherman Act to apply to the activities of States themselves. 2 The defense also has been interpreted in limited circumstances to immunize from antitrust scrutiny private firms' activities that are conducted pursuant to state authority. States may not, however, simply authorize private parties to violate the antitrust laws. 3 Instead, a State must substitute its own control for that of the market.

Thus, the state action defense would be available to Respondent only if it could demonstrate that its conduct satisfied the strict two-pronged standard the Supreme Court set out in California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. : “the challenged restraint must be ‘one clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy”' and “the policy must be ‘actively supervised’ by the state itself.”  4

Under the first prong of Midcal's two-part test, Respondent would be required to show that the State of Indiana had “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy” the desire to replace competition with a regulatory scheme. With regard to this prong, it appears that Indiana law specifically contemplates common carriers' entering into “joint rates” under certain circumstances that do not appear to be applicable to the conduct at issue here. 5 Respondent would meet its burden only if it could show that this or some other provision of Indiana law constitutes a clear expression of state policy to displace competition and allow for collective rate-making among competitors.

Under the second prong of the Midcal test, Respondent would be required to demonstrate “active supervision” by state officials. The Supreme Court has made clear that the active supervision standard is a rigorous one. It is not enough that the State grants general authority for certain business conduct or that it approves private agreements with little review. As the Court held in Midcal , “The national policy in favor of competition cannot be thwarted by casting such a gauzy cloak of state involvement over what is essentially a private price-fixing arrangement.”  6 Rather, active supervision is designed to ensure that a private party's anticompetitive action is shielded from antitrust liability only when “the State has effectively made [the challenged] conduct its own.”  7

In order for state supervision to be adequate for state action purposes, state officials must engage in a “pointed re-examination” of the private conduct. 8 In this regard, the State must “ have and exercise ultimate authority” over the challenged anticompetitive conduct. 9 To do so, state officials must exercise “sufficient independent judgment and control so that the details of the rates or prices have been established as a product of deliberate state intervention, not simply by agreement among private parties.” 10 One asserting the state action defense must demonstrate that the state agency has ascertained the relevant facts, examined the substantive merits of the private action, assessed whether that private action comports with the underlying statutory criteria established by the state legislature, and squarely ruled on the merits of the private action in a way sufficient to establish the challenged conduct as a product of deliberate state intervention rather than private choice.

One of the primary goals of the emerging Government Services Information Infrastructure (GSII) is to facilitate public access to government information and services through the use of information technologies. One of the specific goals of the GSII is to provide the public with a choice of using Internet-based, online access to the automated information technology application systems operated by government agencies; such access will make it easier and less costly for the public to complete transactions with the government. By law, access to some of these automated information technology application systems can be granted only after the agency operating the system is provided with reliable information that the individual requesting such access is who he/she claims to be, and that he/she is authorized such access. The arms-length transactions envisioned by the GSII require implementation of methods for:

1. Reliably establishing and verifying the identity of the individuals desiring to participate in the ACES Program, based primarily upon electronic communications between the applicant and authorized ACES Registration Authority.

2. Issuing to the individuals who have been successfully identified a means that they can use to uniquely identify themselves to the automated information technology application systems participating in the ACES Program.

3. Electronically and securely passing that identity to the automated information technology application system to which the individual is requesting access.

4. Electronically and securely authenticating that identity, through a trusted third party, each time it is presented to an automated information technology application system participating in the ACES Program.

5. Ensuring that the identified individual requesting access to an automated information technology application system has been duly authorized, by the management of that automated information technology application system, to access that system and perform the transactions desired.

6. Ensuring that the information being exchanged between the individual and the automated information technology application system has not been corrupted during transmission.

7. Reducing the ability of the parties to such transactions to repudiate the actions taken.

The current state-of-the-art suggests that digital signature certificate technologies (often referred to as part of “Public Key Infrastructure, or PKI”) provide a reliable and cost efficient means for meeting many of these GSII requirements. Thus, the ACES Program should be understood to represent an effort to implement and continue a PKI through which members of the public who desire to do so can securely communicate electronically with the online automated information technology application systems participating in the ACES Program.

The initial step for any member of the public to take in order to participate in the ACES Program is to submit an application for an ACES certificate to an authorized ACES Registration Authority. In conjunction with application process, the applicant will be required to submit at least:

a. His/her full name.

b. His/her place of birth.

c. His/her date of birth.

d. His/her current address and telephone number.

e. At least three (3) of the following:

i. Current valid state issued driver license number or number of state issued identification card.

ii. Current valid passport number.

iii. Current valid credit card number.

iv. Alien registration number (if applicable).

v. Social Security Number.

vi. Current employer name, address, and telephone number.

f. If the registration is for a business representative certificate, evidence of authorization to represent that business entity.

The information provided during the process of applying for an ACES certificate constitutes the continued information collection activity that is the subject of this Paperwork Reduction Act Notice and request for comments.

A detailed description of the current ACES Program is available on the World Wide Web at http://www.gsa.gov/aces, or through the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT listed above.

Please note that all ACES identity information collected from the public is covered by the Privacy Act, the Computer Security Act, and related privacy and security regulations, regardless of whether it is provided directly to an agency of the Federal Government or to an authorized ACES Registration Authority providing ACES-related services under a contract with GSA. Compliance with all of the attending requirements is enforced through binding contracts, periodic monitoring by GSA, annual audits by independent auditing firms, and annual re-accreditation by GSA. Only fully accredited Registration Authorities will be permitted to accept and maintain identity information provided by the public.

The identity information collected will be used only to establish and verify the identity and eligibility of applicants for ACES certificates; no other use of the information is permitted.

Participation in the ACES Program is strictly voluntary, but participation will only be permitted upon presentation of identity information by the applicant, and verification of that information by an authorized ACES Registration Authority.

ACES is designed to permit on-line, arms-length registration through the Internet, which significantly reduces the public's reporting burden. Based upon preliminary tests run on similar systems for gathering identity-related information from the public ( e.g. , U.S. Passports, initial issuance of state-issued driver's license, etc.), the individual reporting burden for providing identity information for the initial ACES certificate is estimated at an average of 15 minutes, including gathering the information together and entering the data into the electronic forms provided by the authorized ACES Registration Authorities.

No reliable information is yet available to support any estimate relating to the number of individuals who will seek to register to participate in the ACES Program. Thus, no estimate of the overall reporting burden is being provided at this time.

The General Services Administration will be requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review and approve information collection, 3090-0270, concerning ACES. GSA is responsible for assisting Federal agencies with the implementation and use of digital signature technologies to enhance electronic access to government information and services by all eligible persons. In order to ensure that the ACES program certificates are issued to the proper individuals, GSA will continue to collect identity information from persons who elect to participate in ACES.

Respondents: 1,000,000.

Annual Responses: 1.

Average Hours Per Response: 0.25.

Burden Hours: 250,000.

Obtaining Copies of Proposal: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory and Federal Assistance Publications Division(MVA), 1800 F Street, NW., room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0270, Access Certificates for Electronic Services (ACES).

The President's Council on Bioethics was created by Executive Order 13237, on November 28, 2001, to advise the President on the ethical and policy questions arising from developments in biomedical science and technology. For more information about the Council, see http://www.bioethics.gov .

This request follows up on an earlier request for public comments on the preliminary measure set dated August 19, 2002. At that time, no home health measures were proposed for the preliminary measure set because AHRQ was working together with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to determine as appropriate set of measures for the CMS public reporting initiative on home health as well as the NHQR. AHRQ and CMS decided that, in the short term, the Outcome and Assessment Information (OASIS) measures would be used as the initial measure set because there is more standardization around these measures than any other in home health care. This view was reiterated in the one comment received in response to the August request, i.e., that OASIS measures were the best currently available to measure the quality of home health care.

OASIS is a uniform set of patient assessment items developed for monitoring and measuring outcomes of care, adjusted for patient factors that might affect those outcomes. The OASIS data set is the only national, standardized data source on adult home health care delivery. The OASIS instrument was created over a 14-year period to measure functional outcomes for the purpose of improving quality of home health care. It was developed through a scientific process, using input from the home healthcare industry, and has been tested for validity and reliability. All Medicare certified home health agencies (HHAs) implemented the OASIS instrument nationwide for collection and reporting of comprehensive patient assessments in October 1999. There are 41 measures derived from OASIS data covering (1) functional outcomes; (2) physiologic outcome; (3) emotional/behavioral/cognitive outcomes; and (4) utilization outcome measures. When one includes the additional 13 low-frequency adverse patient outcomes identified from OASIS data, there are a total of 54 measures. The Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/providers/hha/ contains extensive detail on the development of OASIS, a copy of the OASIS data collection form (OASIS B1) and measure definitions.

Because CMS currently wanted to select a subset of OASIS measures for its home health public quality reporting initiative, AHRQ decided to convene a technical expert panel (TEP) to review the set of OASIS home health quality measures as candidates for both the NHQR and the CMS home health care public reporting initiative. Accordingly, AHRQ convened a TEP on October 21-22, 2002 with the purpose of addressing these two independent but overlapping efforts being planned by CMS and AHRQ.

The TEP was composed of 18 members representing a wide range of disciplines and interests: home health agency representatives, clinicians (both physicians and nurses), an epidemiologist, consumer reporting experts and a consumer groups organization, quality improvement organizations, State survey agencies, and home health services researchers. The panelist list is included in the meeting transcript on the AHRQ site at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhrq02/hhmtep.htm.

AHRQ and CMS staff gave introductory remarks and overviews of the two parallel purposes and goals of the meeting. Speakers gave background presentations on: (1) Development of the OASIS measures, their statistical properties, and their use in quality improvement and (2) results of testing OASIS measures (in plain language) in focus group with consumers and interviews with physicians and discharge planners, who would be users of such quality measure information. Results of these focus groups are also on the above referenced AHRQ Web site.

After presentation of the introductory background material, the meeting facilitator described how the remainder of the meeting would proceed. Since this technical expert panel was not established as a formal Federal advisory committee, AHRQ would not seek any formal votes from the panel nor consensus from the panel members. Instead, the emphasis would be on viewpoints of the individual panel members as each of the existing OASIS measures was discussed according to pre-established criteria ( see Attachment A in the meeting transcript on the AHRQ Web site), derived from criteria for quality measures developed by the Institute of Medicine for the NHQR. Panelists were given a workbook with criteria worksheets and statistical properties for each of the measures. The presenters stayed during the entire meeting for technical support and clarifications.

At the end of the second day, all of the panel members were asked to bring together their values, insights and assessments to provide input to AHRQ on which of the 41 OASIS measures should be priority items for the two purposes: (1) AHRQ's NHQR and (2) CMS's home health public reporting initiative. It was acknowledged that these two priority measure lists might be different.

The meeting was open to the public and representatives from the home health industry trade associations, industry consultants, agencies and journalists attended.

The Panel was charged with focusing on 41 OASIS measures, a subset of the 54 measures in OASIS. To facilitate discussion, these 41 measures were put into 13 categories (used in consumer testing) and three domains (adapted from the Foundation for Accountability framework) as follows:

• Domain: Getting Better

Improvements in: Dyspnea, status of surgical wounds, number of surgical wounds, urinary tract infection, urinary incontinence, bowel incontinence.

Improvements in: Behavior problem frequency, cognitive functioning, confusion frequency, anxiety level.

Improvements in: Eating, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, in bathing, grooming, management of oral medications.

Improvements in: Ambulation/locomotion, toileting, transferring, pain interfering with activity.

Improvements in: Light meal preparation, laundry, shopping, housekeeping.

Improvements in: Speech and language, phone use.

Discharged to community.

• Domain: Living With Illness or Disability

Stabilization in: Bathing, grooming, management of oral medications.

Stabilization in: Light meal preparation, laundry, shopping, housekeeping.

Stabilization in: Cognitive functioning, anxiety level.

Stabilization in: Transferring.

Stabilization in: Speech and language, phone use.

• Domain: Staying Healthy/Avoiding Injury or Harm

Any emergency care provided, acute care hospitalization.

CMS and AHRQ focused panel attention on just these 41 measures because they assess long-term quality improvement issues that every home health agency should address. These OASIS measures are not specific to particular diagnoses but the functional outcomes they measure apply to many diagnoses. There are an additional 13 adverse event outcome OASIS measures that were not considered by the panel because they cover events that occur infrequently.

Based on the Home Health Quality Measures Technical Expert Panel input, including: the individual panelist prioritization lists ( i.e., a significant proportion of panelists listed particular measures as priority items for inclusion), their written comments and the meeting discussion, AHRQ proposes using results collected on the following 12 OASIS measures for reporting on the quality of home health care in the NHQR:

AHRQ is soliciting public comment on this proposed set of 12 home health care measures selected from the 41 OASIS measures considered. Ten of these measures are the same as CMS has announced for use in its initial home health public reporting effort. Based on panel input regarding the NHQR, AHRQ is recommending two additional measures, “Improvement in dyspnea” and “Improvement in urinary incontinence.” Finally, although CMS is using the measure, “Any Emergency Care,” (one of the OASIS measures listed above in Category 13), AHRQ is not recommending this measure for the NHQR at this time because we believe that this measure raises some significant issues that warrant further investigation. AHRQ would like to hear comments on the advantages and disadvantages of this measure in particular.

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

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For medical devices, the testing phase begins with a clinical investigation of the device and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the device and continues until permission to market the device is granted. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a medical device will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(3)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the medical device GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM. GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM is indicated as an aid in the management of chronic, intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs, including unilateral or bilateral pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome, intractable low back pain, and leg pain. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM (U.S. Patent No. 4,793,353) from Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated October 31, 2002, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this medical device had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM is 469 days. Of this time, 292 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 177 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date a clinical investigation involving this device was begun : August 11, 2000. The applicant claims that the investigational device exemption (IDE) required under section 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(g)) for human tests to begin became effective on June 16, 1999. However, FDA records indicate that the IDE was determined substantially complete for clinical studies to have begun on August 11, 2000, which represents the IDE effective date.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the device under section 515 of the act (21 U.S.C. 360e) : May 29, 2001. The applicant claims April 3, 2001, as the date the premarket approval application (PMA) for GENESIS NEUROSTIMULATION SYSTEM (PMA P010032) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that PMA P010032 was submitted on May 29, 2001.

3. The date the application was approved : November 21, 2001. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that PMA P010032 was approved on November 21, 2001.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 840 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by May 23, 2003. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by September 22, 2003. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Dockets Management Branch. Three copies of any information are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The creation of compliance program guidances (CPGs) is a major initiative of the OIG in its effort to engage the private health care community in preventing the submission of erroneous claims and in combating fraudulent and abusive conduct. In the past several years, the OIG has developed and issued CPGs directed at a variety of segments in the health care industry. The development of these CPGs is based on our belief that a health care provider can use internal controls to more efficiently monitor adherence to applicable statutes, regulations, and program requirements. Copies of these CPGs can be found on the OIG Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov.

Having experienced a number of instances of ambulance provider and supplier fraud and abuse, the ambulance industry has expressed interest in protecting against such conduct through increased guidance to the industry. To date, the OIG has issued several advisory opinions on a variety of ambulance-related issues (see endnote 13 in this compliance program guidance) and has published final rulemaking concerning a safe harbor for ambulance restocking arrangements (66 FR 62979; December 4, 2001).

To provide further guidance, the OIG published a Federal Register notice (65 FR 50204; August 17, 2000) that solicited general comments, recommendations, and other suggestions from concerned parties and organizations on how best to develop compliance guidance for ambulance suppliers to reduce the potential for fraud and abuse. On June 6, 2002, the OIG published a Draft Compliance Program Guidance to afford all interested parties a further opportunity to provide specific comments in the development of this final CPG (67 FR 39015; June 6, 2002). In response to that notice, the OIG received three public comments, collectively representing a variety of outside sources. We have carefully considered those comments, as well as previous OIG publications, and have consulted with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Department of Justice in developing final guidance for ambulance suppliers. This final guidance outlines some of the most common and prevalent fraud and abuse risk areas for the ambulance industry and provides direction on how to: (1) Address various risk areas; (2) prevent the occurrence of instances of fraud and abuse; and (3) develop corrective actions when those risks or instances of fraud and abuse are identified.

This CPG is divided into the following five separate sections, with an appendix:

• Section I is a brief introduction.

• Section II provides information about the basic elements of a compliance program for ambulance suppliers.

• Section III discusses various fraud and abuse and compliance risks associated with ambulance services covered under the Medicare program.

• Section IV briefly summarizes compliance risks related to Medicaid coverage for transportation services.

• Section V discusses various risks under the anti-kickback statute.

• The appendix provides relevant statutory and regulatory citations, as well as brief discussions of additional potential risk areas to consider when developing a compliance program.

Under the Social Security Act (the Act), ambulance “providers” are Medicare participating institutional providers that submit claims for Medicare ambulance services ( e.g. , hospitals, including critical access hospitals (CAHs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs); the term “supplier” means an entity that is other than a provider. For purposes of this document, we will refer to both ambulance suppliers and providers as ambulance “suppliers.”

The OIG recognizes that the ambulance industry is comprised of entities of enormous variation: some ambulance companies are large, many are small; some are for-profit, many are not-for-profit; some are affiliated with hospitals, many are independent; and some are operated by municipalities or counties, while others are commercially owned. Consequently, this guidance is not intended to be a one-size-fits-all guide. Rather, like the previous CPGs, this guidance is intended as a helpful tool for those entities that are considering establishing a voluntary compliance program and for those that have already done so and are seeking to analyze, improve or expand existing programs. As with the OIG's previous guidance, the guidelines discussed in this CPG are not mandatory, nor is the CPG an all-inclusive document containing all the components of a compliance program. Other OIG outreach efforts, as well as other federal agency efforts to promote compliance, can and should also be used in developing a compliance program tailored to an entity's particular structure and operations.

This guidance focuses on compliance measures related to services furnished primarily under the Medicare program and, to a limited extent, other federal health care programs. (See, e.g. , section IV for a brief discussion of Medicaid ambulance coverage.) Suppliers are free to address private payor claims and services in their compliance programs.

As in other sectors of the health care industry, most ambulance suppliers are honest suppliers trying to deliver quality services. However, like other health care industry sectors, the ambulance industry has seen its share of fraudulent and abusive practices. The OIG has reported and pursued a number of different fraudulent and abusive practices in the ambulance transport field. Examples include:

• Improper transport of individuals with other acceptable means of transportation;

• Medically unnecessary trips;

• Trips claimed but not rendered;

• Misrepresentation of the transport destination to make it appear as if the transport was covered;

• False documentation;

• Billing for each patient transported in a group as if he/she was transported separately;

• Upcoding from basic life support to advanced life support services; and

• Payment of kickbacks.

To help reduce the incidence and prevalence of fraudulent or abusive conduct, an ambulance supplier should consider the recommendations in this guidance.

This final CPG has been modified from the draft CPG to take into further consideration CMS's adoption of a new fee schedule for payment of ambulance services. The CMS's ambulance fee schedule is the product of a negotiated rulemaking process and will replace (over a five-year transition period) the retrospective, reasonable cost reimbursement system for providers, and the reasonable charge system for suppliers of ambulance services. As the government and the industry gain more experience under the new fee schedule, the OIG may update or supplement this CPG to address newly identified risk areas, as appropriate.

The following basic components have become accepted as the building blocks of an effective compliance program:

The ambulance supplier should develop and distribute written standards of conduct, as well as written policies and procedures, that reflect the ambulance supplier's commitment to compliance and address specific areas of potential fraud or abuse. These written policies and procedures should be reviewed periodically ( e.g. , annually) and revised as appropriate to ensure they are current and relevant.

The ambulance supplier should designate a compliance officer and other appropriate bodies ( e.g. , a compliance committee) charged with the responsibility for operating and monitoring the organization's compliance program. The compliance officer should be a high-level individual in the organization who reports directly to the organization's upper management, such as the chief executive officer or board of directors. The OIG recognizes that an ambulance supplier may tailor the job functions of the compliance officer position by taking into account the size and structure of the organization, existing reporting lines, and other appropriate factors.

A key element of a compliance program should be regular training and education of employees and other appropriate individuals. Training content should be tailored appropriately and should be delivered in a way that will maximize the chances that the information will be understood by the target audience.

Appropriate monitoring methods are essential to detect and identify problems and to help reduce the future likelihood of problems.

Ambulance suppliers should develop policies and procedures directed at ensuring that the organization responds appropriately to detected offenses, including the initiation of appropriate corrective action. An organization's response to detected misconduct will vary based on the facts and circumstances of the offense. However, the response should always be appropriate to resolve and correct the situation in a timely manner. The organization's compliance officer, and legal counsel in some circumstances, should be involved in situations when serious misconduct is identified.

Ambulance suppliers should create and maintain a process, such as a hotline or other reporting system, to receive and process complaints and to ensure effective lines of communication between the compliance officer and all employees. Further, procedures should be adopted to protect the anonymity of complainants, where the complainants desire to remain anonymous, and to protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

Ambulance suppliers should develop policies and procedures to ensure that there are appropriate disciplinary mechanisms and standards that are applied in an appropriate and consistent manner. These policies and standards should address situations in which employees or contractors violate, whether intentionally or negligently, internal compliance policies, applicable statutes, regulations, or other federal health care program requirements.

Developing and implementing a compliance program may require significant resources and time. An individual ambulance supplier is best situated to tailor compliance measures to its own organizational structure and financial capabilities. In addition, compliance programs should be reviewed periodically to account for changes in the health care industry, federal health care statutes and regulations, relevant payment policies and procedures, and identified risks.

It is prudent for ambulance suppliers conducting a risk analysis to begin by performing an evaluation of internal and external factors that affect their operations. These may include internal systems and management issues, as well as the federal health care program requirements that govern their business operations. In many cases, such evaluation will result in the creation and adoption or revision of written policies and procedures. The evaluation process may be simple and straightforward or it may be fairly complex and involved. For example, an evaluation of whether an ambulance supplier's existing written policies and procedures accurately reflect current federal health care program requirements is straightforward. However, an evaluation of whether an ambulance supplier's actual practices conform to its policies and procedures may be more complex and require several analytical evaluations to determine whether system weaknesses are present. Even more complex is an evaluation of an ambulance supplier's practices in light of applicable statutes, regulations, and other program requirements, when there are no pre-existing written policies and procedures.

The evaluation process should furnish ambulance suppliers with a snapshot of their strengths and weaknesses and assist providers in recognizing areas of potential risk. We suggest that ambulance suppliers evaluate a variety of practices and factors, including their policies and procedures, employee training and education, employee knowledge and understanding, claims submission process, coding and billing, accounts receivable management, documentation practices, management structure, employee turnover, contractual arrangements, changes in reimbursement policies, and payor expectations.

Because policies and procedures represent the written standard for daily operations, an ambulance supplier's policies and procedures should describe the normal operations of the ambulance supplier and the applicable rules and regulations. Further, written policies and procedures should go through a formal approval process within the organization and should be evaluated on a routine basis, and updated as needed, to reflect current ambulance practices (assuming these practices are appropriate and comport with the relevant statutes, regulations, and program requirements). In addition, ambulance suppliers should review policies and procedures to ensure that they are representative of actual practices. For example, an ambulance supplier's policy for reviewing ambulance call reports (ACRs) should not state that it will review 100 percent of its ACRs, unless the ambulance supplier is capable of performing and enforcing such comprehensive reviews.

Ensuring that a supplier's employees and agents receive adequate education and training is essential to minimizing risk. Employees should clearly understand what is expected of them and for what they will be held accountable. Suppliers should also document and track the training they provide to employees and others.

An ambulance supplier should consider offering two types of compliance training: compliance program training and job-specific training. If an ambulance supplier is implementing a formal compliance program, employees should be trained on the elements of the program, the importance of the program to the organization, the purpose and goals of the program, what the program means for each individual, and the key individuals responsible for ensuring that the program is operating successfully. Compliance program education should be available to all employees, even those whose job functions are not directly related to billing or patient care.

Ambulance suppliers should also train employees on specific areas with regard to their particular job positions and responsibilities, whether or not as part of a formal compliance plan. The intensity and the nature of the specific training will vary by employee type. Training employees on the job functions of other people in the organization may also be an effective training tool. Appropriate cross-training can improve employees' overall awareness of compliance and job functions, thereby increasing the likelihood that an individual employee will recognize non-compliance. Training should be provided on a periodic basis to keep employees current on ambulance supplier requirements, including, for example, the latest payor requirements. Ambulance suppliers should conduct or make available training for employees at least yearly, and more often if needed.

Generally, employees who attend interactive training better comprehend the material presented. Interactive training offers employees the chance to ask questions and receive feedback. When possible, ambulance suppliers should use “real” examples of compliance pitfalls provided by personnel with “real life” experience, such as emergency medical technicians and paramedics.

The OIG is cognizant that offering interactive, live training often requires significant personnel and time commitments. As appropriate, ambulance suppliers may wish to consider seeking, developing, or using other innovative training methods. Computer or internet modules may be an effective means of training if employees have access to such technology and if a system is developed to allow employees to ask questions. The OIG cannot endorse any commercial training product; it is up to each ambulance supplier to determine if the training methods and products are effective and appropriate.

Whatever form of training ambulance suppliers provide, the OIG also recommends that employees complete a post-compliance training test or questionnaire to verify comprehension of the material presented. This will allow a supplier to assess the effectiveness and quality of its training materials and techniques. Additionally, training materials should be updated as appropriate and presented in a manner that is understandable by the average trainee. Finally, the OIG suggests that the employees' attendance at, and completion of, training be tracked and appropriate documentation maintained.

Ambulance suppliers should conduct periodic claims reviews to verify that a claim ready for submission, or one that has been submitted and paid, contains the required, accurate, and truthful information required by the payor. An ambulance claims review should focus, at a minimum, on the information and documentation present in the ACR, the medical necessity of the transport as determined by payor requirements, the coding of the claim, the co-payment collection process, and the subsequent payor reimbursement. The claims reviews should be conducted by individuals with experience in coding and billing and familiar with the different payors' coverage and reimbursement requirements for ambulance services. The reviewers should be independent and objective in their approach. Claims reviewers who analyze claims that they themselves prepared or supervised often lack sufficient independence to accurately evaluate the claims submissions process and the accuracy of individual claims. The appearance of a lack of independence may hinder the effectiveness of a claims review.

Depending on the purpose and scope of a claims review, there are a variety of ways to conduct the review. The claims review may focus on particular areas of interest ( e.g., coding accuracy), or it may include all aspects of the claims submission and payment process. The universe from which the claims are selected will comprise the area of focus for the review. Once the universe of claims has been identified, an acceptable number of claims should be randomly selected. Because the universe of claims and the variability of items in the universe will vary, the OIG cannot specify a generally acceptable number of claims for purposes of a claims review. However, the number of claims sampled and reviewed should be sufficient to ensure that the results are representative of the universe of claims from which the sample was pulled.

Ambulance suppliers should not only monitor identified errors, but also evaluate the source or cause of the errors. For example, an ambulance supplier may identify through a review a certain claims error rate. Upon further evaluation, the ambulance supplier may determine that the errors were a result of inadequate documentation. Further evaluation may reveal that the documentation deficiencies involve a limited number of individuals who work on a specific shift. It is the ambulance supplier's responsibility to identify such weaknesses and to correct them promptly. In this example, at a minimum, additional employee training should be required and any identified overpayment repaid. A detailed and logical analysis will make claims reviews useful tools for identifying risks, correcting weaknesses, and preventing future errors.

Ambulance suppliers should consider using a baseline audit to develop a benchmark against which to measure performance. This audit will establish a consistent methodology for selecting and examining records in future audits. Comparing audit results from different audits will generally yield useful results only when the audits analyze the same or similar information and when matching methodologies are used.

As part of its compliance efforts, an ambulance supplier should document how often audits or reviews are conducted and the information reviewed for each audit. The ambulance supplier should not only use internal benchmarks, but should utilize external information, if available, to establish benchmarks ( e.g., data from other ambulance suppliers, associations, or from payors). Additionally, risk areas may be identified from the results of the audits.

If a material deficiency is identified that could be a potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation, the ambulance supplier may disclose the matter to the OIG via the Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol. The Provider Self-Disclosure Protocol was designed to allow providers/suppliers to disclose voluntarily potential violations in their dealings with the federal health care programs. In all cases, identified overpayments should be reported to the appropriate payor.

As a general matter, ambulance suppliers should review claims on a pre-billing basis to identify errors before claims are submitted. If there is insufficient documentation to support the claim, the claim should not be submitted. Pre-billing reviews also allow suppliers to review the medical necessity of their claims. If, as a result of the pre-billing claims review process, a pattern of claim submission or coding errors is identified, the ambulance supplier should develop a responsive action plan to ensure that overpayments are identified and repaid.

In addition to a pre-billing review, a review of paid claims may be necessary to determine error rates and quantify overpayments and/or underpayments. The post-payment review may help ambulance suppliers in identifying billing or coding software system problems. Any overpayments identified from the review should be promptly returned to the appropriate payor in accordance with payor policies.

Ambulance suppliers should review their claims denials periodically to determine if denial patterns exist. If a pattern of claims denials is detected, the pattern should be evaluated to determine the cause and appropriate course of action. Employee education regarding proper documentation, coding, or medical necessity may be appropriate. If an ambulance supplier believes its payor is not adequately explaining the basis for its denials, the ambulance supplier should seek clarification in writing.

Periodic review and testing of a supplier's coding and billing systems are also essential to detect system weaknesses. One reliable systems review method is to analyze in detail the entire process by which a claim is generated, including how a transport is documented and by whom; how that information is entered into the supplier's automated system (if any); coding and medical necessity determination protocols; billing system processes and controls, including any edits or data entry limitations; and finally the claims generation, submission, and subsequent payment tracking processes. A weakness or deficiency in any part of the supplier's system can lead to improper claims, undetected overpayments, or failure to detect system defects.

Each ambulance supplier should have computer or other system edits to ensure that minimum data requirements are met. For example, under CMS's new fee schedule, each transport claim that does not have an originating zip code listed should be “flagged” by the system. Other edits should be established to detect potentially improper claims submissions. A systems review is especially important when documentation or billing requirements are modified or when an ambulance supplier changes its billing software or claims vendors. As appropriate, ambulance suppliers should communicate with their payor when they are implementing significant changes to their system to alert the payor to any unexpected delays, or increases or decreases in claims submissions.

Ambulance suppliers should ensure that their electronic or computer billing systems do not automatically insert information that is not supported by the documentation of the medical or trip sheets. For example, billing systems targeting optimum efficiency may be set with defaults to indicate that a physician's signature was obtained following an emergency room transport. If information is automatically inserted onto a claim submitted for reimbursement, and that information is false, the ambulance supplier's claims will be false. If a required field on a claim form is missing information, the system should flag the claim prior to its submission.

Federal law prohibits Medicare payment for services furnished by an excluded individual, such as an excluded ambulance crew member. Accordingly, ambulance suppliers should query the OIG and General Services Administration (GSA) exclusion and debarments lists before they employ or contract with new employees or new contractors. Additionally, ambulance suppliers should periodically (at least yearly) check the OIG and GSA web sites to ensure that they are not employing or contracting with individuals or entities that have been recently convicted of a criminal offense related to health care or who are listed as debarred, suspended, excluded, or otherwise ineligible for participation in federal health care programs. The OIG and GSA Web sites are listed at http://oig.hhs.gov and http://www.arnet.gov/epls, respectively, and contain specific instructions for searching the exclusion and debarment databases.

This ambulance CPG discusses many of the areas that the ambulance industry, the OIG, or CMS have identified as common risks for many ambulance suppliers. However, this CPG does not identify or discuss all risks that an ambulance supplier may itself identify. Moreover, the CPG may ascribe more or less risk to a particular practice area than an ambulance supplier would encounter based on its own internal findings and circumstances. Because there are many different types of risk areas, ambulance suppliers should prioritize their identified risks to ensure that the various areas are addressed appropriately. Apart from the risks identified in this CPG, ambulance suppliers of all types ( e.g. , small, large, rural, emergency, non-emergency) should evaluate whether they have any unique risks attendant to their business relationships or processes. For example, a small, rural not-for-profit ambulance supplier may identify risk areas different from those of a large, for-profit ambulance chain that serves a primarily urban area. To stay abreast of risks affecting the ambulance and other health care industries, the OIG recommends that ambulance suppliers review OIG publications regarding ambulance services, including OIG advisory opinions, OIG fraud alerts and bulletins, Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) reports, and Office of Audit Services reports, all located on the OIG's Web site at http://oig.hhs.gov. A review of industry-specific trade publications will also help ambulance suppliers remain current on industry changes.

An ambulance supplier should develop a reasonable response to address identified risk areas, including written protocols and reasonable time frames for specific situations. Developing timely and appropriate responsive actions demonstrates the supplier's commitment to address problems and concerns. Determining whether identified problems respond to corrective actions may require continual oversight.

Ambulance suppliers should review and understand applicable ambulance coverage requirements. Ambulance suppliers that are not complying with applicable requirements should take appropriate, prompt corrective action to follow the relevant requirements. The new fee schedule covers seven levels of service, including Basic Life Support (BLS), Advanced Life Support, Level 1 (ALS1), Advanced Life Support, Level 2 (ALS2), Specialty Care Transport, Paramedic ALS Intercept, Fixed Wing Air Ambulance, and Rotary Wing Air Ambulance. Generally, Medicare Part B covers ambulance transports if applicable vehicle and staff requirements, medical necessity requirements, billing and reporting requirements, and origin and destination requirements are met. Medicare Part B will not pay for ambulance services if Part A has paid directly or indirectly for the same services.

Medically unnecessary transports have formed the basis for a number of Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases. Consequently, medical necessity is a risk area that should be addressed in an ambulance supplier's compliance program. Medicare Part B covers ambulance services only if the beneficiary's medical condition contraindicates another means of transportation. The medical necessity requirements vary depending on the status of the ambulance transport ( i.e. , emergency transport vs. non-emergency transport). If the medical necessity requirement is met, Medicare Part B covers ambulance services when a beneficiary is transported:

• To a hospital, a critical access hospital (CAH), or a skilled nursing facility (SNF), from anywhere, including another acute care facility, or SNF;

• To his or her home from a hospital, CAH, or SNF;

• Round trip from a hospital, CAH, or SNF to an outside supplier to receive medically necessary therapeutic or diagnostic services; or

• To the nearest appropriate renal dialysis facility from his or her home.

Ambulance suppliers should be careful to bill at the appropriate level for services actually provided. The federal government has prosecuted a number of ambulance cases involving upcoding from BLS to ALS related to both emergency and non-emergency transports. In 1999, for example, an OIG investigation determined that an ambulance supplier was not only billing for ALS services when BLS services were provided, but the ambulance supplier did not employ an ALS-certified individual to perform the necessary ALS services. This supplier paid civil penalties and signed a five-year corporate integrity agreement (CIA).

There have also been a number of Medicare fraud cases involving non-emergency transports (i) to non-covered destinations and (ii) that were not medically necessary. An OIG OEI report, issued in December 1998, found that a high number of non-emergency transports for which Medicare claims were submitted were medically unnecessary as defined by Medicare's criteria. Medicare's ambulance fee schedule identifies non-emergency transport as appropriate if (i) the beneficiary is bed-confined and his or her medical condition is such that other methods of transportation are contraindicated, or (ii) the beneficiary's medical condition, regardless of bed-confinement, is such that transportation by ambulance is medically required. The beneficiary's medical condition and the necessity for ambulance transportation must be documented. In determining whether a beneficiary is bed-confined, the following criteria must be met: (i) The beneficiary must be unable to get up from bed without assistance; (ii) the beneficiary must be unable to ambulate; and (iii) the beneficiary must be unable to sit in a chair or wheelchair (42 CFR 410.40 (d)). The fact that other modes of transportation may not be as readily available or as convenient does not justify coverage for ambulance transport for a beneficiary who does not meet Medicare's medical necessity requirements.

Under no circumstances should ambulance suppliers mischaracterize the condition of the patient at the time of transport in an effort to claim that the transport was medically necessary under Medicare coverage requirements. If it is unclear whether the service will be covered by Medicare, the ambulance supplier should nonetheless appropriately document the condition of the patient and maintain records of the transport.

Because of the potential for abuse in the area of non-emergency transports, Medicare has criteria for the coverage of non-emergency scheduled and unscheduled ambulance transports. For example, physician certification statements (PCS) should be obtained by an ambulance supplier to verify that the transport was medically necessary. The PCSs should provide adequate information on the transport provided for each individual beneficiary, and each PCS must be signed by an appropriate physician or other appropriate health care professional. Except for pre-signed PCSs for scheduled, repetitive ambulance transports, which can be valid for up to 60 days of transport service, pre-signed and/or mass produced PCSs are not acceptable because they increase the opportunity for abuse.

Medicare does not cover transports for routine doctor and dialysis appointments when beneficiaries do not meet the Medicare medical necessity requirements. Similarly, ambulance services that are rendered for convenience or because other methods of more appropriate transportation are not available do not meet Medicare's medical necessity requirements and claims for such services should not be submitted to Medicare for payment. For example, an ambulance supplier was required to pay over $1 million to the federal government and enter into a CIA with the OIG for billing for medically unnecessary ambulance trips and for non-covered ambulance trips to doctors' offices.

Currently, the HCFA 1491 or 1500 forms are the approved forms for requesting Medicare payment for ambulance services. Inadequate or faulty documentation is a key risk area for ambulance suppliers. The compilation of correct and accurate documentation (whether electronic or hard copy) is generally the responsibility of all the ambulance personnel, including the dispatcher who receives a request for transportation, the personnel transporting the patient, and the coders and billers submitting claims for reimbursement. When documenting a service, ambulance personnel should not make assumptions or inferences to compensate for a lack of information or contradictory information on a trip sheet, ACR, or other medical source documents.

To ensure that adequate and appropriate information is documented, an ambulance supplier should gather and record, at a minimum, the following:

• Dispatch instructions, if any;

• Reasons why transportation by other means was contraindicated;

• Reasons for selecting the level of service;

• Information on the status of the individual;

• Who ordered the trip;

• Time spent on the trip;

• Dispatch, arrival at scene, and destination times;

• Mileage traveled;

• Pickup and destination codes;

• Appropriate zip codes; and

• Services provided, including drugs or supplies.

The appropriate HCPCS codes should be used when submitting claims for reimbursement. The HCPCS codes reported on the ambulance trip sheets or claim forms should be selected to describe most accurately the type of transport provided based on the patient's illness, injury, signs, or symptoms at the time of the ambulance transport. HCPCS codes should not be selected based on information relating to the patient's past medical history or prior conditions, unless such information also specifically relates to the patient's condition at the time of transport. Ambulance suppliers should use caution not to submit incorrect HCPCS codes on trip sheets or claims to justify reimbursement.

Medicare only covers transports for the time that the patient is physically in the ambulance. Effective January 1, 2001, ambulance suppliers must furnish the “point of pickup” zip code on each ambulance claim form. Under the new Medicare ambulance fee schedule, the point of pickup will determine the mileage payment rate. The ambulance supplier should document the address of the point of pickup to verify that the zip code is accurate.

The ambulance crew should accurately report the mileage traveled from the point of pickup to the destination. Medicare covers ambulance transports to the nearest available treatment facility. If the nearest facility is not appropriate ( e.g. , because of traffic patterns or an inability to address the patient's condition), the beneficiary should be taken to the next closest appropriate facility. If a beneficiary requests a transport to a facility other than the nearest appropriate facility, the ambulance supplier should inform the patient that he or she may be responsible for payment of the additional mileage incurred.

Ambulance suppliers should make every attempt to determine whether Medicare, Medicaid, or other federal health care programs should be billed as the primary or as the secondary insurer. Claims for payment should not be submitted to more than one payor, except for purposes of coordinating benefits ( e.g. , Medicare as secondary payor). Section 1862(b)(6) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(6)) states that an entity that knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly fails to provide accurate information relating to the availability of other health benefit plans shall be subject to a civil money penalty (CMP).

The OIG recognizes that there are instances when the secondary payor is not known or cannot be determined before the ambulance transportation claim is submitted. This may be particularly true for ambulance suppliers that have incomplete insurance information from a transported patient. In such situations, if an ambulance supplier receives an inappropriate or duplicate payment, the payment should be refunded to the appropriate payor in a timely manner. Accordingly, ambulance suppliers should develop a system to track and quantify credit balances to return overpayments when they occur.

In certain instances, SNFs, hospitals, or CAHs, may provide ambulance services “under arrangements” with an ambulance supplier. In such cases, the SNF, hospital, or CAH is the entity furnishing the transport. Accordingly, Medicare pays the SNF, hospital, or CAH for the service. The SNF, hospital, or CAH pays the ambulance supplier a contractually agreed amount. Ambulance suppliers that provide such transports “under arrangements” with a SNF, hospital, or CAH should not bill Medicare for these transports. All such arrangements should be carefully reviewed to ensure that there is no violation of the anti-kickback statute, as more fully described in section V.

The Medicaid program, a joint federal and state health insurance program, provides funds for health care providers and suppliers that perform or deliver medically necessary services for eligible Medicaid recipients. Each state establishes its own Medicaid regulations, which vary depending on the state plan. However, two federal regulations form the basis for all Medicaid reimbursement for transportation services and ensure a minimum level of coverage for transportation services. First, all states that receive federal Medicaid funds are required to assure transportation for Medicaid recipients to and from medical appointments (42 CFR 431.53). Second, federal regulations further define medical transportation and describe costs that can be reimbursed with Medicaid funds (42 CFR 440.170(a)).

In short, Medicaid often covers transports that are not typically covered by Medicare, such as transports in wheelchair vans, cabs, and ambulettes. However, the transports are subject to strict coverage and payment rules. The state Medicaid Fraud Control Units and federal law enforcement have pursued many fraud cases related to transportation services billed to Medicaid programs. Ambulance suppliers should review the Medicaid regulations governing their state or service territories to ensure that any billed services meet applicable Medicaid requirements.

The anti-kickback statute prohibits the purposeful payment of anything of value ( i.e. , remuneration) in order to induce or reward referrals of federal health care program business, including Medicare and Medicaid business. 12 (See section 1128B(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b).) It is a criminal prohibition that subjects violators to possible imprisonment and criminal fines. In addition, violations of the anti-kickback statute may give rise to CMPs and exclusion from the federal health care programs. Both parties to an impermissible kickback transaction may be liable: the party offering or paying the kickback, as well as the party soliciting or receiving it. The key inquiry under the statute is whether the parties intend to pay, or be paid, for referrals. Paying for referrals need not be the only or primary purpose of a payment; as courts have found, if any one purpose of the payment is to induce or reward referrals, the statute is violated. (See, e.g. , United States v. Kats, 871 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Greber, 760 F.2d 68 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 988 (1985).) In short, an ambulance supplier should neither make nor accept payments intended, in whole or in part, to generate federal health care program business.

The department has promulgated “safe harbor” regulations that describe payment practices that do not violate the anti-kickback statute, provided the payment practice fits squarely within a safe harbor. The safe harbor regulations can be found at 42 CFR 1001.952 and on the OIG Web page at http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/safeharborregulations.html#1. Compliance with the safe harbor regulations is voluntary. Thus, failure to comply with a safe harbor does not mean that an arrangement is illegal. Rather, arrangements that do not fit in a safe harbor must be analyzed under the anti-kickback statute on a case-by-case basis to determine if there is a violation. To minimize the risk under the anti-kickback statute, ambulance suppliers should structure arrangements to take advantage of the protection offered by the safe harbors whenever possible. Safe harbors that may be useful for ambulance suppliers include those for space rentals, equipment rentals, personal services and management contracts, discounts, employees, price reductions offered to health plans, shared risk arrangements, and ambulance restocking arrangements. (42 CFR 1001.952(b), (c), (d), (h), (i), (t), (u), and (v), respectively.)

Under the anti-kickback statute, “remuneration” means virtually anything of value. A prohibited kickback payment may be paid in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly, covertly or overtly. Almost anything of value can be a kickback, including, but not limited to, money, goods, services, free or reduced rent, meals, travel, gifts, and investment interests.

Any person or entity in a position to generate federal health care program business for an ambulance supplier, directly or indirectly, is a potential referral source. Potential referral sources include, but are not limited to, governmental “9-1-1” or comparable emergency medical dispatch systems, private dispatch systems, first responders, hospitals, nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, home health agencies, physician offices, staff of any of the foregoing entities, and patients.

In some circumstances, ambulance suppliers furnishing ambulance services may be sources of referrals ( i.e. , patients) for hospitals, other receiving facilities, and second responders. Ambulance suppliers that furnish other types of transportation, such as ambulette or van transportation, also may be sources of referrals for other providers of federal heath care program services, such as physician offices, diagnostic facilities, and certain senior centers. In general, ambulance suppliers—particularly those furnishing emergency services—have relatively limited abilities to generate business for other providers or to inappropriately steer patients to particular emergency providers.

Because of the gravity of the penalties under the anti-kickback statute, ambulance suppliers are strongly encouraged to consult with experienced legal counsel about any financial relationships involving potential referral sources. In addition, ambulance suppliers should review OIG guidance related to the anti-kickback statute, including advisory opinions, fraud alerts, and special advisory bulletins. Ambulance suppliers concerned about their existing or proposed arrangements may obtain binding advisory opinions from the OIG.

Ambulance suppliers should exercise common sense when evaluating existing or prospective arrangements under the anti-kickback statute. One good rule of thumb is that all arrangements for items or services should be at fair market value in an arms-length transaction not taking into account the volume or value of existing or potential referrals. For each arrangement, an ambulance supplier should carefully and accurately document how it has determined fair market value. As discussed further in appendix A.4, an ambulance supplier may not charge Medicare or Medicaid substantially more than its usual charge to other payors.

Ambulance suppliers should consult the safe harbor for discounts (42 CFR 1001.952(h)) when entering into arrangements involving discounted pricing. In most circumstances, ambulance suppliers who offer discounts to purchasers who bill federal programs must fully and accurately disclose the discounts on the invoice, coupon, or statement sent to purchasers and inform purchasers of the purchasers' obligations to report the discounts to the federal programs. Accurate and complete records should be kept of all discount arrangements.

Ambulance suppliers should exercise caution when selling services to purchasers who are also in a position to generate federal health care program business for ambulance suppliers ( e.g. , SNFs or hospitals that purchase ambulance services for private pay and Part A patients, but refer Part B and Medicaid patients to ambulance suppliers). Any link or connection, whether explicit or implicit, between the price offered for business paid out of the purchaser's pocket and referrals of federal program business billable by the ambulance supplier will implicate the anti-kickback statute.

An ambulance supplier should not offer or provide gifts, free items or services, or other incentives of greater than nominal value to referral sources, including patients, and should not accept such gifts and benefits from parties soliciting referrals from the ambulance supplier. In general, token gifts used on an occasional basis to demonstrate good will or appreciation ( e.g. , logo key chains, mugs, or pens) will be considered to be nominal in value.

Ambulance suppliers should review the following arrangements with particular care. (This section is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive, of potential areas of risk under the anti-kickback and beneficiary inducement statutes.)

Contracts with cities or other EMS sponsors for the provision of emergency medical services may raise anti-kickback concerns. Ambulance suppliers should not offer anything of value to cities or other EMS sponsors in order to secure an EMS contract. (In general, ambulance suppliers may provide cities or other municipal entities with free or reduced cost EMS for uninsured, indigent patients.) In addition, arrangements that cover both EMS and non-EMS ambulance business should be carefully scrutinized; conditioning EMS services on obtaining non-EMS business potentially implicates the anti-kickback statute. Absent a state or local law requiring a tie between EMS and non-EMS business, ambulance suppliers contemplating such arrangements should consider obtaining an OIG advisory opinion. While cities and other EMS sponsors may charge ambulance suppliers amounts to cover the costs of services provided to the suppliers, they should not solicit inflated payments in exchange for access to EMS patients, including access to dispatch services under “9-1-1” or comparable systems.

A city or other political subdivision of a state ( e.g. , fire district, county, or parish) may not require a contracting ambulance supplier to waive copayments for its residents, but it may pay uncollected, out-of-pocket copayments on behalf of its residents. Such payments may be made through lump sum or periodic payments, if the aggregate payments reasonably approximate the otherwise uncollected cost-sharing amounts. However, a city or other political subdivision that owns and operates its own ambulance service is permitted to waive cost-sharing amounts for its residents under a special CMS rule. (See CMS Carrier Manual, section 2309.4; CMS Intermediary Manual, section 3153.3A; see also, e.g. , OIG Advisory Opinion No. 01-10 and 01-11.)

Another common EMS arrangement involves the restocking of supplies and drugs used in connection with patients transported to hospitals or other emergency receiving facilities. These arrangements typically do not raise anti-kickback concerns. However, ambulance suppliers participating in such arrangements can eliminate risk altogether by complying with the ambulance restocking safe harbor at 42 CFR 1001.952(v). In general, the safe harbor requires that EMS restocking arrangements involving free or reduced price supplies or drugs be conducted in an open, public, and uniform manner, although hospitals may elect to restock only certain categories of ambulance suppliers ( e.g. , nonprofits or volunteers). Restocking must be accurately documented using trip sheets, patient care reports, patient encounter reports, or other documentation that records the specific type and amount of supplies or drugs used on the transported EMS patient and subsequently restocked. The documentation must be maintained for 5 years. The safe harbor also covers fair market value restocking arrangements and government-mandated restocking arrangements. The safe harbor conditions are set forth with specificity in the regulations.

Wholly apart from anti-kickback concerns, ambulance stocking arrangements raise issues with respect to proper billing for restocked supplies and drugs. Payment and coverage rules are set by the health care program that covers the patient ( e.g. , Medicare or Medicaid). To determine proper billing for restocked supplies or drugs, ambulance suppliers should consult the relevant program payment rules or contact the relevant payment entity. Under the Medicare program, in almost all circumstances the ambulance supplier—not the hospital—will be the party entitled to bill for the restocked supplies or drugs used in connection with an ambulance transport, even if they are obtained through a restocking program. However, under the ambulance fee schedule, supplies and drugs are included in the bill for the base rate and are not separately billable. Ambulance suppliers should consult with their payor to confirm appropriate billing during the new ambulance fee schedule transition period.

In many situations, it is common practice for a paramedic intercept or other first responder to treat a patient in the field, with a second responder transporting the patient to the hospital. In some cases, the first responder is in a position to influence the selection of the transporting entity. While fair market value payments for services actually provided by the first responder are appropriate, inflated payments by ambulance suppliers to generate business are prohibited, and the government will scrutinize such payments to ensure that they are not disguised payments to generate calls to the transporting entity.

Because hospitals and nursing facilities are key sources of non-emergency ambulance business, ambulance suppliers need to take particular care when entering into arrangements with such institutions. (See section F above.)

Arrangements that offer patients incentives to select particular ambulance suppliers may violate the anti-kickback statute, as well as the CMP law that prohibits giving inducements to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries that the giver knows, or should know, are likely to influence the beneficiary to choose a particular practitioner, provider, or supplier of items or services payable by Medicare or Medicaid. (See section 1128A(a)(5) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)(5).) Prohibited incentives include, without limitation, free goods and services and copayment waivers. The statute contains several narrow exceptions, including financial hardship copayment waivers and incentives to promote the delivery of preventive care services as defined in regulations. In addition, items or services of nominal value (less than $10 per item or service or $50 in the aggregate annually) and any payment that fits into an anti-kickback safe harbor are permitted.

An ambulance supplier should not routinely waive federal health care program copayments ( e.g. , no “insurance only” billing), although the supplier may waive a patient's copayment if it makes a good faith, individualized assessment of the patient's financial need.(16) Financial hardship waivers may not be routine or advertised. As discussed in section G above, cities and other political subdivisions are permitted to waive copayments for services provided directly to their residents.

Subscription or membership programs that offer patients purported coverage only for the ambulance supplier's services are also problematic because such programs can be used to disguise the routine waiver of cost-sharing amounts. To reduce their risk under the anti-kickback statute, ambulance suppliers offering subscription programs should carefully review them to ensure that the subscription or membership fees collected from subscribers or members, in the aggregate, reasonably approximate—from an actuarial or historical perspective—the amounts that the subscribers or members would expect to spend for cost-sharing amounts over the period covered by the subscription or membership agreement.

This ambulance compliance program guidance is intended as a resource for ambulance suppliers to decrease the incidence of fraud and abuse as well as errors that might occur due to inadequate training or inadvertent noncompliance. We encourage ambulance suppliers to scrutinize their internal practices to ensure the development of a comprehensive compliance program.

Compliance programs should reflect each ambulance supplier's individual and unique circumstances. It has been the OIG's experience that those health care providers and suppliers that have developed compliance programs not only better understand applicable federal health care program requirements, but also their own internal operations. We are hopeful that this guidance will be a valuable tool in the development and continuation of ambulance suppliers' compliance programs.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and record-keeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) plan to submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information for the nontoxic shot and shot coating approval process. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.

Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1018-0067.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the Interior as the key agency responsible for the wise management of migratory bird populations frequenting the United States and for the setting of hunting regulations that allow appropriate harvests that are within the guidelines that will allow for those populations' well being. These responsibilities include approval of nontoxic shot materials for use in hunting waterfowl and coots in the United States.

As of January 1, 1991, lead shot was banned for hunting waterfowl and coots in the United States. At that time, steel shot was the only nontoxic alternative available. Since then, we have encouraged manufacturers to develop other alternatives that the hunting public may use. In approving a candidate material as nontoxic for hunting waterfowl and coots, we must first ensure that secondary exposure (ingestion of spent shot or its components) is not a hazard to migratory birds and the environment. In order to make this decision, we require the applicant to collect information about the toxicity of their candidate material to migratory birds and the environment. A further requirement pertains to law enforcement. A noninvasive field detection device must be available to distinguish the candidate shot from lead shot. The above information provides the bulk of an application for approval of nontoxic shot material. Once a candidate material is approved as nontoxic, there is no seasonal or annual information collection requirement.

Title: Approval Procedures for Nontoxic Shot and Shot Coatings.

Approval Number: 1018-0067.

Service Form Number: Not applicable.

Frequency of Collection: Occasional (upon application).

Description of Respondents: Shot manufacturers.

Total Annual Responses: We expect no more than 1 application per year.

Total Annual Burden Hours: The reporting burden is estimated to average 3,200 hours per application. Therefore, if we receive 1 application per year, the total annual burden hours would amount to 3,200 hours.

We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our migratory bird management functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (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. The information collections in this program are part of a system of record covered by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)).

Authority for this program is contained in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Public Law 95-124 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ). The Office of Management and Budget Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number is 15.807.

This program announcement is being issued in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. OMB No. 1028-0051 expiration date: November 30, 2003.

Notice—This will be the last year that the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) will be posted in the Federal Register . Future notices will be posted at the Governmentwide grant opportunities board at http://fedgrants.gov.

Section 7 (c) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C. 4601-9(c)(1), as amended by section 814(b) of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make this boundary revision. This action will add one parcel of land comprised of 198.5 acres of land to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The National Park Service proposes to purchase a conservation easement on this parcel. It is located outside the park boundary in the vicinity of Red Rock Canyon north of Bostwick Park Road. The acquisition of the conservation easement is required to maintain the present rural agricultural character of the land in the vicinity of the proposed Red Rock Trailhead.

The above parcel is depicted as tract number 01-152 on land acquisition segment map 01, having drawing number 144-92004, dated August 6, 2002. This map is on file at the National Park Service, Land Resources Program Center, Intermountain Region, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and at the Office of the Superintendent of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park.

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

The collections of information in the standard are necessary for implementation of the requirements of the Standards. The Standards specify several paperwork requirements. The following sections describe the information-collection requirements, and who will use the information.

(A) Hazard Assessment And Equipment Selection (1915.152(b)). Paragraph 1915.152(b) requires the employer to assess work activities to determine whether there are hazards present, or likely to be present, which necessitate the employee's use of PPE. If such hazards are present, or likely to be present, the employer must: (1) Select the type of PPE that will protect the affected employee from the hazards identified in the occupational-hazard assessment; (2) communicate selection decisions to affected employees; (3) select PPE that properly fits each affected employee; and (4) verify that the required occupational hazard assessment has been performed through a document that contains the following information: Occupation, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and the name of the person performing the hazard assessment.

(B) Verification That Hazard Assessment Has Been Performed (1915.152(d)(4)). Paragraph 1915.152(e)(4) requires that the employer verify that each affected employee has received the PPE training through a document that contains the following information: Name of each employee trained, the date(s) of training, and the type of training the employee received.

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

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

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

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

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

OSHA proposes to decrease the existing burden-hour estimates, and to extend OMB's approval of the collection-of-information requirements specified in the Standards on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I). The net reduction of 213 hours results from a 292-hour increase to account for the 165 newly identified firms to conduct an initial hazard assessment, and a reduction of 505 hours to reflect that employers do not spend 2 minutes per employee disclosing training verification records to OSHA; rather employers spend 2 minutes per inspection disclosing the necessary training verification records.

The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.

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

Title: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for Shipyard Employment (29 CFR part 1915, subpart I).

OMB Number: 1218-0215.

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

Number of Respondents: 665.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: On occasion.

Average Time Per Response: Varies from one minute (.02 hour) to maintain training documentation to 6 hours to perform a hazard assessment.

Total Annual Hours Requested: 2,042.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

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

The collections of information in the standard are necessary for implementation of the requirements of the standard. The Standard specifies several paperwork requirements. The following sections describe the information collection requirements and who will use the information.

Paragraph 1910.132(d) requires employers to perform a hazard assessment of the workplace to determine if personal protective equipment (PPE) is necessary. Paragraph (d)(2) requires employers to certify that a hazard assessment has been performed. The signed certification must include the date the hazard assessment was conducted and the identification of the workplace evaluated (area or location).

Paragraph 1910.132(f)(4) requires employers to certify that employees have received and understood PPE training. The training certification must include the name of the employee(s) trained, the date of training, and the subject of the certification (i.e., a statement identifying the document as a certification of training in the use of PPE).

The hazard assessment assures that the PPE selected is appropriate for the hazards present in the workplace. The certification required with the hazard assessment verifies that the hazard assessment was conducted. The training certification verifies that employees have received the necessary training involving PPE. OSHA compliance officers may require employers to disclose the certification records during an Agency inspection.

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

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;

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

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

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

OSHA proposes to decrease the existing burden-hour estimates, and to extend OMB approval of the collection of information requirements specified by the Standard on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I). The 1,122,417 million hour decrease results largely by reestimating the burden hours for employers to disclose certification of PPE training records.

The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements.

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

Title: Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for General Industry (29 CFR part 1910, subpart I).

OMB Number: 1218-0205.

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

Number of Respondents: 1,100,000.

Frequency of Recordkeeping: Varies depending upon the collection of information contained in the Standard.

Average Time per Response: Varies from one minute (.02 hour) to maintain training documentation to 1 hour to perform a hazard reassessment.

Total Annual Hours Requested: 711,862.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

Please refer to Public Law 107-306 (November 27, 2002), title VI (legislative creating the Commission), and the Commission's Web site: www.9-11Commission.gov.