Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4741

Preferred Alternative and also the

Environmentally Preferred Alternative.

10. Where to Obtain Further

Information

For further information, contact Major

Pat D. Pinkston at (714) 726–4047.

Dated: January 27, 1997.

Duncan Holaday,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Installations and

Facilities.

[FR Doc. 97–2349 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

Department of the Navy, DoD

Record of Decision for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Civil Engineering

Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

(Navy), pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,

and the regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality that implement

NEPA procedures, 40 CFR Parts 1500–

1508, hereby announces its decision to

dispose of Naval Civil Engineering

Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California

(NCEL).

Navy intends to dispose of the

property in a manner that is consistent

with the NCEL Community Reuse Plan

(Reuse Plan) submitted by the Port

Hueneme Surplus Property Authority

(SPA), the Local Redevelopment

Authority (LRA) for NCEL. The City of

Port Hueneme established SPA to plan

future uses of the closing facilities. The

Reuse Plan is general in nature and

proposes maritime and related uses

rather than particular reuse projects.

In its Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), Navy evaluated a ‘‘No

action’’ alternative and three ‘‘action’’

alternatives: port and coastal activities

(‘‘Port/Coastal’’), described in the FEIS

as the preferred alternative; port and

related industrial activities (‘‘Port/

Industrial’’); and port, aquaculture,

retail and commercial activities (‘‘Mixed

Use’’). In a Resolution dated August 7,

1996, SPA determined that the Port/

Industrial alternative’s emphasis on port

activities would be consistent with the

Reuse Plan and endorsed the land uses

proposed in that alternative.

In deciding to dispose of NCEL Port

Hueneme, Navy has determined that

both the Port/Coastal alternative and the

Port/Industrial alternative will meet the

goals of achieving local economic

redevelopment of the closing facility

and creating new jobs, while limiting

adverse environmental impacts and

ensuring land uses that are compatible

with adjacent property. This Record Of

Decision leaves selection of the

particular means to achieve the

proposed redevelopment to the

acquiring entity and the local zoning

authority.

Background

The 1993 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission recommended

closure of NCEL Port Hueneme. This

recommendation was approved by

President Clinton and accepted by the

One Hundred Third Congress in 1993.

NCEL Port Hueneme closed in April

1996, and the property has been in

caretaker status since that date.

The NCEL property occupies 33.1

acres along the Pacific Ocean in the City

of Port Hueneme, which is located in

Ventura County, California. NCEL lies

adjacent to the Oxnard Harbor District’s

Port of Hueneme, about 60 miles

northwest of Los Angeles and 40 miles

southeast of Santa Barbara, California.

The property contains 53 structures that

were used for Naval research and

development.

Navy published a Notice of Intent in

the Federal Register on March 8, 1995,

announcing that Navy would prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement that

would analyze the impacts of disposal

and reuse of the land, buildings, and

infrastructure at NCEL Port Hueneme. A

30-day public scoping period was

established, and Navy held a public

scoping meeting on March 23, 1995, at

the Port Hueneme City Hall.

On February 13, 1996, Navy

distributed a Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DEIS) to Federal,

State, and local agencies, elected

officials, special interest groups, and

interested persons. Navy held a public

hearing in the Port Hueneme City

Council chambers on March 12, 1996, to

discuss the DEIS. During the forty-five

day review period after publication of

the DEIS, Federal, State, and local

agencies submitted written comments

concerning the DEIS. These comments

and Navy’s responses were incorporated

in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), which was distributed

to the public on July 19, 1996, for a 30-

day review period that concluded on

August 18, 1996. Navy received three

letters commenting on and supportive of

the FEIS.

Alternatives

NEPA requires Navy to evaluate a

reasonable range of alternatives for the

disposal and reuse of this Federal

property. In the NEPA process, Navy

analyzed the environmental impacts of

various proposed land uses that could

result from disposal of the NCEL

property. Navy also evaluated a ‘‘No

action’’ alternative that would leave the

property in a caretaker status with Navy

maintaining the physical condition of

the property, providing a security force,

and making repairs essential to safety.

As the basis for its analysis of the

‘‘action’’ alternatives, Navy relied upon

SPA’s proposals for maritime and

related uses that were set forth in the

Reuse Plan. SPA considered various

activities that the NCEL property could

support, prepared the Reuse Plan, and

submitted it to Navy in August 1995.

The first ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Port/Coastal alternative, proposed a

moderate expansion of the Oxnard

Harbor District’s port facilities by using

5.5 acres on the NCEL property as

additional area for wharfside activities

such as the handling and storage of

cargo. Another part of the property, 6.1

acres, would be dedicated to recreation

and public access, and the remainder,

21.5 acres, would be set aside for coastal

activities such as fish processing,

aquaculture, and maritime training and

other educational uses.

The second ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Port/Industrial alternative, proposed

greater expansion of the Oxnard Harbor

District’s port facilities on to the NCEL

property, with 27 of NCEL’s 33 acres

dedicated to cargo handling, storage,

and distribution. As in the Port/Coastal

alternative, 6.1 acres at NCEL would be

dedicated to recreation and public

access.

The third ‘‘action’’ alternative, the

Mixed Use alternative, proposed the use

of 5.5 acres at NCEL for expansion of the

Oxnard Harbor District’s port facilities,

9.2 acres for use in aquaculture and

commercial activities, and 12.3 acres for

retail stores, offices and maritime

education. As in the Fort/Coastal and

Port/Industrial alternatives, 6.1 acres

would be dedicated to recreation and

public access.

Environmental Impacts

Navy analyzed the potential impacts

of the ‘‘No action’’ and three ‘‘action’’

alternatives for their effects on land use,

socioeconomics, public services,

cultural resources, biological resources,

water resources, geology and soils,

traffic and circulation, air quality, noise,

utilities, hazardous materials and

hazardous waste. In light of SPA’s

endorsement of the Port/Industrial

alternative, this Record Of Decision will

focus on the impacts that could result

from implementing that proposal.

No significant adverse impacts on

land use would arise out of the Port/

Industrial alternative. This proposal is

compatible with the existing and

projected uses of adjacent property and

is consistent with the existing land use
4742 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

and environmental plans of the city of

Port Hueneme and Ventura County.

The Port/Industrial alternative would

not result in any significant adverse

socioeconomic impacts. Indeed, this

alternative would create from 86 to 309

net new jobs. While the proposal may

increase enrollment in the three local

public school districts by 157 students,

that increase would occur over a 25-year

period.

This alternative would not cause any

significant adverse impacts on public

services. Police and fire protection and

emergency medical services would be

provided by the City of Port Hueneme’s

Police Department and the Ventura

County Fire District. The proposal

would not require any increase in

current staffing or equipment nor would

it adversely affect the established

response time for emergency calls.

The International Longshoremen’s

and Warehousemen’s Union’s (ILWU)

Hiring and dispatching Hall is eligible

for listing on the National Register of

Historic Places. While located on NCEL

property, this building is owned by

ILWU. On March 12, 1996, Navy and

the California State Historic

Preservation Officer concluded a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

concerning the building pursuant to the

regulations that implement Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation

Act. 36 CFR Part 800. The Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation

accepted this MOA on May 8, 1996, and

Navy has completed the prescribed

recordation of the ILWU Hall in

accordance with Historic American

Buildings Survey standards.

The United States Coast guard owns

the Point Hueneme Lighthouse, which

is composed of the lighthouse structure,

the light works and supporting facilities

and is located at the southwest corner

of the NCEL property. The light works,

while not eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places, is a

listed Ventura County landmark. Its

preservation status from the County will

not change with disposal of the NCEL

property.

No significant adverse impacts on

biological resources would result from

the Port/Industrial alternative. There are

no sensitive habitats on the NCEL

property, and no endangered or

threatened species are likely to inhabit,

nest or forage on the property.

The seawall on the southern boundary

of the NCEL property will be conveyed

with the property. The entity that

acquires the NCEL property will be

responsible for maintaining the seawall,

and failure to maintain it may expose

the property to shoreline erosion and

damage from storm surge and tidal

waves.

There would be no significant adverse

impacts on the property’s geological

characteristics. The NCEL property is

located in an area of high seismic

hazards, i.e., Uniform Building Code

Seismic Zone 4. Thus, the City of Port

Hueneme’s Building and Safety Agency

would likely require inspection of all

structures on the site to determine

whether modifications are necessary to

permit reuse. The acquiring entity can

minimize the potential for soil erosion

during construction by implementing

erosion control plans as required by the

Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Program of the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System.

The Port/Industrial alternative would

generate 4,319 average daily vehicle

trips that would be distributed primarily

along Ventura Road and Hueneme Road.

This level of traffic would not have a

significant adverse impact on the

critical roadways identified in the

Ventura County Congestion

Management Program.

Ventura County has been classified as

a severe nonattainment area under

Federal and State ozone standards. In

the Port/Industrial alternative, the

projected emissions of reactive organic

compounds and nitrogen oxides from

vehicles and construction equipment

would not exceed the Federal threshold

of 25 tons per year that triggers the

requirement for a conformity analysis

under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air

Act.

The projected emissions from traffic

in the Port/Industrial alternative would

exceed the Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District’s impact

significance threshold of 25 pounds per

day. Emissions from this traffic,

however, have already been considered

in the emissions forecast of the Ventura

County Air Quality Management Plan

and would not likely interfere with

California’s schedule for compliance

with the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards.

Ventura County is in attainment with

Federal standards governing suspended

particulate matter. Under California’s

stricter standards, however, Ventura

County is classified as a nonattainment

area. While demolition, renovation, and

new construction may generate local

dust conditions, the acquiring entity can

mitigate this impact by following

routine dust control practices.

There would not be any significant

adverse impacts from noise. The

existing noise levels on the property are

dominated by industrial activities

associated with Hueneme Harbor and

the Oxnard Harbor District. An increase

in use of the existing railroad spur that

serves the Oxnard Harbor District would

not likely cause off-site noise impacts.

The existing Coast Guard foghorn causes

local intermittent noise at the

southwestern edge of the NCEL

property, but the acquiring entity can

mitigate this circumstance by moving

the foghorn.

Reuse of the NCEL property could

cause the City of Port Hueneme to

exceed the amount of water it has been

allocated by the United Water

Conservation District, and shortages

could result. To mitigate this potential

impact, the acquiring entity could

obtain an additional allocation of water

from the Oxnard or United Water

Conservation Districts.

If future wastewater discharges

exceed the current allocation for the

NCEL property, the acquiring entity

could seek an increased allocation from

the City of Port Hueneme. Should such

an increased allocation cause the City of

Port Hueneme to exceed its share of

regional wastewater treatment capacity,

it may be necessary for the City of Port

Hueneme to acquire additional regional

treatment capacity from other municipal

users.

No significant adverse impacts would

be caused by the hazardous materials

and hazardous waste that may be

generated by the Port/Industrial

alternative. Hazardous materials and

hazardous waste management would be

the responsibility of the property’s

owners and users under the governance

of Federal, State, and local regulations.

Navy also analyzed the impacts on

low-income and minority populations

pursuant to Executive Order 12898,

Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations, reprinted in 42 U.S.C. 4321

note. There would be no

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on minority and low income

populations. All groups would

experience equally any impact related to

reuse of the NCEL property within the

regional population.

Mitigation

Implementation of Navy’s decision of

dispose of the NCEL property does not

require Navy to perform any mitigation

measures. The FEIS identified and

discussed the actions that would be

necessary to mitigate any impacts

associated with reuse and

redevelopment. The acquiring entity,

under the direction of Federal, State,

and local agencies with regulatory

authority over protected resources, will
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4743

be responsible for implementing

necessary mitigation measures.

Regulations Governing the Disposal

Decision

Since the proposed action

contemplates a disposal action under

the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA),

Public Law 101–510, 10 U.S.C. 2687

note, Navy’s decision was based upon

the environmental analysis in the FEIS

and application of the standards set

forth in DBCRA, the Federal Property

Management Regulations (FPMR), 41

CFR Part 101–47, and the Department of

Defense Rule on Revitalization Base

Closure Communities and Community

Assistance (DoD Rule), 32 CFR Parts 90

and 91.

Section 101–47.303–1 of the FPMR

requires that the disposal of Federal

property benefit the Federal government

and constitute the highest and best use

of the property. Section 101–47.4909 of

the FPMR defines the ‘‘highest and best

use’’ as that use to which a property can

be put that produces the highest

monetary return from the property,

promotes its maximum value, or serves

a public or institutional purpose. The

‘‘highest and best use’’ determination

must be based upon the property’s

economic potential, qualitative values

inherent in the property, and utilization

factors affecting land use such as

zoning, physical characteristics, other

private and public uses in the vicinity,

neighboring improvements, utility

services, access, roads, location, and

environmental and historical

consideration.

After Federal property has been

conveyed to non-Federal entities, the

property is subject to local land use

regulations, including zoning and

subdivision regulations, and building

codes. Unless expressly authorized by

statute, the disposing Federal agency

cannot restrict the future use of surplus

Government property. As a result, the

local community exercises substantial

control over future use of the property.

For this reason, local land use plans and

zoning affect determination of the

highest and best use of surplus

Government property.

The DBCRA directed the

Administrator of the General Services

Administration (GSA) to delegate to the

Secretary of Defense authority to

transfer and dispose of base closure

property. Section 2905(b) of DBCRA

directs the Secretary of Defense to

exercise this authority in accordance

with GSA’s property disposal

regulations, set forth at Sections 101–

47.1 through 101–47.8 of the FPMR. By

letter dated December 20, 1991, the

Secretary of Defense delegated the

authority to transfer and dispose of base

closure property closed under DBCRA

to the Secretaries of the Military

Departments. Under this delegation of

authority, the Secretary of the Navy

must follow FPMR procedures for

screening and disposing of real property

when implementing base closures. Only

where Congress has expressly provided

additional authority for disposing of

base closure property, e.g., the economic

development conveyance authority

established in 1993 by Section

2905(b)(4) of DBCRA, may Navy apply

disposal procedures other than the

FPMR’s prescriptions.

In Section 2901 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1994, Public Law 103–160,

Congress recognized the economic

hardship occasioned by base closures,

the Federal interest in facilitating

economic recovery of base closure

communities, and the need to identify

and implement reuse and

redevelopment of property at closing

installations. In Section 2903(c) of

Public Law 103–160, Congress directed

the Military Departments to consider

each base closure community’s

economic needs and priorities in the

property disposal process. Under

Section 2905(b)(2)(E) of DBCRA, Navy

must consult with local communities

before it disposes of base closure

property and must consider local plans

developed for reuse and redevelopment

of the surplus Federal property.

The Department of Defense’s goal, as

set forth in Section 90.4 of the DoD

Rule, is to help base closure

communities achieve rapid economic

recovery through expeditions reuse and

redevelopment of the assets at closing

bases, taking into consideration local

market conditions and locally

developed reuse plans. Thus, the

Department has adopted a consultative

approach with each community to

ensure that property disposal decisions

consider the Local Redevelopment

Authority’s reuse plan and encourage

job creation. As a part of this

cooperative approach, the base closure

community’s interests, e.g., reflected in

its zoning for the area, play a significant

role in determining the range of

alternatives considered in the

environmental analysis for property

disposal. Furthermore, Section

91.7(d)(3) of the DoD Rule provides that

the Local Redevelopment Authority’s

plan generally will be used as the basis

for the proposed disposal action.

The Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949, 40

U.S.C. 484, as implemented by the

FPMR, identifies several mechanisms

for disposing of surplus base closure

property: By public benefit conveyance

(FPMR Sec. 101–47.303–2); by

negotiated sale (FPMR Sec. 101–47.304–

8); and by competitive sale (FPMR 101–

47.304–7). Additionally, in Section

2905(b)(4), the DBCRA established

economic development conveyances as

a means of disposing of surplus base

closure property. The selection of any

particular method of conveyance merely

implements the Federal agency’s

decision to dispose of the property.

Decisions concerning whether to

undertake a public benefit conveyance

or an economic development

conveyance, or to sell property by

negotiation or by competitive bid are

committed by law to agency discretion.

Selecting a method of disposal

implicates a broad range of factors and

rests solely within the Secretary of the

Navy’s discretion.

Conclusion

The LRA has proposed that the NCEL

property should be redeveloped for use

as a port facility with maritime

industrial, commercial, educational and

recreational activities. The property’s

location and physical characteristics as

well as the current uses of adjacent

property make it appropriate for the

proposed uses. The combinations of

port and maritime activities embodied

in the Port/Coastal and Port/Industrial

alternatives present the highest and best

use of NCEL Port Hueneme.

Both the Port/Coastal and Port/

Industrial alternatives evaluated in the

FEIS respond to local economic

conditions, promote rapid economic

recovery from the impacts of the NCEL

Port Hueneme closure, and are

consistent with President Clinton’s

Five-Part Plan for revitalizing base

closure communities, which emphasizes

local economic redevelopment of the

closing military facility and creation of

new jobs as the means to revitalize these

communities. 32 CFR Parts 90 and 91,

59 FR 16,123 (1994). Any resultant

environmental impacts can be mitigated

by the acquiring entity under the

direction of Federal, State, and local

regulatory requirements.

Although the ‘‘No action’’ alternative

has less potential for causing adverse

environmental impacts, that alternative

would not constitute the highest and

best use of the NCEL property. It would

not take advantage of the property’s

location and physical characteristics

and the current uses of adjacent

property. It is not compatible with the

NCEL Community Reuse Plan. It would

not foster local economic

redevelopment of the NCEL property

and would not create new jobs.
4744 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

Accordingly, Navy will dispose of

NCEL Port Hueneme in a manner that is

consistent with the NCEL Community

Reuse Plan’s proposal for port and

maritime activities.

Dated: January 22, 1997.

William J. Cassidy, Jr.,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Conversion and Redevelopment).

[FR Doc. 97–2469 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for

the Disposal and Reuse of Naval

Station Brooklyn, New York, NY

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 as implemented by Council

on Environmental Quality regulations

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), the

Department of Navy announces its

intent to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for the Disposal

and Reuse of Naval Station Brooklyn

(NAVSTA), New York, NY.

In December 1988, the Congressional

Committee on Base Realignment and

Closure recommended the closure and

disposal of the land comprising the

NAVSTA. The NAVSTA is that area that

was largely associated with the former

Naval Hospital and often referred to as

the ‘‘Navy Yard Annex’’. In accordance

with the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990, the NAVSTA

was closed in 1993. Approximately five

acres of the property was transferred to

the Department of Justice. The

remainder of the property was requested

by homeless organizations in

accordance with the then in-effect

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Plan Act. Plan were initiated

for this transfer when the Defense Base

Closure Community Redevelopment and

Homeless Assistance Act of 1994

allowed communities undergoing the

transfer of a defense installation to

satisfy homeless demands through other

means, thereby preserving the closed

defense installation for economic

redevelopment. The City of New York

has requested that this new legislation

be applied to the NAVSTA, and the

Mayor’s Office of Planning and

Community Relations, acting as the

local reuse authority (LRA), has

prepared a reuse plan for the NAVSTA

property.

The proposed action to be considered

and evaluated in the EIS is the reuse of

the NAVSTA property determined

surplus to the needs of the federal

government. The reuse plan for the

NAVSTA, prepared by the LRA, will be

the basis for the EIS. The reuse plan

emphasizes historic preservation and

adaptive reuse of the site’s buildings to

the greatest extent possible. However,

the retention of some existing buildings

may not be financially or structurally

feasible and their removal will be

assessed. The reuse plan represents a

reasonable and likely development/

reuse scenario based on the City’s

proposed zoning for the site. The reuse

plan proposes a mix of commercial

development, institutional, historic,

community, and open space uses.

The EIS may also consider

alternatives to the reuse plan consistent

with current zoning.

The EIS will address the following

known areas of concern: effects of

redevelopment at the NAVSTA on the

natural and socioeconomic

environments inclusive of land use,

zoning, on-site historic resources, and

neighborhood character. Environmental

issues that will be addressed in the EIS

include, but are not limited to, air

quality, water quality, transportation,

and socioeconomic impacts.

The EIS will also address potential

impacts to the former naval cemetery

which occupied a portion of the

NAVSTA.

ADDRESSES: The Navy will hold a public

scoping meeting for the purpose of

further identifying the scope of issues to

be addressed in the EIS. The meeting

will be held on Thursday, February 13,

1997 at the Brooklyn Borough Hall, 209

Joralemon Street, Brooklyn NY 11201,

beginning at 7:00 PM. Navy

representatives will make a brief

presentation, then members of the

public will be asked to provide their

comments. It is important that federal,

state, and local agencies and interested

individuals take this opportunity to

identify environmental concerns that

should be addressed in the EIS. In the

interest of time, speakers will be asked

to limit comments to five minutes.

Written comments must be

postmarked by February 28, 1997, and

should be mailed to Commanding

Officer, Northern Division, Naval

Facilities Engineering Command, Code

202, 10 Industrial Highway, Lester PA

19113, (Attn. Mr. Robert Ostermueller,

telephone (610) 595–0759, facsimile

(610) 595–0778). The scoping meeting

will be conducted in English, and

requests for language interpreters or

other special communications needs

should be made to Mr. Ostermueller at

least one week prior to the meeting. The

Navy will make every reasonable effort

to accommodate these needs.

Dated: January 28, 1997.

D.E. Koenig,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–2396 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed collection; comment

request.

SUMMARY: The Director, Information

Resources Group, invites comments on

the proposed information collection

requests as required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on or before April 1,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and

requests for copies of the proposed

information collection requests should

be addressed to Patrick J. Sherrill,

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room

5624, Regional Office Building 3,

Washington, DC 20202–4651.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patrick J. Sherrill (202)708–8196.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,

Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 Director of the

Information Resources Group publishes

this 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