Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24155

KS010029 (Mar. 02, 2001)

KS010035 (Mar. 02, 2001)

KS010069 (Mar. 02, 2001)

KS010070 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Missouri

MO010001 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010002 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010003 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010006 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010010 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010011 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010041 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010048 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010049 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010050 (Mar. 02, 2001)

MO010065 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Nebraska

NE010021 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Texas

TX010002 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010003 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010004 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010005 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010007 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010010 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010014 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010033 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010034 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010037 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010046 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010054 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010093 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010096 (Mar. 02, 2001)

TX010121 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Volume VI

Idaho

ID010001 (Mar. 02, 2001)

ID010002 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Washington

WA010001 (Mar. 02, 2001)

WA010002 (Mar. 02, 2001)

WA010007 (Mar. 02, 2001)

WA010011 (Mar. 02, 2001)

Volume VII

None

General Wage Determination

Publication

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts,

including those noted above, may be

found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO) document entitled ‘‘General Wage

Determinations Issued Under The DavisBacon And Related Acts.’’ This

publication is available at each of the 50

Regional Government Depository

Libraries and many of the 1,400

Government Depository Libraries across

the country.

General wage determinations issued

under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts

are available electronically at no cost on

the Government Printing Office site at

www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon. They

are also available electronically by

subscription to the FedWorld Bulletin

Board System of the National Technical

Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S.

Department of Commerce at 1–800–363–

2068.

Hard copy subscriptions may be

purchased from: Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing

office, Washington, DC 20402, (202)

512–1800.

When ordering hard-copy

subscription(s), be sure to specify the

State(s) of interest, since subscriptions

may be ordered for any or all of the six

separate volumes, arranged by State.

Subscriptions include an annual edition

(issued in January or February) which

includes all current general wage

determinations for the States covered by

each volume. Throughout the remainder

of the year, regular weekly updates will

be distributed to subscribers.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd Day of

May 2001.

Carl J. Poleskey,

Chief, Branch of Construction Wage

Determinations.

[FR Doc. 01–11633 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs

Notice of Reinstatement of Milwaukee

Fence Co.

AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs, Department of

Labor.

ACTION: Notice of reinstatement,

Milwaukee Fence Co.

SUMMARY: This notice advises that

Milwaukee Fence Co., has been

reinstated as an eligible bidder on

Federal and federally assisted

construction contracts and subcontracts.

For further information, contact Harold

M. Bush, Acting Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Federal Contact

Compliance, U.S. Department of Labor,

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room

C–3325, Washington, DC 20210 (202)

693–1072.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Milwaukee Fence Co., Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, is as of this date, reinstated

as an eligible bidder on Federal and

federally assisted construction contracts

and subconstracts.

Signed at Washington, DC this 4th day of

May, 2001.

Harold M. Busch,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal

Contract Compliance.

[FR Doc. 01–11908 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Labor Research Advisory Council;

Notice of Meetings and Agenda

The Spring meetings of committees of

the Labor Research Advisory Council

will be held on June 4, 5, and 6, 2001.

All of the meetings will be held in the

Conference Center, of the Postal Square

Building (PSB), 2 Massachusetts

Avenue, NE., Washington, DC.

The Labor Research Advisory Council

and its committees advise the Bureau of

Labor Statistics with respect to technical

matters associated with the Bureau’s

programs. Membership consists of

union research directors and staff

members. The schedule and agenda of

the meetings are as follows:

Monday, June 4, 2001

9:30 a.m.—Committee on Productivity,

Technology and Growth—Meeting Room

9

1. Possible measurement bias in

aggregate productivity measures:

Update of Gullickson-Harper paper

2. Developments in industry

productivity studies

3. Status of the 2000–10 projections

4. Topics for the next meeting

Committee on Foreign Labor Statistics

1. Update on activities of the Division

of International Technical

Cooperation

2. Preliminary report on development of

hourly compensation measures for

additional countries

3. Topics for the next meeting

1:30 p.m.—Committee on Employment

and Unemployment Statistics—Meeting

Room 9

1. Latest results from National

Longitudinal Survey of Youth

(NLSY)97 and NLSY79 surveys

2. Current Population Survey (CPS)

topics:

a. Data on union membership

b. Update on the CPS–CES gap, based

on latest information from 2000

Census

c. Discussion of issues related to

measuring labor force activity of the

prison population

3. Developments in the Local Area

Unemployment Statistics and Mass

Layoff Statistics programs

4. Topics for the next meeting

Tuesday, June 5, 2001

1:30 p.m.—Committee on Compensation

and Working Conditions—Meeting

Room 9

1. Welcome, Introductions

24156 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

2. Update on data for the Federal whitecollar pay setting process

3. Employee Benefits Survey: status and

data availability

4. Data on working conditions from BLS

5. Bonuses, lump-sum payments, and

other forms of variable pay

6. Topics for the next meeting

Wednesday, June 6, 2001

9:30 a.m.—Committee on Prices and

Living Conditions—Meeting Room 9

1. Update on program developments

a. Consumer Price Index

b. International Price Indexes

c. Producer Price Indexes

2. Topics for the next meeting

1:30 p.m.—Committee on Occupational

Safety and Health Statistics—Meeting

Room 9

1. Report on worker and case

circumstances data from the 1999

Survey of Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses

2. Discussion of changes to the Survey

of Occupational Injuries and

Illnesses resulting from the revision

of the OSHA record keeping rule

3. Report on the status of the Survey of

Respirator Use and Practices

4. Update on the introduction of the

North American Industry

Classification System into the

Survey of Occupational Injuries and

Ilnesses and the Census of Fatal

Occupational injuries

5. Proposed FY 2002 budget

6. Topics for the next meeting

The meetings are open to the public.

Persons planning to attend these

meetings as observers may want to

contact Wilhelmina Abner on 202–691–

5970.

Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of

April, 2001.

Katharine G. Abraham,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 01–11907 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–24–P

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP

AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

FOUNDATION

The United States Institute for

Environmental Conflict Resolution

National Environmental Policy Act

Pilot Projects; Comment Request;

Announcement of Workshop

AGENCY: Morris K. Udall Scholarship

and Excellence in National

Environmental Policy Foundation, U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution.

ACTION: Meeting notice and request for

public comment.

SUMMARY: At the request of U.S.

Senators Max Baucus, Mike Crapo,

Harry Reid, and Craig Thomas, the U.S.

Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution is exploring how pilot

projects can be used to determine how

collaboration, consensus building, and

appropriate dispute resolution processes

can improve the implementation of the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) in the context of federal lands

and natural resource management

issues. In the past months, the U.S.

Institute, with the assistance of the

Meridian Institute, has sought input

from a diverse group of individuals

representing environmental

organizations, resource users, federal,

state and local governments, tribes,

participants in local and regional

collaborative processes, and NEPA

experts. The purpose of these individual

conversations was to learn more about

(1) What specific concerns or issues

should be addressed by pilot projects,

(2) what parameters should define the

pilot projects initiative, (3) what criteria

should be used to select pilot projects,

(4) what institutional mechanisms

would be needed to assure project

oversight, implementation, and

evaluation, and (5) how to maximize the

likelihood that positive lessons learned

from the pilots can be mainstreamed

and begin to influence the

implementation of NEPA in the future.

A number of perceived problems with

both NEPA implementation and

collaborative processes were identified

through these early conversations.

Among the reported problems with

NEPA implementation were:

• Inconsistent implementation of

NEPA’s statutory requirements,

implementing regulations and agency

guidelines;

• Inadequate coordination among

federal agencies with overlapping

jurisdictions and inadequate

intergovernmental coordination with

state agencies;

• Overemphasis on NEPA

documentation and litigation protection,

rather than sounder strategic planning

and decision-making;

• Inefficient and duplicative

processes; and

• Inadequate attention to realizing the

goals laid out in Section 101 of NEPA.

The issues relating to collaborative

processes and conflict resolution can be

placed into four organizational contexts:

• Interagency collaboration,

• Intergovernmental collaboration,

• Governmentally organized multistakeholder collaboration, and

• Privately organized collaborative

processes.

Across these contexts, various

problems were raised, such as:

• A lack of guidance on options for

agencies and inconsistent approaches to

collaboration resulting in confusion;

• The resource intensive nature of

such processes and inadequate process

funding;

• Lack of clarity on stakeholder roles

and responsibilities, and inadequate

stakeholder guidance;.

• Maintaining balanced stakeholder

representation; and

• Overemphasis on process of

collaboration as an end itself and

inadequate attention to planning

outcomes, decision-making, and

implementation.

The U.S. Institute proposes that pilot

projects may be useful in addressing the

perceived challenges of NEPA

implementation and providing clearer

guidance regarding the use of

collaborative processes in NEPA

implementation to agencies, state and

local governments, tribes and nongovernmental interests with respect to

public lands and natural resources

management issues. Specifically, pilot

projects could:

• Clearly distinguish problems and

concerns related to NEPA and the

manner in which NEPA is being

implemented from concerns about other

environmental statutes and/or broader

societal concerns;

• Demonstrate innovative and

practical solutions to clearly delineated

NEPA implementation problems; and

• Provide information about the

conditions under which collaborative

problem solving, consensus-building,

and dispute resolution processes can

improve implementation of NEPA.

There are differing views regarding

the effectiveness of NEPA

implementation, reflecting legitimate

underlying differences in values and

perspectives about the nature and extent

of the environmental impacts of

proposed projects and how these

impacts can best be avoided or

mitigated. Most would agree, however,

there is room for improvement in the

application of NEPA procedures and in

the achievement of its substantive

objectives articulated in Section 101.

Collaborative processes and conflict

resolution strategies often involve or

implicate NEPA review and analysis

activities. Well-managed and highly

visible pilot projects may bring to light

important lessons for better integrating

effective collaboration into NEPA

activities and improving the quality and

durability of management decisions

informed by NEPA analyses.