The Committee, which reports to the Secretary through the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, recommends opening dates and selling schedules for the burley marketing area which aid the Secretary in making an equitable apportionment and assignment of tobacco inspectors. The Committee consists of 39 members; 21 producer representatives, 10 warehouse representatives, and 8 buyer representatives, representing all segments of the burley tobacco industry and meets at the call of the Secretary. The Secretary has determined that renewal of this Committee is in the public interest.

To ensure that recommendations of the Committee take into account the needs of diverse groups served by the Department, membership should include, to the extent practicable, persons with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

This notice is given in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).

The papaya mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus Williams (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae), can cause serious damage to numerous agricultural products, including papayas, hibiscus, citrus, cotton, and avocados, which can result in significant economic losses. Papaya mealybug exists in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, has recently been found in a few locations in Florida, and has been intercepted in Texas and California. From Florida, papaya mealybug could spread rapidly through the Gulf States and eventually on to Texas and California. The limits of its spread northward cannot be accurately predicted, but certain greenhouse crops would be at risk, even in cold regions.

On October 19, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 56305-56306, Docket No. 99-073-1) a notice announcing the availability of an environmental assessment titled “Control of Papaya Mealybug, Paracoccus marginatus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae)” (October 1999). In that environmental assessment, we discussed our review and analysis of the environmental impact and plant pest risk associated with the release into the environment of three genera of nonindigenous wasps ( Anagyrus, Apoanagyrus , and Acerophagus ) as part of a biological control project to suppress papaya mealybug.

Since the publication of our October 1999 notice, a fourth genus of nonindigenous wasp— Pseudaphycus (Hymenoptera: Encrytidae)—that attacks the papaya mealybug has been identified. Research conducted in quarantine has shown Pseudaphycus spp. wasps to be a primary parasite of papaya mealybug, and this genus is only known to attack species of mealybug. Thus, a request has been made to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the release of Pseudaphycus spp. wasps into the environment for the suppression of papaya mealybug infestations throughout the United States.

The Pseudaphycus spp. wasps will be imported from Mexico into U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-certified insect quarantine facilities at the Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Laboratory (BIIRL) in Newark, DE. At BIIRL, species identifications would be confirmed by USDA and State taxonomists, and undesirable organisms, such as hyperparasites, would be screened out and properly eliminated. Laboratory colonies would be established by APHIS and State cooperators. The wasps would then be released by APHIS and State cooperators in areas invaded by the papaya mealybug. Such areas include the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida, where the papaya mealybug is now present. The papaya mealybug may also spread to other States due to the presence of hosts and favorable habitats. These areas include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. If the papaya mealybug does spread to these areas, APHIS and State cooperators will release the wasps in the affected areas also.

We expect that these stingless wasps would become established and reproduce naturally without further human intervention.

If APHIS does release Pseudaphycus spp. wasps, the release of these wasps will complement our previous releases of Anagyrus, Apoanagyrus , and Acerophagus spp. wasps, which were the first exotic biological control agents approved for release against papaya mealybug in the United States.

To document APHIS' review and analysis of the environmental impact and plant pest risk associated with releasing Pseudaphycus spp. wasps into the environment as biological control agents, we have prepared a supplement to our October 1999 environmental assessment that examined the release into the environment of Anagyrus, Apoanagyrus , and Acerophagus spp. wasps. We are making the supplement to that environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment.

The supplement to our October 1999 environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1B), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to host three public meetings to discuss how we should administer our pine shoot beetle program.

Our pine shoot beetle program is based on our pine shoot beetle regulations (7 CFR 301.50-1 through 301.50-10, referred to below as the regulations). The regulations govern the interstate movement of regulated articles from areas quarantined because of pine shoot beetle. Section 301.50-2 of the regulations provides a list of articles regulated because of pine shoot beetle. Regulated articles are the following pine ( Pinus spp.) products: Bark nuggets (including bark chips), Christmas trees, logs with bark attached, lumber with bark attached, nursery stock, pine wreaths and garlands, raw pine materials for pine wreaths and garlands, and stumps. In addition, any other article determined to present a risk of spreading pine shoot beetle may be designated as a regulated article. Section 301.50-3 of the regulations lists areas quarantined because of pine shoot beetle. Quarantined areas include counties in the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Sections 301.50-4 through 301.50-10 provide requirements for moving regulated articles interstate from quarantined areas to nonquarantined areas. These sections include requirements for certificates and limited permits and for treatment of regulated articles.

From 1992, when pine shoot beetle was first detected in the United States, through 1997, the pine shoot beetle program was funded through APHIS contingency funding. From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2000, funding for the program (approximately $185,000) came from miscellaneous pest line item funding. These funds are limited for use in the eastern region of the United States. We are not certain whether there will be adequate funding to conduct pine shoot beetle program activities in fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

In spite of our efforts to control the spread of pine shoot beetle through the regulations, infested counties continue to be detected each year. Because of this, we must annually add many counties to the list of quarantined areas. The public meetings will provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment on whether APHIS should continue to administer the pine shoot beetle program in accordance with the regulations or if we should pursue another course of action. Please note, however, that while the information gathered during the meetings may indicate the need for changes to our current regulatory program, the meetings will not directly result in any changes to the regulations. If we determine that changes to the regulations are appropriate, we will publish a document in the Federal Register for public comment.

Because of the potential for inadequate funding and the continued spread of pine shoot beetle, we would like interested persons to comment on the following topics:

1. Should the pine shoot beetle program be maintained?

2. How effective is the pine shoot beetle program?

3. What changes could be made to the program to make it more effective?

4. If we maintain the program, how should it be funded?

Comments on these, or other related topics, are welcome during the public meetings.

A representative of APHIS will preside at each public meeting. Any interested person may appear and be heard in person, by attorney, or by another representative. Written statements may be submitted and will be made part of the meeting record. Persons who wish to speak at a meeting will be asked to provide their names and organizations. We ask that anyone who reads a statement or submits a written statement provide two copies to the presiding officer at the meeting.

Registration for each public meeting will take place from 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m. on the day of the meeting at the meeting room. Each public meeting will begin at 1 p.m. and is scheduled to end at 5 p.m., local time. However, any meeting may end at any time after it begins if all persons desiring to speak have been heard. If the number of speakers at a meeting warrants it, the presiding officer may limit the time for presentations so that everyone wishing to speak has the opportunity.

If you cannot attend a public meeting, you may submit written comments on the topics outlined in this notice. To submit written comments, please follow the instructions listed under the heading ADDRESSES near the beginning of this document.

Title: Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB-83-1).

Type of Request: New collection of information.

Abstract: ERS of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for conducting studies and evaluations of the Nation's food assistance programs that are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture. WIC is the second largest domestic food-assistance program in the United States. In Federal fiscal year 1998, WIC served approximately 7.4 million participants each month at an annual cost approaching $4 billion (FNS, 1998). WIC is administered through grants to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the American Virgin Islands, and 33 Indian Tribal Organizations. State WIC agencies administer the program through roughly 2,000 local agencies representing about 10,000 service delivery sites.

WIC provides a comprehensive set of services including supplemental foods, nutrition education, and increased access to health care and social services for pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum women; infants; and children up to the age of five years. To qualify for WIC, a health or nutritional risk must be documented by a health professional and participants must be income-eligible.

WIC is not an entitlement program. Each State must operate within annual funding levels established via a formula devised by FNS to distribute funds appropriated by the Congress. This necessitates setting a maximum caseload for each local agency. When a local agency reaches this maximum, a system of priorities is used to allocate benefits to eligible applicants. As a consequence, WIC officials seek to contain program costs, particularly food costs, so that they can serve the maximum feasible number of eligible persons with the available funds. Cost-containment strategies employed by State WIC agencies fall into three main categories:

Currently, all State agencies are required to buy infant formula under rebate contracts and are strongly encouraged by FNS to employ practices intended to reduce other costs of food benefits for women and children. By design, the planned study will not examine infant formula rebates. By reducing food costs, cost-containment practices have the potential to increase the number of eligible women, infants and children served by WIC. Concerns have been raised, however, that overly restrictive policies may reduce participants' access to and consumption of prescribed foods, and may ultimately lead to reduced participation and adverse health impacts. In addition, some observers have questioned whether cost-containment practices save enough in food costs to offset their additional administrative costs.

As mandated by the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998, ERS is conducting a study to describe and assess the effects of these practices on seven outcomes: (1) Program participation; (2) access and availability of prescribed foods; (3) voucher redemption rates and actual food selections by participants; (4) participants on special diets or with specific food allergies; (5) participant use and satisfaction of prescribed foods; (6) achievement of positive health outcomes; and (7) program costs. Pub. L. 105-336, Sec. 203(r), 112 Stat. 3143, 3166. This study will provide the first systematic data on the balance struck by WIC State agencies between the goals of nutritional improvement and customer satisfaction and the need to make the most of available program funds.

The study is being conducted in six States: California, Connecticut, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas. These States were purposively selected and recruited to participate because of their use of specific combinations of the main types of cost-containment practices and to represent diversity in geographical location, size, and race/ethnicity of WIC participants. This selection method is appropriate because of the need for State cooperation and because the study is intended to explore the possibility that WIC cost-containment practices have significant impacts on participants and program costs, not to provide definitive, nationally-representative impact estimates.

ERS, working with Abt Associates, Inc., who will collect the information, will draw on several data sources in each of the six participating States. Maximum use will be made of existing data in State WIC information systems, including participant certification records, food instrument issuance and redemption records, and vendor locations and characteristics. These data will be used to construct sample frames for a survey of WIC participants, a survey of WIC vendors, and focus groups with WIC participants who do not pick up all of their WIC food vouchers, as well as in the analyses of outcomes. A second existing information source is supermarket scanner data, which will provide information on WIC transactions (such as brand and size of food products selected) for a subset of WIC-approved vendors within each State. Finally, electronic benefit transfer (EBT) transaction data will provide similar information for WIC transactions in Ohio, the only selected State that will be using EBT to process WIC transactions during the study period.

The remaining data sources, for which OMB clearance will be needed, are a survey of WIC participants, a screener survey to recruit WIC participants for focus groups, a survey of WIC food availability and prices, and interviews with WIC staff. The Survey of WIC Participants is a telephone survey of active WIC recipients in each of the six participating States, with field follow-up. The survey will be administered to a random sample of recipients selected by a two-stage process. In each State, three study sites will be selected, one from each stratum defined by urban, suburban, and rural areas. WIC participants will then be randomly selected from a list of all participants residing in the study sites, stratified by women and children.

The Survey of WIC Participants will collect information relevant to all study objectives including: access to WIC vendors; food item selections and food consumption; satisfaction with WIC food items; food preferences; food selection problems associated with special diets or food allergies; use of health services; and selected participant demographics not available from State WIC records. Cross-state analyses will compare responses of participants from States implementing one or more types of cost-containment practice to responses of participants from States who are not using the same (or any) practices to determine whether there are any systematic differences in the relevant outcome measures. Within-state analyses will focus on a comparison of responses from those participants who are and are not constrained by cost-containment practices. Finally, responses of participants with special diets or food allergies will be examined to determine the extent to which they may have greater problems associated with cost-containment than other participants.

To explore the possible effects of cost containment on participant drop-out rates, the study will use State information systems data to identify those WIC participants who have failed to pick up one or more of their monthly food package instruments. A screening interview will be used to select those participants whose decision not to pick up their food instruments may have been affected by cost-containment practices. Focus groups with these WIC participants will take place in each participating State.

The Survey of Food Prices and Item Availability will be a major data source for estimating cost savings due to cost-containment practices; it also provides information on both the variety of WIC foods offered and shelf availability. Abt Associates data collectors will obtain information on food items normally stocked by asking store cashiers to scan a set of UPC (Universal Product Code) codes for a standard list of foods meeting Federal WIC guidelines. Stores will be sampled from among all WIC-authorized vendors in the study sites selected for the Survey of WIC Participants; stores will be stratified by store type (supermarket vs. grocery store), size, and WIC vs. non-WIC status. In States with vendor restrictions, non-WIC vendors will also be sampled and surveyed. In States with vendor restriction practices, food prices and availability will be compared between WIC vendors and non-WIC vendors. In States with item restriction practices, food prices and availability will be compared between WIC-approved food items and non-WIC approved foods that meet Federal guidelines.

Finally, State and local WIC officials in each of the participating States will be interviewed about the expenses of implementing cost containment, the extent to which savings have been used to increase participation, and other impacts on program operations. Interviews with the six State WIC directors will be conducted in person. The director of each selected local agency and other staff with key responsibilities related to cost containment will also be interviewed; these interviews will be conducted by telephone. The information collected from State and local WIC staff is essential for evaluating the effects of cost-containment practices on program participation and costs.

The above-mentioned information collection is needed to complete the Assessment of WIC Cost-Containment Practices mandated by Congress and to equip FNS and State WIC administrators with a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts of cost containment as they make decisions in the future regarding the implementation of these practices. No existing data source can provide all of the information needed to complete the evaluation. Existing WIC information system databases from the six States will be used to construct the survey sample frames and to obtain demographic data on participants and WIC vendors affected by cost containment. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing will be used to minimize respondent burden and interviewer error in the Survey of WIC Participants. Focus group samples will be drawn from a limited geographic area to minimize travel time and expense for focus group participants. The survey questionnaire and screener and local agency interviews will be kept as simple and respondent-friendly as possible. Responses are voluntary and confidential. Survey and interview data will be combined with other data for statistical purposes and reported only in aggregate or statistical form.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this data collection is estimated to vary by the type of respondent. Responses to the Survey of WIC participants are estimated to average 30 minutes. Responses from WIC participants who did not pick up their WIC vouchers are estimated at 5 minutes, on average, for a screening interview and an average of 90 minutes for the focus group session. The Survey of Food Prices will involve an estimated 15 minutes of time from the store cashier for scanning. Responses by local agency WIC staff are estimated to total 60 minutes, on average. The estimates include time for listening to instructions, gathering data needed, and responding to questionnaire or interview/discussion items.

Respondents: Participants in the local WIC agency staff, and WIC-authorized food store cashiers in six selected States.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,052 in total: 1,200 active WIC participants, 600 WIC participants who failed to pick up their vouchers, 72 WIC participants for focus groups, 18 local WIC agency staff, and 162 food store cashiers.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: Total of 816.5 hours. Survey of WIC Participants: 600 hours, Screener Survey for Focus Groups: 50 hours, Focus Groups: 108 hours, Local Agency Interview: 18 hours, and Survey of Food Prices and Item Availability: 40.5 hours. Copies of the information to be collected can be obtained from Phil R. Kaufman, Food Markets Branch, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1800 M. St., NW, Room N2118, Washington, D.C. 20036-5801, 202-694-5376.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be considered and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Federal Subsistence Board assumed subsistence management responsibility for public lands in Alaska in 1990, after the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska. 1989), reh'g denied (Alaska 1990), that the rural preference contained in the State's subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution. This ruling put the State's subsistence program out of compliance with Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and resulted in the Secretaries assuming subsistence management on the public lands in Alaska. The “Temporary Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Final Temporary Rule” was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 27114-27170) on June 29, 1990. The “Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska; Final Rule” was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 22940-22964) on May 29, 1992. The Secretaries published an amended Final Rule (64 FR 1276) on January 8, 1999, that redefined the area of Federal jurisdiction to include waters subject to a subsistence priority. The regulatory amendments in that document conformed the Federal subsistence management regulations to the court decree issued in State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995) cert denied 517 U.S. 1187 (1996).

Most salmon fisheries in Alaska are subject to in-season management by State emergency order by local State managers who have been given delegated authority by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to enact regulatory changes within a prescribed scope and for prescribed purposes. Because the annual run strengths of migratory fish species, such as salmon, are relatively unpredictable making it difficult to forecast numbers of fish available for harvest while meeting conservation objectives, harvest openings or closings are often made at or near the time and place where the fish are taken. These are local decisions, best made by the local State managers. In-season management by delegated authority is used to avoid violating conservation mandates where delayed closures would lead to over-fishing, optimize fishing opportunities where fish runs are unpredictable, and to encourage local involvement in management decisions.

Local Federal managers will face situations where the subsistence fisheries in Federal waters will need to be opened or closed quickly in order to meet local subsistence needs or to achieve a conservation objective. Local Federal managers may also need to act quickly to close Federal waters to non-subsistence fishing, in order to protect a subsistence opportunity. Local Federal managers will need to have regulatory authority similar to that available to State managers during the 2000 season to ensure that conservation and subsistence use mandates on Federal lands are met. The need for local delegated authority will occur when Federal managers identify the need to take immediate action affecting fisheries in Federal waters.

Delegation of authority to a field manager avoids violations of conservation mandates through timely response to resource shortages. Conservation and subsistence use objectives may not be met if decisions on fishing restrictions exceed 24 hours to process. Field officials with delegated authority provide focused points of contact for local subsistence users and facilitate local liaison with State managers and other user groups. Decisions are viewed as local and in the best interests of the resource and local subsistence users. Timely in-season management decisions optimize the opportunity to harvest fish when and where they are available, without jeopardizing spawning escapement goals for specific stocks. Delayed in-season decisions by the Board, if authority is not delegated, may often miss opportunities to provide for a local subsistence priority, because a targeted fish run will have passed or stock segregation will have created a conservation risk. Emphasis on local liaison creates an environment that encourages consultation with local State managers and subsistence users to help identify restrictions necessary to conserve the resource and to provide for the subsistence priority, and does so with consideration to providing for non-subsistence fisheries when harvestable surpluses are sufficient. Delegation of authority to field managers could significantly reduce the time-consuming involvement of the Board otherwise required for in-season management decisions. The Board can establish and amend limitations on delegations, management objectives, and procedural guidelines to ensure that Board intent is implemented by field managers.

Pursuant to the regulatory authority found at 36 CFR 242.10(d)(6) and 50 CFR 100.10(d)(6), the Federal Subsistence Board establishes the following guidelines for Federal officials delegated to act for the Board. Affected field managers must remain involved in the decision making process with the delegated Federal official responsible for making a final decision.

a. All delegated Federal officials will become familiar with the management history of the fisheries in their area, with the current State and Federal regulations and management plans, and be up-to-date on in-season stock and harvest status information.

b. All delegated Federal officials will review Special Action requests or situations that may require a Special Action and supporting information and determine (1) if the request/situation falls within the scope of delegated authority, (2) if significant conservation problems or subsistence harvest concerns are indicated, and (3) what the consequences of taking an action may be on potentially-affected subsistence users and non-subsistence users. Requests not within the delegated authority of the delegated Federal official must be forwarded to the Federal Subsistence Board for consideration.

c. All delegated Federal officials will notify the Federal Subsistence Board and notify/consult with local ADF&G managers, Regional Advisory Council representatives, and other affected Federal conservation unit managers concerning admissible Special Actions being considered.

d. Delegated Federal officials will issue timely decisions to effectuate the outcomes sought. Users will be notified before the effective date/time of decisions. If an action is to supersede a State action not yet in effect, the decision will be communicated to affected users at least 6 hours before the State action would be effective. If a decision is to take no action, the requestor will be notified immediately. Regional Advisory Councils will be kept informed and consulted as appropriate.

1. Only the Federal officials identified below are delegated authority to issue Special Actions to address fish stock conservation concerns or unmet subsistence harvest needs. Such action must be substantiated by clear evidence in resource monitoring information and/or corroboration from affected users/communities, and evaluated in relation to historical information.

2. Delegated authority to issue Special Actions is limited to opening or closing Federal subsistence fishing periods or areas provided for under regulations found at 36 CFR 242.26-242.27 and 50 CFR 100.26-100.27, or closing non-subsistence fishing in Federal waters. All requests to modify Federal subsistence management regulations, such as those relating to harvest limits, permit requirements, gear restrictions, or customary and traditional use determinations, must be directed to the Federal Subsistence Board.

3. The following Federal officials are delegated to act for the Federal Subsistence Board as delineated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, for the fishery regulatory year 2000:

Drafting Information: William Knauer drafted this policy document under the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Curt Wilson, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Bob Gerhard, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Greg Bos, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Ida Hildebrand, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken Thompson, USDA-Forest Service provided additional guidance.

The first Public Notice was released on April 14, 2000. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is asking for comments from individuals, private consultants, Tribal, State, and local governments or subgroups thereof, universities, colleges, environmental groups, community development groups, and other organizations. These comments will assist USDA in the policy development and implementation of the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program. This manual is intended for use by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and other USDA staff, conservation partners, State and local field staffs, RC&D Council members, and others that will be developing RC&D applications or participating in the RC&D program. The Conservation Programs Manual: Part 513—RC&D Program is a document intended for use by NRCS and other USDA staff, conservation partners, State and local field staffs, RC&D Council members, and others that either will be developing RC&D applications or participating in the RC&D program. The purpose of this document is to provide policy guidance for the RC&D program, not to establish regulatory requirements. The RC&D Program was authorized to encourage and improve the capability of State and local units of government and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to plan, develop, and implement programs for resource conservation and development. Through the establishment of RC&D Areas, the program establishes or improves coordination systems in rural communities and builds rural community leadership skills to effectively utilize Federal, State, and local programs for the communities' benefit.

Current program objectives focus on the “quality of life” improvements achieved through natural resources conservation and community development. Such activities lead to sustainable communities, prudent land use, and the sound management and conservation of natural resources.

Assistance is provided, as authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture, to designated RC&D Areas through their organized RC&D Councils, comprised of local leaders. RC&D Councils and their sponsors, in association with State, local, and Federal governments, and non-profit organizations, initiate and lead the planning and implementation of their locally developed RC&D Area plans. Councils also obtain assistance from other local, State, and Federal agencies; private organizations; and foundations.

USDA prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (braille, large print, and audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination to USDA, write Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

The GRRHP is operated under the direction of title 7 CFR part 3565. The Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program Origination and Servicing Handbook (HB-1-3565) is available to provide lenders and the general public with the “how to” administrative guidance needed to administer the program. HB-1-3565, which contains a copy of 7 CFR part 3565 in Appendix 1, may be found on the Rural Development Regulation web site internet address of “http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs” or copies may be obtained from the Rural Housing Service Multi-Family Housing Processing Division at 202-720-1604. This is not a toll-free number. Hearing-or speech-impaired persons may access that number by calling the Federal Information Relay Service toll-free at (800) 877-8339.

On March 28, 1996, President Clinton signed the “Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996,” Public Law 104-120, authorizing the section 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing Program (GRRHP). The program is designed to increase the supply of affordable multifamily housing through partnerships between Rural Housing Service (RHS) and major lending sources, as well as state and local housing finance agencies and bond issuers. Qualified lenders will be authorized to originate, underwrite, and close loans for multifamily housing projects requiring new construction or acquisition with rehabilitation of at least $15,000 per unit, when the acquisition results in the creation of new affordable housing units. RHS may guarantee such loans upon presentation and review of appropriate certifications, project information and satisfactory completion of the appropriate level of environmental review by RHS. Lenders will be responsible for the full range of loan management, servicing, and property disposition activities associated with these projects. The lender will be expected to provide servicing or contract for servicing of each loan it underwrites. In turn, RHS will guarantee the lender's loan up to 90 percent of total development cost and commits to pay up to a maximum of 90 percent of the outstanding principal and interest balance of such loan in the case of default of the loan and filing of a claim. In no event will the Agency pay more than 90 percent of the original principal amount. This means that the Agency will have a risk exposure under the GRRHP of approximately 80 percent of the total development cost. Any losses would be split on a pro-rata basis between the lender and the Agency from the first dollar lost.

This NOFA announces the availability of approximately $36.8 million in Non-Interest Credit section 538 program dollars for FY 2000. There are no Interest Credit funds remaining for FY 2000. Responses requesting interest credit assistance will not be considered in this NOFA. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 budget authority provided approximately $100 million in program dollars. Approximately $62 million dollars in NOFA awards were awarded in a previous FY 2000 NOFA, which closed May 8, 2000. That NOFA resulted in interest credit requests exceeding the interest credit available. FY 2000 funds will be held in the National Office. There are no set-asides or demonstration purposes for the GRRHP for FY 2000.

Lenders should respond to section 538 NOFA's only when they have completed a preliminary underwriting analysis and are willing to make the proposed loan subject only to the issuance of a guarantee by the Agency. Unfortunately, the Agency has found that in some instances, this has not been the case. In an effort to reduce the number of unacceptable NOFA responses and judiciously commit program dollars to projects that demonstrate a readiness to proceed, the Agency will strictly adhere to the submission requirements.

In the interest of time, lenders have the option of submitting a combined NOFA response and application. However, the Agency will not give preference to a submission containing both a NOFA response and an application. Lenders who submit complete applications are encouraged, but not required, to include a checklist and to have their applications indexed and tabbed to facilitate the review process.

Upon notice of selection, lenders with the top ranked NOFA responses will be requested to submit the required application fee of $2,500.00 and full application if not already submitted. When the conditions of the conditional commitment are met, the lender will submit the required information with a separate guarantee fee of 1% of the total guarantee amount.

NOFA submission requirements are subject to change and it is important to note that all responses must be submitted in accordance with the terms of this NOFA which are different from the last published NOFA.

Incomplete submissions will not be considered, and the lender will be notified of the reason the response was incomplete. The required information is listed as follows:

(1) A brief description of the proposed location of the project, including town, county, state, and congressional district.

(2) A description of the property and improvements, including lot size, number of units and bids, building type, type of construction, etc., including preliminary drawings, if available.

(3) The proposed development schedule.

(4) Total project development cost.

(5) The proposed rent structure and area median income—(HUD published area median incomes can be found online at http://www.huduser.org).

(6) Evidence of site control by the proposed borrower or a purchase option.

(7) Description of any environmental issues that may affect the project.

(8) Amount of loan to be guaranteed.

(1) Proposed loan amount and the proposed borrower's equity.

(2) Estimated development budget (total and cost per unit), and the proposed sources and uses of funds. This information should include all proposed financing sources—the amount, type, rates and terms of loans, tax credits, or grant funds. Letters of application and commitment letters should be included, if available.

(3) Estimated loan-to-value ratio for guaranteed loan.

(4) Proposed Agency guarantee percentage for guaranteed loan (under no condition can the percentage exceed 90 percent of the loan amount).

(5) Collateral—all security, in addition to the real property, proposed to secure the loan.

(1) The name of the borrower and the type of ownership entity—list the general partners if a limited partnership, officers if a corporation or members of an LLC.

(2) Borrower's contact name, mailing address, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail address.

(3) Statement of borrower's housing development experience.

Evidence that the lender is either an approved lender for the purposes of the GRRHP or that the lender is eligible to apply for approved lender status as defined in paragraph VII(D) of this NOFA. The application for lender approval must be made at the same time as the first loan application.

Information that shows how the proposal is responsive to the selection criteria specified in the NOFA. (See paragraph V of this NOFA).

A commitment letter or certification by the lender that will make a loan to the borrower for the proposed project, under specified terms and conditions subject only to the issuance of a guarantee by the Agency. The lender certification must be on the lender's letterhead, and be signed by both the lender and the applicant, and be submitted by the lender to the Agency.

In order to expedite the review of the applications, RHS suggests using the following sample NOFA response checklist to ensure that you have addressed all the submission requirements and competitive criteria of this NOFA.

NOFA proposals will be reviewed as received. Priorities will be assigned to eligible proposals on the basis of the following criteria as contained in 7 CFR 3565.5(b), and points will be assigned as follows:

(A) Projects located in rural communities with the smallest population will receive priority. All proposals will be ranked in order of their population. The proposals will be given a point score starting with the project located in the area with the lowest population receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth, until up to 20 projects have received points.

(B) The most needy communities as determined by the median income from the most recently available census data. The proposals will be given a point score starting with the community having the lowest median income receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 proposals have received points.

(C) Partnering and leveraging in order to develop the maximum number of housing units and promote partnerships with state and local communities, including other partners with similar housing goals. Leveraging points will be awarded as follows:

(D) Loans with interest rates less than the maximum allowable 250 basis points over the 30 Year Treasury Rate will be awarded points as follows (fractional basis points will be rounded to the nearest whole basis point):

(E) Preference will be given to proposals having a higher percentage of 3-5 bedroom units to total units. The proposals will be ranked in order of this percentage with the proposal with the highest percent receiving 20 points, the next 19 points and so forth until up to 20 projects have received points.

(F) Proposals to be developed in a colonia, on tribal land, in an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, or in a place identified in the State consolidated plan or State needs assessment as a high need community for multifamily housing (20 points).

(G) Projects will be ranked by the length of the amortization period, with the longest receiving priority as follows:

The maximum allowable interest rate on a loan submitted for a guarantee is 250 basis points over the 30-year Treasury Bond Yield as published in the Wall Street Journal as of the business day prior to the business day the rate is set.

There is no surcharge for guarantee of construction advances for FY 2000.

(1) There is an initial guarantee fee of 1% of the total guarantee amount which will be due when the loan guarantee is issued. For purposes of calculating this fee, the guarantee amount is the product of the percentage of the guarantee times the initial principal amount of the guaranteed loan.

(2) There is an annual renewal fee of 0.5% of the guaranteed outstanding principal balance charged each year or portion of the year that the guarantee is in effect. This fee will be collected prospectively on January 1, of the calendar year.

(3) There is no fee for site assessment and market analysis or preliminary feasibility in FY 2000.

(4) There is a non-refundable application fee of $2,500 when the application is submitted following proposal selection under the NOFA.

(5) There is a flat fee of $500 when a lender requests RHS to extend the term of a guarantee commitment.

(6) There is a flat fee of $500 when a lender requests RHS to reopen a guarantee commitment after the period of the commitment lapses.

(7) There is a flat fee of $1,250 when a lender requests RHS to approve the transfer of property and assumption of the loan to an eligible applicant.

The application for lender approval must be made at the same time as the first loan application. The first loan application means: (1) The first application for a loan guarantee for a new loan; or (2) The first application before ownership of any GRRHP loan is transferred to that lender. A lender must be approved before a loan guarantee is issued or a guaranteed loan is acquired.

An eligible lender must be a licensed business entity or Housing Finance Authority (HFA) in good standing in the state or states where it conducts business; be approved by the Agency; and meet at least one of the criteria contained below. Lenders who are not eligible may participate in the program if they maintain a correspondent relationship with a lender who is eligible. An eligible lender must:

(a) Meet the qualifications of, and be approved by, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make multifamily housing loans that are to be insured under the National Housing Act;

(b) Meet the qualifications and be approved by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to make multifamily housing loans that are to be sold to such corporations;

(c) Be a state or local HFA, or a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank system, with a demonstrated ability to underwrite, originate, process, close, service, manage, and dispose of multifamily housing loans in a prudent manner;

(d) Be a lender who meets the requirements for Agency approval contained in 7 CFR part 3565 subpart B and has a demonstrated ability to underwrite, originate, process, close, service, manage, and dispose of multifamily housing loans in a prudent manner; or

(e) Be a lender who meets the following requirements in addition to the other requirements of 7 CFR part 3565 subparts B and of subpart I:

(1) Have qualified staff to perform multifamily housing servicing and asset management;

(2) Have facilities and systems that support servicing and asset management functions; and

(3) Have documented procedures for carrying out servicing and asset management responsibilities.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for reinstatement.

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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

Title: Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans.

Type of Request: New collection approval.

Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service is authorized by Section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of water and waste disposal facilities primarily servicing rural residents. The guaranteed loan program encourages lender participation and provides specific guidance in the processing and servicing of guaranteed loans. The regulations governing the Water and Waste Disposal Guaranteed Loan program are currently codified at 7 CFR 1980, subparts A and I, and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements are currently cleared under OMB Control Numbers 0572-0119 and 0572-0120. The Agency issued a proposed rule dated October 7, 1997, at 62 FR 52277, that proposed to amend 7 CFR 1980, subparts A and I. The Agency is currently working on the final rule and when the rule is finalized the Water and Waste Disposal Guaranteed Loan program will be codified at 7 CFR 1779 and covered under a new OMB Control number, incorporating all requirements for the program.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.8 hours per response.

Respondents: Business or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 7.3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 858 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Annual Survey of Selected Services Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons (Form BE-22) obtains reliable and up-to-date information on selected U.S. services transactions with unaffiliated foreign persons. It is intended to update the results of the BE-20, Benchmark Survey of Selected Services Transactions with Unaffiliated Foreign Persons. The BE-20 survey is conducted once every five years, and the last survey covered 1996. A BE-22 survey is conducted each of the four years between the two benchmark surveys; the last BE-22 survey covered 1999. Some of the major purposes of the survey are to provide information needed in formulating U.S. international trade policy on services, supporting bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations and monitoring trade agreements, compiling the U.S. international transactions and national income and product accounts, assessing and promoting U.S. competitiveness in international trade in services, and improving the ability of U.S. businesses to identify and evaluate market opportunities. No changes are being proposed for Form BE-22.

The BE-22 survey must be filed by each U.S. person that had transactions (either sales or purchases) in excess of $1,000,000 with an unaffiliated foreign person in any of the services covered by the survey. If a U.S. person had transactions (either sales or purchases) in the types of services covered by the survey but they were $1,000,000 or less, the U.S. person is requested to voluntarily provide an estimate of the total for each type of service. The data collected are sample data covering the transactions between U.S. persons and unaffiliated foreign persons. Universe estimates are developed from the reported sample.

OMB Number: 0608-0060.

Form Number: BE-22.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, farms, and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,500 annually.

Estimated Time Per Response: 11.5 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 17,250 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $517,500 (based on an estimated reporting burden of 17,250 hours and estimated hourly cost of $30).

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 22, United States Code, Sections 3101-3108.

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 will also become a matter of public record.

Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. All statements and opinions contained in the permit action summaries are those of the applicant and do not necessarily reflect the views of NMFS.

The following species and evolutionary significant units (ESU's) are covered in the permit:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened Snake River (SnR) spring/summer, threatened SnR fall.

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): endangered SnR.

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened SnR.

Shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ).

Threatened Loggerhead turtle ( Caretta caretta ).

Endangered Green turtle ( Chelonia mydas ).

Endangered Olive ridley turle ( Lepidochelys olivacea ).

Notice was published on April 19, 2000 (65 FR 20951) that IDFG applied for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for annual incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish associated with otherwise lawful recreational fisheries on non-listed species in the Snake, Salmon, and Clearwater River Basins and the Stanley Basin lakes in the State of Idaho in the Pacific Northwest. IDFG submitted a Conservation Plan with its permit application that describes measures designed to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the incidental taking of ESA-listed anadromous salmonids associated with the sport-fisheries, some or all of which are expected to occur annually for the duration of the permit.

NMFS' decision is to adopt the preferred alternative in the Conservation Plan together with the preferred alternative in the Environmental Assessment that was completed for this permit action and issue a permit with conditions authorizing incidental takes of the ESA-listed anadromous fish species. This decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. NMFS' conditions will ensure that the incidental takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. By adopting the preferred alternative in the Conservation Plan, with the Conservation Plan's stated assurances that IDFG's mitigation program will be implemented, all practicable means to avoid or minimize harm have been adopted.

IDFG requested an annual incidental take of threatened SnR steelhead. Protective regulations are currently proposed for SnR steelhead (64 FR 73479, December 30, 1999). NMFS did not act on that part of IDFG's permit application. In the future, when NMFS promulgates final rules under section 4(d) of the ESA that will provide take prohibitions for threatened SnR steelhead, NMFS may amend the permit to include the authorization for an incidental take of this species as IDFG requested in its application. Issuance of the permit does not presuppose the contents of the eventual protective regulations.

The decision to issue the permit was made because the Conservation Plan proposed by IDFG meets the statutory criteria for issuance of an incidental take permit under section 10 of the ESA. In issuing the permit, NMFS determined that IDFG's Conservation Plan provides adequate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for the anticipated takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish.

The permit was granted only after NMFS determined that the permit was applied for in good faith, that all permit issuance criteria were met, including the requirement that granting the permit would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and that the permit is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Mr. Reed Bohne, of GRNMS has applied for a modification to 1030. Modification number 3 names Mr. Bohne as the permit holder, removes three individuals as designated agents and adds three additional individuals. Permit 1030 authorizes the take up to 25 listed loggerhead sea turtles each year in the waters within and adjacent to the Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary and on Wassaw, Ossabaw, Sapelo, or Blackbeard Islands on the Georgia coast. The turtles will be taken for examination, tagging, testing, observation, collection of biological information, rehabilitation if necessary, and release. Turtles will be acquired by takes from the wild and also from sources authorized to incidentally capture. Animals would be tagged with flipper (inconel), and PIT (passive inductive transponder) tags, radio, sonic, or satellite telemeters. Biological information will be collected in the form of blood samples. All information gathered would augment an extensive sea turtle database used to study population trends, migrations, habitat, and diving behavior. Modification number 3 to Permit 1030 was issued on June 15, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1030 expires March 31, 2002.

Dr. Peter Dutton of the SWFSC applied for a modification to 988. Modification number 1 authorizes Dr. Dutton to use five satellite transmitters in lieu of five previously permitted radio transmitters. Permit 988 authorizes the capture 50 green turtles, five olive ridley turtles, and five loggerhead turtles in San Diego Bay. The turtles will be measured, weighed, have blood samples taken, and have tags and transmitters attached. Some turtles will have lavage stomach sampling performed. Turtles will be recaptured monthly for growth measurements. The purpose of the research is to reassess the status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay. Data collected will be compared to baseline data to determine which turtles are still resident in the Bay, and to determine growth and tag retention rates. Information will be collected on turtle numbers, species, size, sex, tags, health status, stock origin, and behavior and movement patterns. Genetic analysis of blood samples will contribute to an international effort to determine stock structure of Pacific sea turtles. Modification number 1 to Permit 988 was issued on June 15, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 988 expires April 30, 2001.

Application 1254: The applicant has requested a five-year scientific research permit to conduct a monitoring study as part of an incidental take permit for the operation of the Roseton and Danskammer Point power plants. The applicant will be collecting larvae, juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon in various location in the Hudson River between the estuary and river mile 65.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. The MMPA now defines “harassment” as:

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On January 24, 2000, NMFS received a request from the USGS for authorization to take small numbers of several species of marine mammals by harassment incidental to collecting marine seismic-reflection data from waters off southern California. Seismic data will be collected during a 3-week period between May and July 2000, preferably June, to determine the source of the invasion of seawater into freshwater aquifers that are critical to the Los Angeles-San Pedro area water supply and to support studies of the regional landslide and earthquake hazards for people within the coastal cities between Santa Barbara and San Diego.

The USGS proposes to conduct a high-resolution seismic survey offshore from Southern California. For a 3-week period between May and July 2000, preferably in June, the USGS would like to collect seismic-reflection data to investigate: (1) the intrusion of seawater into freshwater coastal aquifers that are critical to the water supply for people within the Los Angeles- San Pedro area and (2) the hazards posed by landslides, tsunamis, and potential earthquake faults in the nearshore region from Santa Barbara to San Diego. Both of these tasks are multi-year efforts that require high-resolution, seismic-reflection data using a minisparker acoustic source.

Coastal Southern California is the most highly populated urban area along the U.S. Pacific coast with 30 percent of the California population (approximately 10 million people) living in Los Angeles County alone. The primary objectives of the USGS research are to provide information (1) to understand and help mitigate the intrusion of salt water into coastal aquifer systems resulting from ground-water overdraft, and (2) to help mitigate the earthquake threat to this area. Data collected to address the salt water intrusion objective will be used to develop a hydrogeologic model for the region. This model will assist water managers (Water Replenishment District of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works) in providing a safe and uncontaminated ground-water supply to the local population.

Important geologic information that the USGS will derive from this project's seismic-reflection data is how earthquake deformation is distributed offshore; that is, where the active faults are and what the history of movement along them has been. This should improve understanding of the shifting pattern of deformation that occurred over both the long term (approximately the last 100,000 years) and short term (the last few thousand years). The USGS seeks to identify actively deforming structures that may constitute significant earthquake threats. The USGS also proposes to locate offshore landslides that might affect coastal areas. Not only major subsea landslides might affect the footings of coastal buildings, but also very large slides can generate local tsunamis. These large sea waves can be generated by seafloor movement that is produced either by landslides or by earthquakes. Knowing where large slides have occurred offshore will help locate areas susceptible to wave inundation.

Some faults that have produced earthquakes lie entirely offshore or extend into offshore areas where they can be studied using high-resolution seismic-reflection techniques. An example is the Rose Canyon fault, which extends through the San Diego area, and is considered to be the primary earthquake threat. This fault extends northward from La Jolla, beneath the inner continental shelf, and appears again onshore in the Los Angeles area. This fault and others like it near shore could generate moderate (M5-6) to large (M6-7) earthquakes.

Knowing the location and geometry of fault systems is critical to estimating the location and severity of ground shaking. Therefore, the results of this project will contribute to decisions involving land use, hazard zonation, insurance premiums, and building codes.

The USGS emphasizes that the goal is not to predict earthquakes but rather to help determine what steps might be taken to minimize the devastation should a large earthquake occur. The regional earthquake threat is known to be high, and a major earthquake could adversely affect the well-being of a large number of people. For example, earthquakes in the coastal ocean off southern California commonly result in large-scale submarine landslides, many of which could be capable of producing destructive tsunamis.

The proposed work is in collaboration with scientists at the Southern California Earthquake Center, which analyzes faults and earthquakes in onshore regions, and with scientists at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, who measure strain (incremental movement) on offshore faults.

The USGS also wants to collect high-resolution seismic- reflection data to locate the sources and pathways of seawater that intrudes into freshwater aquifers below San Pedro. Ground water usage in the Los Angeles basin began in the mid-1800s. Today, more than 44,000 acre-feet of freshwater each year are extracted from the aquifers that underlie the West Coast Basin. Aggressive extraction of freshwater from coastal aquifers causes offshore salt water to flow toward areas of active pumping. To limit this salt-water intrusion, the Water Replenishment District and water purveyors in San Pedro are investing $2.7 million per year at the Dominguez Gap Barrier Project to inject freshwater underground to establish a zone of high water pressure in the aquifers near San Pedro and Long Beach. The resulting zone of high pressure forms a barrier between the invasive saltwater and the productive coastal aquifers.

USGS scientists in San Diego are working with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Water Replenishment District to develop a ground-water simulation model to predict fluid flow below San Pedro and nearby parts of the Los Angeles Basin. This model will eventually be used in managing water resources. The accuracy of the present model, however, is compromised by a paucity of information about aquifer geometry and about other geologic factors that might affect fluid flow. Data collected by the USGS will be used to improve three-dimensional, fluid-flow models to aid management of water resources.

Fieldwork described here will be the fourth geophysical survey on the west coast that the USGS has conducted under close supervision by marine-mammal biologists. In March 1998, the USGS used a large (6,500 in 3. , 106 liters) airgun array in and around Puget Sound to study the regional earthquake hazard (see 63 FR 2213, January 14, 1998). The USGS employed 12 biologists, who worked on two ships continuously to oversee the seismic- reflection operations. On several occasions the USGS shut off the acoustic sources when marine mammals entered safety zones that had been stipulated by NMFS, and when mammals left these zones, the USGS gradually ramped-up the array as required in its permit to avoid harming wildlife. Marine-mammal biologists reported that during the survey, no overt distress was evident among the dense marine mammal population, and afterward no unexplained marine mammal strandings occurred.

In August 1998, the USGS surveyed offshore from southern California, using a small airgun (40 in 3 , 0.65 liters). Two marine-mammal biologists oversaw this activity. In June 1999, the USGS conducted the third survey to support study of aquifer contamination and earthquake hazards in southern California (see 64 FR 31548, June 11, 1999). Three marine-mammal biologists provided oversight for this operation. The survey described in this document is proposed to be conducted with similar oversight.

Marine studies conducted by the USGS focus on areas where saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers is an active concern and where other kinds of natural hazards have their greatest potential impact on society. In southern California, USGS studies will focus on five chief geographic areas. First is the San Pedro shelf, offshore of the Dominguez Gap barrier project. Collecting data as close to shore as feasible is critically important in order to merge onshore and offshore geology in a manner that allows modeling the hydrologic flow through the system. With respect to the seismic-hazard issues in the offshore, the USGS' main priority (and second geographic area) is the coastal zone and continental shelf between Long Beach and San Diego, where much of the hazard appears to be associated with strike-slip faults such as the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes faults. A critical component of the survey concerns the third geographic area, which lies farther offshore in the Santa Monica, San Pedro, and San Diego Trough deeps, where rapid sedimentation has left a more complete record, relative to shallow-water areas, that can be used to decipher earthquake history. The fourth area is the extension into the Santa Barbara Channel of major elements of onshore geology that cross the northern part of Santa Monica Bay and include several major known earthquake faults. The fifth area is the geologic boundary, marked generally by the Channel Islands, between the inner California Borderland (dominated by strike-slip faults) and the Santa Barbara Channel (dominated by compressional faults). This change in fault types is important to study because the degree of earthquake threat varies with fault type. The study proposed herein focuses on the three highest priority areas, which lie near shore between Los Angeles and San Diego.

The seismic-reflection survey is planned to last 21 days. Based on experience collecting seismic-reflection data in this general area during 1998 and 1999, the USGS would prefer to conduct the 2000 survey in June. Because it will have to contract for a vessel from which to conduct the geophysical survey, the targeted study time frame is sometime within the May through July window. The basis for this decision is the USGS' desire to avoid the gray whale migrations and the peak arrival of other mysticetes during the later summer. An important part of the effort this summer will be to fill in gaps caused by shutdowns and daylight-only operations during earlier surveys.

The USGS has not yet determined the exact tracklines for the survey, but it does know the areas where minisparker use will be concentrated (see Fig. 3 in the application). Within the overall work area, the objective is to collect seismic-reflection data along a grid of lines that are about 2 km (1.07 nmi) apart. Data collected during the 1998 and 1999 surveys will be used to guide the planning for the proposed survey in order to minimize the number of survey lines that are required to adequately define the aquifer geometries and location of potential earthquake faults.

The USGS proposes to use two seismic-reflection systems for data collection: (1) A 1.5 kilo-Joule (kJ) minisparker using a 200-m (656.2-ft) long multichannel streamer, and (2) a low-power, high resolution deep-tow system. The potential effect on marine mammals is from the minisparker; mammals cannot become entangled in the streamer. The low-powered, high-resolution seismic- reflection system, manufactured by Huntec, Ltd., will obtain detailed information about the very shallow geology. The seismic-reflection systems will be aboard a vessel owned by a private contractor or academic cooperator. Ship navigation will be accomplished using satellites of the Global Positioning System. The survey ship will be able to report accurate positions, which is important to mitigating the minisparker's effect on marine mammals and to analyzing what impact, if any, minisparker operation has on the environment.

The primary sound source to be used during this survey will be a 1.5 kJ “SQUID 2000” minisparker system manufactured by Applied Acoustic Engineering, Inc. This minisparker includes eight electrodes that are mounted on a small pontoon sled. The electrodes simultaneously discharge electric current through the seawater to an electrical ground. This discharge creates an acoustic signal. The pontoon sled that supports the minisparker is towed on the sea surface, approximately 20 meters (65.6 ft) behind the ship.

Source characteristics of the SQUID 2000 TM minisparker provided by the manufacturer show a sound-pressure level (SPL) of 209 dB re 1 μPa-m root-mean-square (RMS). The amplitude spectrum of this pulse indicates that most of the sound energy lies between 150 hertz (Hz) and 1700 Hz (1.7 kHz), and the peak amplitude is at 900 Hz. The output sound pulse of the minisparker has a duration of about 0.8 milli-seconds (ms). When operated at sea for the multichannel seismic-reflection survey proposed herein, the minisparker will be discharged every 4 to 6 seconds.

The second seismic source that will be used during this survey is a Huntec TM system, which generates underwater sound at higher frequencies than does the minisparker. The Huntec TM system uses electromagnetically driven plates to produce an acoustic pulse every 0.5 seconds, with a duration of about 0.3 ms. In water depths greater than 200 m (656.2 ft), the Huntec TM source is towed behind the ship at a depth of approximately 100 m (328.1 ft). In shallow water, such as the inner shelf, the sound source is towed at a depth of about 5 m (16.4 ft) of the sea surface within about 5 m (16.4 ft) of the stern of the ship. The SPL for this source is 205 dB re 1 μPa rms . The frequencies of the main output sound are between 500 Hz and 8 kHz, with a peak amplitude at 4.5 kHz.

A notice of receipt of the application and proposed authorization was published on March 28, 2000 (65 FR 1374), and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and proposed authorization. Comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC).

Comment 1 : The MMC notes that the description of the two sound sources contained in the Federal Register document appears somewhat different than the description contained in the application. For example, the description of the minisparker does not mention a 200-m (656.2-ft) streamer, that the Huntec TM system is towed approximately 100 m (328.1 ft) behind the ship in water depths greater than 200 m (656.2 ft), and that only the minisparker will be towed at night.

Response : The description of the acoustic sources is more clearly described in this document. The streamer is only used as a receiver and is not a sound source. The streamer will be deployed during any operation involving the minisparker sound source. In shallow water, which will be the major part of the survey this year, because of the approval to work within the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit using the minisparker sound source, the Huntec TM system will be towed just below or at the sea surface and typically will be within 5 m (16.4 ft) of the minisparker sound source. Thus, during night operations in shallow water, both systems will be in the same illuminated safety zone.

Comment 2 : The MMC notes that the area of the planned survey, while not likely to encounter California sea otters as noted in the application, may encounter Guadalupe fur seals. If California sea otters may be encountered, the applicant should apply to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an incidental harassment authorization. If Guadalupe fur seals could be encountered, this species should be included in any incidental harassment authorization issued by NMFS.

Response : California sea otters, which are typically found north of Point Conception, are not expected to be observed within the limits of the proposed survey. The USGS has reviewed the reports of the marine mammal observers from Cascadia Research Collective in Olympia, WA (Cascadia) for its surveys in 1998 and 1999 and noted that sea otters were not sighted during either operation. Also for those same years, there are no reported sightings of Guadalupe fur seals. While the Guadalupe fur seal population has been increasing on Guadalupe Island, Mexico, their only breeding location, from below 1000 in the late 1970s to the current estimate of 7500, their breeding season is from May-July, so it is very likely that most Guadalupe fur seals will be found further south, and not off southern California. However, there was a recent report of a mother-pup on San Miguel Island, from June-September, 1997. Melin & DeLong (1999) speculate that it may have been due to El Nino conditions, as there are more strandings of Guadalupe fur seals along the Calfornia coast during El Nino years. Therefore, although the numbers of Guadalupe fur seals are increasing, and they seem to be extending their range at least during warmer years, because the seismic-reflection surveys are going to be taking place during the breeding season, the likelihood of a Guadalupe fur seal being in the area is extremely low.

Comment 3 : The MMC questions whether the planned nighttime observations would be capable of assuring that the surveys have the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals if the Huntec TM system is used at night, or if the 200-m (656.2-ft) streamer is part of the minisparker sound source. Concerned that night-time lighting for marine mammal observations could attract fish and squid, which in turn may attract and increase the likelihood of attracting marine mammals, the MMC recommends that NMFS consult with the applicant to assure that any marine mammals approaching or entering the designated safety zone around the sound source(s) can be detected in time to stop operations so the animals are not adversely affected.

Response : In order for seismic reflection surveys to incidentally take marine mammals at night, the night-time lighting must be capable of making the entire safety zone visible. If lighting attracts marine mammals, then the USGS would incur more shutdowns and a longer period of time would be needed to complete the surveys. NMFS is unaware of ship lighting attracting fish and squid to the extent that marine mammals would likewise be attracted to the vessel. The mitigation plan for the USGS survey is being designed by Cascadia in order to ensure that shutdowns are conducted when marine mammals are about to enter the safety zone. The IHA requires the USGS to have a minimum of 3 observers available at all times, with two on watch at all times that seismic operations are starting up or underway.

NMFS notes that the recent precautionary application of a 180-dB safety zone for protecting marine mammals does not necessarily mean that animals entering that zone will be adversely affected. It simply means that animals have the potential to incur a temporary elevation in hearing threshold (termed temporary threshold shift (TTS)), lasting, at worst, for a few minutes at the 180 dB sound pressure level. Also, based upon California Coastal Commission (CCC) determinations, the USGS has implemented, and NMFS has adopted for this action, a safety zone for pinnipeds based on the 180 dB isopleth. However, current scientific consensus indicates that a safe level for impulse sounds for pinnipeds from incurring TTS is higher than the level indicated for cetaceans (e.g., 180 dB). As a result, although scientists have preliminarily established an SPL of 190 dB re 1 μPa-m RMS as a safe level for pinnipeds underwater, and while NMFS adopts this information as the best scientific information available, the USGS must abide by the conditions contained in its CCC consistency determination. Therefore, NMFS believes that the potential for adversely affecting pinnipeds is even less likely as they would need to be significantly closer to the source than provided by the safety zone.

Comment 4 : The MMC notes that the USGS application did not indicate the species or numbers of marine mammals that approached or entered the designated safety zones during the 1998 and 1999 surveys. The MMC recommends, as it did on the USGS' 1999 application, that the USGS be required to (1) report at the end of each 24-hour period the species and number of marine mammals observed approaching and entering the designated safety zone during the day and during the night; and (2) suspend night-time operations if the species or number of animals observed approaching and entering the designated safety zone at night are significantly different than those observed during the day, suggesting that nighttime observations were failing to detect significant numbers of animals that enter the safety zones and could be killed or injured.

Response : There are several issues involved in this recommendation that need to be addressed separately. First, marine mammals are very unlikely to be seriously injured, let alone killed, by the relatively low-intensity acoustic sources proposed by the USGS for this survey. Although at different frequencies, the seismic equipment proposed for use by USGS are less powerful than fish-finding sonars commonly used in U.S. waters (including California), and there is no evidence to date that commercially available sonars are adversely affecting marine mammals.

Second, it may not be possible for the USGS to make daily reports. The USGS' leased vessel does not have satellite communication facilities and the only communication method available would be cell phone, but only when the vessel is within range of an onshore repeater.

NMFS doesn't believe daily reports are necessary for this authorization because, based on the Cascadia observations during the previous surveys, the number of mammals that enter the safety zone is small; there were only 11 occurrences in 1998 and 21 in 1999. It is also important to note that the designated safety zones were significantly larger (as much as 200 m (656.2 ft), depending upon the species in question) during those earlier surveys. The number of occurrences for the proposed survey this year is expected to be lower given the 30 m (98.4 ft) safety zone for the much less powerful sound source that will be employed. Cascadia will report all marine mammal observations. This report will be available upon completion of the survey (see Reporting).

The second part of the recommendation from the MMC is difficult to evaluate. First, merely comparing numbers of occurrences between night and day has the built-in assumption that the density of marine mammals is uniform throughout the survey area. A review of the area of the shutdowns required by the Cascadia observers during the previous surveys shows that the shutdowns are commonly grouped in a few geographic areas, probably reflecting such factors as feeding success by the mammals. In 1999, when there were 21 shutdowns for mammals moving within the designated safety zone, six occurred on one day but there were no shutdowns during several of the survey days.

In this regard, it should also be noted that Cascadia reported for the 1999 survey that eight of the 21 occurrences that required shutdown of the sound sources involved common dolphins ( Delphinus delphis ) approaching the seismic boat to bowride. More specifically, the report stated that: “Marine mammal movements and behaviors observed during the seismic-reflection operations, revealed no apparent patterns of avoidance and none could be interpreted as harassment.” Again, given the 30-m (98.4-ft) safety zone for the much less powerful sound source that will be used this year, the number of occurrences of shutdowns for the proposed survey should be significantly less.

Finally, the CCC did not approve night operations for the 1999 survey, so the USGS does not have data concerning day vs. night operations from that year. In 1998, when there were night operations, Cascadia observers required 11 shutdowns. Three of these shutdowns were due to pinnipeds, and these occurrences were in mid-day. Of the remaining eight shutdowns, three occurred at night. Because the hours of daylight were about double the hours of darkness during the time of the survey, there did not appear to be any significant difference between night and day operational shutdowns during the 1998 survey.

Comment 5 : Noting that the work proposed by the USGS is a multi-year effort, the MMC recommends that NMFS consult with the applicant to determine whether it would be more appropriate to obtain an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA for the full range of studies proposed rather than annual authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA.

Response : NMFS believes that a multi-year authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA warrants the extensive time and effort to implement regulations and annual Letters of Authorization thereunder only when the activity does not have the potential to vary significantly on an annual basis and/or when the impacts are fairly uniform. For example, activities such as construction and production of an oil production facility at Northstar (64 FR 57010, October 22, 1999) or the taking of seals at Seabrook Nuclear Power Station (64 FR 28114, May 25, 1999) meet these two criteria. On the other hand, whenever an activity is likely to require its authorization issued under section 101(a)(5)(A) to be publically reviewed annually (such as occurred with seismic oil and gas exploration in the Beaufort Sea prior to 1994), little would be gained by delaying an authorization for several months while regulations are issued prior to an authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA. This lengthy delay in issuing incidental take authorizations due to the inordinate length of time necessary for rulemaking actions was the primary reason Congress implemented MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D) authorizations when the takings were limited to incidental harassment. Since the CCC has instructed the USGS that each operation must be considered separately because of the different geographic areas and different times of the year that the surveys may be conducted, no benefit would be gained by issuing regulations governing this activity's incidental take.

Comment 6 : The MMC notes statements made in the application and Federal Register document (65 FR 1374, March 28, 2000), that pinnipeds will come from great distances to scrutinize seismic operations, and that as a result, NMFS will not require the minisparker to be shut down if pinnipeds approach the safety zone. The MMC states that there is no indication whether the referenced observations are anecdotal or the product of peer-reviewed science. If not peer-reviewed, the MMC suggests that research should be conducted under section 104 of the MMPA.

Response : The proposed mitigation measure noted in the Federal Register document (65 FR 1374, March 28, 2000), states that for pinnipeds, if the research vessel towing the minisparker approaches a pinniped, a safety radius of 30 m (98 ft) around the seismic source when operating in deep water and 15 m (49.2 ft) when in shallow water will be maintained. However, if a pinniped approaches the towed minisparker source, NMFS proposes to not require the USGS to shutdown the minisparker, but to require the USGS to monitor the interaction to ensure the animal does not show signs of distress. If the pinniped(s) show obvious distress, the USGS will terminate minisparker operations and will continue to conduct observations on effects the minisparker may have on the animals. Reviewers should note that these seals and sea lions need to be actively approaching the vessel (itself moving forward at about 3-5 knots) from the side of the vessel or the stern, meaning that the animal is voluntarily approaching a noise source that is increasing in strength as the animal gets closer.

It is NMFS' responsibility to ensure that the incidental taking is reduced to the lowest level practicable. In reviewing the information available, NMFS has determined that it is not practicable to require applicants to delay seismic surveys in order to provide additional protection for curious seals. These delays lengthen the time necessary for completing surveys, requiring additional survey time and resulting in a potential increase in impacts on more sensitive marine mammal species, and raise the potential for increased costs for conducting surveys. As mentioned in this document and in prior Federal Register notices, seals and sea lions are believed to be less likely to be harmed by underwater noise than cetaceans, and have even been observed swimming in the bubbles of seismic airguns, a source significantly more powerful than the proposed instruments.

While, to our knowledge, the information provided has not been peer-reviewed or scientifically verified under a section 104 scientific research permit, these observations were, for the most part, obtained as a result of monitoring seismic activities. As a result, NMFS does not consider them anecdotal. NMFS has chosen to adopt observations made to date, some of which were conducted under previous MMPA section 101(a)(5)(D) authorizations, as the best scientific information available.

The Southern California Bight supports a diverse assemblage of 29 species of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) and 6 species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). The species of marine mammals that are likely to be present in the seismic research area include the bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), common dolphin, killer whale ( Orcinus orca ), Pacific white-sided dolphin ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ), northern right whale dolphin ( Lissodelphis borealis ), Risso's dolphin ( Grampus griseus ), pilot whales ( Globicephala macrorhynchus ), Dall's porpoise ( Phocoenoides dalli ), sperm whale ( Physeter macrocephalus ), humpback whale ( Megaptera novaengliae ), gray whale ( Eschrichtius robustus ), blue whale ( Balaenoptera musculus ), minke whale ( Balaenoptera acutorostrata ), fin whales ( Balaenoptera physalus ), harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ), elephant seal ( Mirounga angustirostris ), northern sea lion ( Eumetopias jubatus ), and California sea lion ( Zalophus californianus ), northern fur seal ( Callorhinus ursinus ) and sea otters ( Enhydra lutris ). General information on these latter species can be found in the USGS application and in Forney et al . (1999) and Barlow et al . (1998, 1997). Please refer to these documents for information on the biology, distribution, and abundance of these species in southern California waters.

Seismic surveys are used to obtain data about stratigraphic sequences and rock formations up to several thousands of feet deep. These surveys are accomplished by transmitting sound waves into the earth, which are reflected off subsurface formations and recorded with detectors in the water column.

Disturbance by seismic noise is the principal means of taking by this activity. Vessel noise may provide a secondary source. Also, the physical presence of vessel(s) could lead to some non-acoustic effects involving visual or other cues.

Depending upon ambient conditions and the sensitivity of the receptor, underwater sounds produced by open-water seismic operations may be detectable some distance away from the activity. Any sound that is detectable is (at least in theory) capable of eliciting a disturbance reaction by a marine mammal or of masking a signal of comparable frequency. An incidental harassment take is presumed to occur when marine mammals in the vicinity of the seismic source (or vessel) react to the generated sounds or to visual cues.

Seismic pulses are known to cause some species of whales, including gray whales, to behaviorally respond within a distance of several kilometers (Richardson et al ., 1995). Although some limited masking of low-frequency sounds is a possibility for those species of whales using low frequencies for communication, the intermittent nature of seismic source pulses limits the extent of masking. Bowhead whales in Arctic waters, for example, are known to continue calling in the presence of seismic survey sounds, and their calls can be heard between seismic pulses (Richardson et al ., 1986).

When the received levels of noise exceed some behavioral reaction threshold, cetaceans will show disturbance reactions. The levels, frequencies, and types of noise that will elicit a response vary between and within species, individuals, locations and seasons. Behavioral changes may be subtle alterations in surface-dive-respiration cycles. More conspicuous responses include changes in activity or aerial displays, movement away from the sound source, or complete avoidance of the area. The reaction threshold and degree of response are related to the activity of the animal at the time of the disturbance. Whales engaged in active behaviors, such as feeding, socializing, or mating are less likely than resting animals to show overt behavioral reactions, unless the disturbance is directly threatening.

Hearing damage is not expected to occur during the project. While it is not known whether a marine mammal co-located or very close to an intense seismic source would be at risk of permanent hearing impairment, TTS is a theoretical possibility for animals close to the seismic-reflection sources. However, planned monitoring and mitigation measures (described later in this document) are designed to detect marine mammals occurring near the seismic-reflection source(s) and to avoid, to the greatest extent practicable, exposing them to sound pulses that have any possibility of causing TTS in hearing.

The adverse effects of underwater sound on mammals have been documented for exposure times that last for tens of seconds or minutes, but adverse effects have not been documented for the brief pulses typical of the minisparker (0.8 ms) and the Huntec TM system (typically 0.3 ms). While NMFS in the past considered that the maximum SPLs, from impulse sounds, to which marine mammals could safely be exposed were 180 dB re 1 μPa-m rms for mysticetes (baleen whales) and sperm whales, and 190 dB re 1 μPa-m rms for odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises) and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), recent workshops have recommended a more precautionary approach be taken and, accordingly, NMFS now recommends that odontocetes also be limited to an SPL no greater than 180 dB re 1 μPa-m rms . However, based on statements and recommendations made at NMFS' Acoustic Criteria Workshop in 1998, NMFS has not increased its recommended safety zone for pinnipeds to this same level. In 1999 and 2000, the CCC has limited the maximum sound-exposure level to 180 dB re 1 μPa-m for all species of marine mammals.

In its application, the USGS has provided two estimates of how close marine mammals can approach the Huntec TM and minisparker sources before they need to be powered down. The first estimate follows the procedure required by the CCC in 1999, where underwater sound is assumed to attenuate with distance according to the equation 20log(Radius(R)), and the maximum SPL to which marine mammals can be exposed is 180 dB re 1 μPa-m RMS . The alternative estimate of safe distance is proposed for operations limited to shallow water. In shallow water, sound from both the Huntec TM and minisparker sources will decay (attenuate) with distance more sharply than 20log(R) because some of the sound energy will exit the water and penetrate the sea floor when the source is physically close to the sea floor.

In the deeper water (greater than 50 m (164 ft)) areas of the proposed survey, the safety zone for the Huntec TM and minisparker is a circle whose radius is the distance from the source to where the SPL is reduced to 180 dB re 1 μPa-m RMS . For a 20log(R) sound attenuation, the safety zone for a 209 dB re 1 μPa-m RMS source has a radius of about 30 m (98 ft).

Much of that part of the proposed 2000 survey that focuses on saltwater intrusion of coastal aquifers will be conducted close to shore, where water is shallow. In 1999, the USGS measured a sound attenuation of 27log(R) in shallow water off southern California. Therefore, the USGS proposes that for inshore areas, underwater sound will attenuate to approximately 25log(R), which for inshore areas would yield a safety zone with a radius of 15 m (49.2 ft).

Because observers would be able to monitor this short radius of a 15 m (49.2 ft) or 30 m (98 ft) safety zone, the USGS also proposed that the Huntec TM and minisparker can be used at night, using spotlights to illuminate the safety zone around the tow sled.

Based on estimated marine mammal populations within the survey area (Calambokidis and Francis, 1994) and on the number of individuals that were observed during the 1998 and 1999 seismic surveys, the USGS estimates that up to 50 blue whales, 5 killer whales, 10 minke whales, 10 sea otters, 50 humpback whales, 50 northern sea lions, 100 northern fur seals, 100 northern elephant seals, 100 Dall's porpoise, 100 Risso's dolphins, 100 northern right-whale dolphins, 100-200 Pacific white-sided dolphins, 100 bottlenosed dolphins, 200 California sea lions, 200 Pacific harbor seals, and 10,000-12,000 common dolphins may be harassed incidental to the USGS survey. No marine mammals will be seriously injured or killed as a result of the survey. However, NMFS has subsequently reviewed the information and has determined that the large mysticete whales, northern sea lions, and sea otters are unlikely to be affected by either acoustic source planned to be used this year in this area by the USGS. The large whales are expected to remain in offshore waters outside the Channel Islands at the time of the year that the activity will take place; northern sea lions, which are expected to be in more northerly waters during the summer, are not known to be affected by low frequency seismic sources unless close to the source; and California sea otters will be north of Point Conception.

To avoid potential Level A harassment ( i.e., injury) of marine mammals, safety zones will be established and monitored continuously by biologists, and the USGS will shut off any operating seismic source whenever the ship and a marine mammal converge closer than the previously mentioned safety distances.

For all cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), NMFS is requiring USGS to immediately cease operations of the minisparker when members of these species approach within 30 m (98 ft) of the sound source when operating in deep water, and 15 m (49.2 ft) for both the minisparker and the Huntec TM source when operating in shallow water. (The Huntec TM source in deep water will be in waters significantly deeper than the radius of the safety zone and therefore is not practical to monitor). NMFS understands that the CCC has not accepted the scientific data that in shallow water, underwater sound commonly attenuates more sharply than 20log(R), for reasons mentioned previously in this document. However, NMFS is required to use the best scientific information available when making determinations and implementing appropriate mitigation measures, and as such, has concluded that the more restrictive conditions placed on the USGS by the CCC are not supportable and therefore cannot be adopted by NMFS. This however, in no way relieves the USGS from complying with the conditions imposed by the CCC in its determination of coastal consistency.

For pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), if the research vessel approaches a pinniped, the USGS originally requested, and, for the reasons cited in the previous paragraph, NMFS has accepted, that a safety radius of 30 m (98 ft) around the minisparker seismic source when operating in deep water and 15 m (49.2 ft) for both acoustic sources when in shallow water will be maintained. NMFS believes the 180 dB re 1 μPa-m RMS safety zone is more conservative than is necessary for the reasons stated previously in this document, however, because this level was requested initially by the applicant, NMFS has accepted this condition for the USGS' IHA.

However, if a pinniped approaches the towed acoustic source, NMFS will not require the USGS to shutdown the source, but will require the USGS to monitor the interaction to ensure the animal does not show signs of distress. Experience indicates that pinnipeds will come from great distances to inspect seismic operations. Seals have been observed swimming within airgun bubbles, 10 m (33 ft) away from active arrays, apparently unaffected. Although seismic-reflection operations will be terminated if the pinnipeds show obvious distress, the USGS is required to conduct observations on effects the acoustic sources may have on the animals.

The USGS will have marine biologists aboard the ship who will have the authority to stop the seismic-reflection operations when a marine mammal enters the safety zone or indicates obvious distress anywhere within the vicinity of the ship. Although NMFS believes it is very unlikely to occur, if observations are made that one or more marine mammals of any species are attempting to beach themselves when the source is operating in the vicinity of the shore, the seismic-reflection sources will be immediately shut off and NMFS contacted.

During seismic-reflection surveying, the ship's speed will only be 4 to 5 knots, so that when the acoustic source is being discharged, nearby marine mammals, if they hear the low- to mid- frequency noise, will have gradual warning of the vessel's approach and can move away if disturbed. Finally, NMFS will coordinate with the local stranding network to determine whether any strandings which occur during, or near the time of the survey, can be related to the seismic-reflection operation. If NMFS determines, based upon a necropsy of the animal(s), that the death was likely due to exposure to the USGS acoustic source(s), the survey will cease until procedures are altered to eliminate the potential for future mortality.

Operating less than 24 hours each day incurs substantially increased cost for the leased ship, which the USGS states that it cannot afford. The ship schedule provides a narrow time window for this project; other non-related experiments are already scheduled to precede and follow this survey and for that reason, the USGS cannot arbitrarily extend the survey time. Thus, the USGS does not propose as a mitigation measure shutting down in dark or during periods of poor visibility. The 2000 survey will require only 3 weeks, and it will be spread out geographically from Los Angeles to San Diego, so no single area will experience long-term activity. In the view of the USGS, the best course is to complete the survey as expeditiously as possible. For these reasons, the USGS has requested that the acoustic survey be conducted 24 hours/day and the IHA allow 24-hour operations, specifically at night and with the understanding that the USGS will survey during this time in shallow water. Both NMFS and the CCC concur, and the IHA provides for 24-hour operations surveys while in shallow water.

Options to change the activity are limited. In order to reduce the probability for the incidental harassment of marine mammals and to be able to operate within nearshore areas, the USGS has changed from using a seismic airgun source, as used in prior surveys, to a minisparker for the proposed survey. The seismic-source strength cannot be reduced further in an attempt to limit the potential environmental impact. The minisparker is already smaller than any source the USGS has previously used for these kinds of geophysical surveys, and the problem with this option is that the USGS cannot significantly reduce the source strength without jeopardizing the success of this survey. This judgment is based not only on USGS' decades-long experience with seismic-reflection surveys, but especially on the 1998 survey that was conducted in the same general area as outlined here. If the USGS were to reduce the sound-source size and then fail to obtain the required information, another survey would need to be conducted, and this would have the potential to increase impact on marine mammals.

To abandon this study altogether is a poor option. The USGS has described the societal relevance of this project as it would improve understanding of fluid movement in coastal aquifers and how to stem the intrusion of salt water into them. Another facet of this study is to help scientists understand the regional earthquake hazard that, in turn, will aid city planners in establishing building codes. If the project was canceled, such information would be unavailable.

This project could be carried out at some other time of year. The USGS talked with biologists to find out the best time for the project to be conducted. The USGS wants to avoid the gray whale migrations and the mid-summer arrival of other mysticete species because, while these species remain mostly in the area of the Channel Islands, some individuals venture closer to the mainland. An important consideration in deciding the most appropriate time of the year is that biologists can best prevent harm to mammals when daylight is long, that is, near the solstice.

Monitoring marine mammals while the acoustic sources are active will be conducted 24 hours each day. Trained marine mammal observers will be aboard the seismic vessel to mitigate the potential environmental impact from using these acoustic sources and to gather data on the species, number, and reaction of marine mammals to the sources. During daylight, observers will use 7x50 binoculars with internal compasses and reticules to record the horizontal and vertical angle to sighted mammals. Night-time operations will be conducted with a spotlight to illuminate the safety zone around the minisparker tow sled. Monitoring data to be recorded during seismic-reflection operations include the name of the observer on duty, and weather conditions (such as Beaufort sea state, wind speed, cloud cover, swell height, precipitation, and visibility). For each mammal sighting, the observer will record the time, bearing and reticule readings, species, group size, and the animal's surface behavior and orientation. Observers will instruct geologists to shut off the acoustic source(s) whenever a marine mammal enters the safety zone.

The USGS will contract with Cascadia to provide an initial report to NMFS within 160 days of the completion of the 2000 phase of the marine seismic project. This report will provide dates and locations of seismic operations, details of marine mammal sightings, and estimates of the amount and nature of all takes by harassment. A final technical report will be provided by USGS within 270 days of completion of the 2000 phase of the marine seismic project. The final technical report will contain a description of the methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring tasks.

Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, NMFS has completed consultation on the issuance of an IHA. NMFS finds this action to be unlikely to adversely affect listed marine mammals because the endangered whales are expected to be more prevalent in offshore waters outside the Channel Islands at the time of the year that the activity will take place; northern sea lions, which are expected to be in more northerly waters during the summer, are not known to be affected by low frequency seismic sources unless close to the source; and the Guadalupe fur seal is expected to be on or near Guadalupe Island, Mexico, during this time.

NMFS has determined that the short-term impact of conducting marine seismic-reflection data in offshore southern California may result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of pinnipeds and cetaceans. While behavioral modifications may be made by certain species of marine mammals to avoid the resultant noise from the seismic sources, this behavioral change is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the animals.

In addition, no take by serious injury or death is anticipated, and takes will be at the lowest level practicable due to the incorporation of the mitigation measures previously mentioned. No known rookeries, mating grounds, areas of concentrated feeding, or other areas of special significance for marine mammals occur within or near the planned area of operations during the season of operations.

Since NMFS is assured that the taking would not result in more than the incidental harassment (as defined by the MMPA) of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals, would have only a negligible impact on these stocks, and would result in the least practicable impact on the stocks, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

Accordingly, NMFS has issued an IHA to the USGS for the possible harassment of small numbers of several species of marine mammals incidental to collecting marine seismic-reflection data off southern California between June 5 and September 30, provided the mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements described in the authorization are undertaken.

On February 11, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 6997) that a request for a scientific research permit to take Steller sea lions had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

Sincerely,

On April 4, 2000, the JSC published a Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, (MCM) United States, (1998 ed.) and Notice of Public Meeting. On April 18, 2000, the public meeting was held and one individual provided oral comment. The JSC also received two letters commenting on the proposed amendments.

The proposed changes concern the rules of procedure applicable in trials by courts-martial and implement the amendment to Article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Subject to limitations prescribed by the President, the amendment increased the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial to confinement for one year and forfeitures not exceeding two-thirds pay per month for one year, vice the previous six-month jurisdictional limitation.

The two written comments received were not supportive of the amendments. The first writer addressed problems he saw with the decision to expand the jurisdiction of special courts-martial. The second writer believed that Congress enacted incomplete legislation and, in doing so, upset the coherence and unity within the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The writer also believed that the JSC proposed amendments to implement the change to Article 19, UCMJ, created internal philosophical conflicts within the MCM provisions. He recommended withholding action on the proposed MCM amendments until Articles 54(c) and 66, UCMJ, were also amended to mandate verbatim transcripts and appellate review in cases involving a bad conduct discharge or confinement in excess of six months or forfeitures of pay in excess of six months. He recommended the MCM apply similar protections. The second writer also recommended that the current Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 1107(d)(1) addressing the mitigation of a bad conduct discharge be retained and suggested that the amendment to the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1107 contained typographical errors.

The JSC has considered the oral and written comment provided and is satisfied that the proposed amendments are appropriate to implement the Congressional change to Article 19, UCMJ. However, the JSC has reexamined the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1107 and has corrected the identified typographical errors. The JSC recognized the arguable tension between Article 19 as amended and Article 54(c)(1)(B) and took those matters into consideration prior to publication of the proposed amendments. After reconsidering the issues raised, the JSC does not believe the proposed MCM amendments are internally inconsistent or upset the basic architecture of the UCMJ and will forward the proposed amendments to the Department of Defense.

All public comment received will be forwarded, along with the proposed amendments, to the Department of Defense.

The proposed amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial are as follows:

Amend R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(i) to read as follows:

“(i) Upon a finding of guilty, special courts-martial may adjudge, under limitations prescribed by this Manual, any punishment authorized under R.C.M. 1003 except death, dishonorable discharge, dismissal, confinement for more than 1 year, hard labor without confinement for more than 3 months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay for more than 1 year.”

Amend R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(ii) to read as follows:

“(ii) A bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, may not be adjudged by a special court-martial unless:

(a) Counsel qualified under Article 27(b) is detailed to represent the accused; and

(b) A military judge is detailed to the trial, except in a case in which a military judge could not be detailed because of physical conditions or military exigencies. Physical conditions or military exigencies, as the terms are here used, may exist under rare circumstances, such as on an isolated ship on the high seas or in a unit in an inaccessible area, provided compelling reasons exist why trial must be held at that time and at that place. Mere inconvenience does not constitute a physical condition or military exigency and does not excuse a failure to detail a military judge. If a military judge cannot be detailed because of physical conditions or military exigencies, a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, may be adjudged provided the other conditions have been met. In that event, however, the convening authority shall, prior to trial, make a written statement explaining why a military judge could not be obtained. This statement shall be appended to the record of trial and shall set forth in detail the reasons why a military judge could not be detailed, and why the trial had to be held at that time and place.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 201(f) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (3):

“2000 Amendment: Subsections (f)(2)(B)(i) and (f)(2)(B)(ii) were amended to remove previous limitations and thereby implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law No. 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999). Subject to limitations prescribed by the President, the amendment increased the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial to confinement for one year and forfeitures not exceeding two-thirds pay per month for one year, vice the previous six-month jurisdictional limitation.”

Amend the seventh paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 601(e)(1) to read as follows:

“The convening authority should acknowledge by an instruction that no bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, may be adjudged when the prerequisites under Article 19 will not be met. See R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(B)(ii). For example, this instruction should be given when a court reporter is not detailed.”

Amend the first paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 808 to read as follows:

“Except in a special court-martial not authorized to adjudge a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, the trial counsel should ensure that a qualified court reporter is detailed to the court-martial. Trial counsel should also ensure that all exhibits and other documents relating to the case are properly maintained for later inclusion in the record. See also R.C.M. 1103(j) as to the use of videotapes, audiotapes, and similar recordings for the record of trial. Because of the potential requirement for a verbatim transcript, all proceedings, including sidebar conferences, arguments, and rulings and instructions by the military judges, should be recorded.”

Amend the sixth paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 1003(b)(2) to read as follows:

“At a special court-martial, if a bad-conduct discharge and confinement are adjudged, then the operation of Article 58b results in a forfeiture of two-thirds of pay only (not allowances) during that period of confinement. If only confinement is adjudged, and that confinement exceeds six months, then the operation of Article 58b results in a forfeiture of two-thirds of pay only (not allowances) during the period of confinement. If only a bad conduct discharge is adjudged, Article 58b has no effect on pay.”

Amend R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B)(i) to read as follows:

“(i) Any part of the sentence adjudged exceeds six months confinement, forfeiture of pay greater than two-thirds pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay for more than six months or other punishments which may be adjudged by a special court-martial; or”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (2)(C):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (2)(B) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law No. 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B) was amended to prevent an inconsistent requirement for a verbatim transcript between a general court-martial and a special court-martial when the adjudged sentence of a general court-martial does not include a punitive discharge or confinement greater than six months, but does include forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for more than six months but not more than 12 months.”

Amend R.C.M. 1103(c) to read as follows:

“(c) Special courts-martial.

(1) Involving a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months. The requirements of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(D), and (b)(3) of this rule shall apply in a special court-martial in which a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, has been adjudged.

(2) All other special courts-martial. If the special court-martial resulted in findings of guilty but a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, was not adjudged, the requirements of subsections (b)(1), (b)(2)(D), and (b)(3)(A)-(F) and (I)-(M) of this rule shall apply.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1103(c) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (e):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (c) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1103(c) was amended to conform the requirements for a verbatim transcript with the requirements of Article 19 for a “complete record” in cases where the adjudged sentence includes a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months.”

Amend R.C.M. 1103(f)(1) to read as follows:

“(1) Approve only so much of the sentence which could be adjudged by a special court-martial, except that no bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for more than six months, may be approved; or”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1103(f) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (g):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (f)(1) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1103(f)(1) was amended to include the additional limitations on sentence contained in Article 19, UCMJ.”

Amend R.C.M. 1104(a)(2)(A) to read as follows:

“(A) Authentication by the military judge. In special courts-martial in which a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, has been adjudged and in general courts-martial, except as provided in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this rule, the military judge present at the end of the proceedings shall authenticate the record of trial, or that portion over which the military judge presided. If more than one military judge presided over the proceedings, each military judge shall authenticate the record of the proceedings over which that military judge presided, except as provided in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this rule. The record of trial of special courts-martial in which no bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, was adjudged shall be authenticated in accordance with regulations of the Secretary concerned.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1104(a) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (b):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (a)(2)(A) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1104(a)(2)(A) was amended to ensure that the military judge authenticates all verbatim records of trial at special courts-martial.”

Amend R.C.M. 1104(e) to read as follows:

“(e) Forwarding. After every court-martial, including a rehearing and new and other trials, the authenticated record shall be forwarded to the convening authority for initial review and action, provided that in case of a special court-martial in which a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year was adjudged or a general court-martial, the convening authority shall refer the record to the staff judge advocate or legal officer for recommendation under R.C.M. 1106 before the convening authority takes action.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1104(e) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion of subsection (e):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (e) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. This amendment reflects the change to R.C.M. 1106 for special court-martial with an adjudged sentence that includes confinement for one year.”

Amend R.C.M. 1106(a) to read as follows:

“(a) In general. Before the convening authority takes action under R.C.M. 1107 on a record of trial by general court-martial or a record of trial by special court-martial which includes a sentence to a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year, that convening authority's staff judge advocate or legal officer shall, except as provided in subsection (c) of this rule, forward to the convening authority a recommendation under this rule.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1106(a) by inserting the following before the discussion of subsection (b):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (e) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. This amendment requires all special courts-martial cases subject to appellate review to comply with this rule.”

Amend the second paragraph of the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 1107(d)(1) to read as follows:

“When mitigating forfeitures, the duration and amounts of forfeiture may be changed as long as the total amount forfeited is not increased and neither the amount nor duration of the forfeitures exceeds the jurisdiction of the court-martial. When mitigating confinement or hard labor without confinement, the convening authority should use the equivalencies at R.C.M. 1003(b)(6) and (7), as appropriate. One form of punishment may be changed to a less severe punishment of a different nature, as long as the changed punishment is one that the court-martial could have adjudged. For example, a bad-conduct discharge adjudged by a special court-martial could be changed to confinement for up to one year (but not vice versa). A pretrial agreement may also affect what punishments may be changed by the convening authority.”

Amend R.C.M. 1107(d)(4) to read as follows:

“(4) Limitations on sentence based on record of trial. If the record of trial does not meet the requirements of R.C.M. 1103(b)(2)(B) or (c)(1), the convening authority may not approve a sentence in excess of that which may be adjudged by a special court-martial, or one which includes a bad-conduct discharge, confinement for more than six months, forfeiture of pay exceeding two-thirds pay per month, or any forfeiture of pay for more than six months.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1107(d) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion of subsection (d):

“2000 Amendment: The Discussion accompanying subsection (d)(1) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. R.C.M. 1107(d)(4) was amended to include the additional limitations on sentence contained in Article 19, UCMJ.”

Amend R.C.M. 1109(e) and (e)(1) to read as follows:

“(e) Vacation of a suspended special court-martial sentence wherein a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year was not adjudged.

(1) In general. Before vacating the suspension of a special court-martial punishment that does not include a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year, the special court-martial convening authority for the command in which the probationer is serving or assigned shall cause a hearing to be held on the alleged violation(s) of the conditions of suspension.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1109(e) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion of subsection (e):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (e) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial.”

Amend R.C.M. 1109(f) and (f)(1) to read as follows:

“(f) Vacation of a suspended special court-martial sentence that includes a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year.

(1) The procedure for the vacation of a suspended approved bad-conduct discharge or of any suspended portion of an approved sentence to confinement for one year, shall follow that set forth in subsection (d) of this rule.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1109(f) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion of subsection (f):

“2000 Amendment: (f) Vacation of a suspended special court-martial sentence that includes a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year. Subsection (f) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. This amendment reflects the decision to treat an approved sentence of confinement for one year, regardless of whether any period of confinement is suspended, as a serious offense, in the same manner as a suspended approved bad-conduct discharge at special courts-martial under Article 72, UCMJ and R.C.M. 1109.”

Amend the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 1109(f) to read as follows:

“An officer exercising special court-martial jurisdiction may vacate any suspended punishments other than an approved suspended bad-conduct discharge or any suspended portion of an approved sentence to confinement for one year, regardless of whether they are contained in the same sentence as the bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year. See Appendix 18 for a sample of a Report of Proceedings to Vacate Suspension of a Special Court-Martial Sentence including a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year under Article 72, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1109 (DD Form 455).”

Amend the title to Appendix 18 to read as follows:

“Report of Proceedings to Vacate Suspension of a General Court-Martial or of a Special Court-Martial Sentence Including a Bad-Conduct Discharge or Confinement for One Year Under Article 72, UCMJ, and R.C.M. 1109 (DD Form 455).”

Amend R.C.M. 1110(a) to read as follows:

“(a) In general. After any general court-martial, except one in which the approved sentence includes death, and after any special court-martial in which the approved sentence includes a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year, the accused may waive or withdraw appellate review.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1110(a) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion of subsection (a):

“2000 Amendment: Subsection (a) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial.”

Amend the Discussion accompanying R.C.M. 1110(a) to read as follows:

“Appellate review is not available for special courts-martial in which a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year was not adjudged or approved or for summary courts-martial. Cases not subject to appellate review, or in which appellate review is waived or withdrawn, are reviewed by a judge advocate under R.C.M. 1112. Such cases may also be submitted to the Judge Advocate General for review. See R.C.M. 1201(b)(3). Appellate review is mandatory when the approved sentence includes death.”

Amend R.C.M. 1111(b) to read as follows:

“(1) Cases including an approved bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year. If the approved sentence of a special court-martial includes a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year, the record shall be disposed of as provided in subsection (a) of this rule.

(2) Other cases. The record of trial by a special court-martial in which the approved sentence does not include a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year shall be forwarded directly to a judge advocate for review under R.C.M. 1112. Four copies of the order promulgating the result of trial shall be forwarded with the record of trial, unless otherwise prescribed by regulations of the Secretary concerned.”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1111(b) by inserting the following at the end of the discussion:

“2000 Amendment: R.C.M. 1111(b) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. The amendment ensures all special courts-martial not requiring appellate review are reviewed by a judge advocate under R.C.M. 1112.”

Amend R.C.M. 1112(a)(2) to read as follows:

“Each special court-martial in which the accused has waived or withdrawn appellate review under R.C.M. 1110 or in which the approved sentence does not include a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year; and”

Amend the analysis accompanying R.C.M. 1112 by inserting the following at the end of the discussion:

“2000 Amendment: R.C.M. 1112(a)(2) was amended to implement the amendment to 10 U.S.C. 819 (Article 19, UCMJ) contained in section 577 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Public Law 106-65, 113 Stat. 512 (1999) increasing the jurisdictional maximum punishment at special courts-martial. The amendment ensures all special courts-martial not requiring appellate review are reviewed by a judge advocate under R.C.M. 1112.”

Amend Page A8-19, Left Margin Entry to Note 100 to read as follows:

Amend Page A17-4, first note to paragraph d, to read as follows:

“[Note. Orders promulgating the vacation of the suspension of a dismissal will be published by departmental orders of the Secretary concerned. Vacations of any other suspension of a general court-martial sentence, or of a special court-martial sentence which as approved and affirmed includes a bad-conduct discharge or confinement for one year, will be promulgated by the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the probationer (Article 72(b)). The vacation of suspension of any other sentence may be promulgated by an appropriate convening authority under Article 72(c). See R.C.M. 1109.]”

The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established under Title VII, Part B, Section 742 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The National Board of the Fund is authorized to recommend to the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education priorities for funding and procedures for grant awards.

The meeting of the National Board is open to the public. The National Board will meet on Friday, July 24 from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. to provide an overview of the Fund's program status and special initiatives.

The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting ( e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device or materials in an alternate format) should notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the Department will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it.

Records are kept of all Board proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the office of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 8th Floor, 1990 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-8544 from the hours of 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

The proposed activity would directly support the ongoing environmental remediation program at the Mound Plant. Construction of the new soil staging area would impact approximately a 0.03 acre isolated wetland. The wetland is one of several identified in the Delineation of Federal Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S., Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, August 1999. The proposed action will result in negative, long-term, and direct impacts from the excavation and filling of an isolated wetland of 0.03 acres. The affected wetland would be excavated and filled with soil during the construction of a drainage channel supporting a new soil staging area. Best management practices will be utilized to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within the surrounding environment ( e.g. , including, but not limited to, minimum grading requirements, runoff controls, and design and construction constraints).

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Gary Stegner, Public Affairs Officer, Ohio Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board, C/O Phoenix Environmental Corporation, MS 76, Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, Ohio 45253-8704, or by calling the Advisory Board at (513) 648-6478.

The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management and related activities.

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting.

The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to present their comments.

The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, S.C. 29802, or by calling (803) 725-5374.

The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE and its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration and waste management activities.

The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact John D. Sheppard at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Official is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to present their comments at the end of the meeting.

The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental Information Center and Reading Room at 175 Freedom Boulevard, Highway 60, Kevil, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday thru Friday or by writing to John D. Sheppard, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6804.