The proposed timber harvest is located within Tongass Forest Plan Value Comparison Units 478, 480, 504 and 505 on Wrangell Island, Alaska, Wrangell Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest. Approximately 65% of proposed sale units are located within Inventoried Roadless Areas on Wrangell Island. In 2001, the Secretary of Agriculture began a review of the roadless area rule and the Chief of the Forest Service undertook a review of the road management policy. These reviews have led the agency to initiate several Interim Directives with the intent that the values associated with inventoried roadless areas are fully considered within the context of forest planning. In Sierra Club v. Lyons (J00-0009) (CV)), the US District Court, District of Alaska enjoined the Tongass National Forest from taking any action to change the wilderness character of any eligible roadless area until a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) has been completed. The injunction was lifted and the Forest Service is currently preparing the SEIS to address wilderness recommendations. Planning for the Shady Highbush Timber Sale Project will continue simultaneously and in coordination with the SEIS and meet the requirements in the Interim Directives. The sale is currently listed on the Tongass 10-year action plan to be sold in 2004. The repercussions of delaying the project planning process regarding road building and timber harvest, even for a relatively short period, can have a significant effect on the amount of timber available for sale on the Tongass over the next few years. The Shady Highbush Timber Sale Project is consistent with the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan.

Public participation will be an integral component of the study process and will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The first is during the scoping process. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Tribal Governments, Federal, State, and local agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed activities. The scoping process will include: (1) Identification of potential issues; (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth; and, (3) elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a previous environmental review. Written scoping comments are being solicited through a scoping package that will be sent to the project mailing list. For the Forest Service to best use the scoping input, comments should be received by March 31, 2002. Tentative issues identified for analysis in the EIS include the potential effects of the project on and the relationship of the project to: Old-growth ecosystem management and the maintenance of habitat for viable populations of wildlife species, timber sale economics and road construction/access management.

Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS is projected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the summer of 2002. The Final EIS is anticipated in early 2003.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days.

Permits: Permits required for implementation include the following:

Responsible Official: Thomas Puchlerz, Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is the responsible official. The responsible official will consider the comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.

Agenda topics include hearing presentations of project proposals, review of project proposals and receiving public comment.

The meeting will focus on developing evaluation criteria for selecting Title II projects. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C.46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited.

Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

On July 27, August 20 and October 9, 2001, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (66 FR 39142, 42198 and 51371) of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.

2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.

3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and services.

4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-ODay Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following services are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

On July 31, 1991, the Department published the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order: Silicon Metal from Brazil, 56 FR 36135 (July 31, 1991). On August 19, 1994, the Department published its final results of the first administrative review of silicon metal from Brazil. See Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Silicon Metal from Brazil, 59 FR 42806 (August 19, 1994) (“Final Results”). On May 15, 1997, pursuant to the Department's request, the CIT issued an order remanding eight issues from the Final Results. See American Silicon Technologies et. al v. United States, 21 CIT 501 (1997). The CIT directed the Department to: (1) correctly calculate the general, selling, and administrative (“GS&A”) expenses for Eletrosilex Belo Horizonte (“Eletrosilex”) for the month in question; (2) calculate G&A expenses using Eletrosilex's historical cost of manufacture (“COM”) data; (3) calculate the U.S. packing expenses for Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (“Minasligas”), removing the U.S. dollar exchange rate; (4) calculate imposto sobre a circulacao de mercadorias e servicos (“ICMS”) and imposto sobre produtos industrialzados (“IPS”) taxes Minasligas paid on imported electrodes removing the duty drawback adjustment; (5) recalculate the interest rate for U.S. dollar receivables for Minasligas; (6) review the calculated margin for Eletrosilex that compared United States (“USP”) to constructed value (“CV”) for a month other than the month of shipment; (7) review the use of projected costs rather than replacement costs in determining Eletrosilex's CV; and (8) review the adjustment of Minasligas' interest expenses for monetary correction of loans. The CIT stayed further action on three other issues pending the results of related litigation. On November 14, 1997, for the aforementioned eight issues, we provided the CIT with our final results of redetermination pursuant to court remand. See Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand Court No. 94-09-0055 (“American Silicon Remand I”). In the remand redetermination the Department recalculated: 1) Eletrosilex's GS&A expenses using the GS&A expenses and historical COM incurred by Eletrosilex during an entire year; 2) the U.S. packing expenses for Minasligas, removing the U.S. dollar exchange rate; 3) the IPI and ICMS taxes Minasligas paid on imported electrodes removing the duty drawback adjustment; 4) Minasligas' U.S. credit expenses by using the actual U.S. credit expenses incurred by Minasligas; 5) Eletrosilex's CV to account for the effect of inflation; and 6) Eletrosilex's CV based on the replacement costs incurred by Eletrosilex. We determined that our adjustment for Minasligas' interest expense was appropriate. After the initial remand results were issued, the Court, on motion of the Department, ordered a second remand on whether data from the audited financial statements of Electrosilex should be utilized in calculating Eletrosilex's GS&A expenses. See American Silicon Technologies et. al v. United States, 22 CIT 128 (1998). On January 29, 1999, for the aforementioned one issue, we provided the CIT with our final results of redetermination pursuant to court remand. See Silicon Metal from Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, American Silicon Technologies v. United States, Court No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op. 98-22 (March 5, 1998) (“American Silicon Remand II”). In our redetermination, we recalculated Eletrosilex's GS&A expenses based upon Eletrosilex's audited financials. Upon review, the CIT sustained American Silicon Remand I and American Silicon Remand II and lifted the stay on the remaining three issues. See American Silicon Technologies et. al v. United States, No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op. 99-94 (Ct. Int'l Trade Sept. 9, 1999).

Of the remaining three issues, one was dismissed pursuant to the unopposed motion of the plaintiff. See American Silicon Technologies et. al v. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1329, 1333 (CIT 2000). Pursuant to the Court orders of October 13, 2000, and January 24, 2001, we recalculated: 1) Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio's (“CBCC”) financial expense by using as best information available its parent company's gross, rather than net, financial expenses; and 2) CBCC's and Minasligas' CV to include the ICMS and IPI paid by CBCC and Minasligas pursuant to the CIT's instructions to proceed consistent with Camargo Correa Metais, S.A. v. United States, 200 F. 3d 771 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See Silicon Metal From Brazil, Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant To Court Remand, American Silicon Technologies et. al vs. United States, 118 F. Supp. 2d 1329, Court No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op. 2000-130 (CIT October 13, 2000) (“American Silicon Remand III”), filed on March 12, 2001. Upon review, the Court sustained American Silicon Remand III. See American Silicon Technologies et. al v. United States, No. 94-09-00555, Slip Op. 01-90 (Ct. Int'l Trade July 27, 2001) (“Slip Op. 01-90”).

Slip Op. 01-90 was not appealed. As there is a final and conclusive court decision in this case, we are amending our final results of review for the period March 29, 1991 through June 30, 1992, and we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate entries subject to this review.

The revised weighted-average percentage margins are as follows:

Accordingly, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service will assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these amended final results. For assessment purposes, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for each class or kind of merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. For companies covered by these amended results, the Department will issue appraisement instructions to the Customs Service after publication of this amended final results of review. This notice is published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 351.221.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

On November 20, 2001, the Department issued the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews of tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (“TRBs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Reviews, 66 FR 59569 (November 29, 2001) (“Preliminary Results”). These new shipper reviews cover Yantai Timken Company Limited (“Yantai Timken”) and Peer Bearing Company - Changshan (“CPZ”). The periods of review (“PORs”) are (1) for Yantai Timken, June 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000, and (2) for CPZ, June 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001. See Preliminary Results, 66 FR at 59569.

We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On January 18, 2002, we received case briefs from the Timken Company (“the petitioner” or “Timken”), Yantai Timken, and CPZ. On January 25, 2002, these parties all filed rebuttal briefs. At the request of Yantai Timken and CPZ, we held a hearing on January 31, 2002.

On February 19, 2002, we postponed the final results to not later than March 5, 2002, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. See 67 FR 8937 (February 27, 2002).

Merchandise covered by this order includes tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished, from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”); flange, take up cartridge, and hanger units incorporating tapered roller bearings; and tapered roller housings (except pillow blocks) incorporating tapered rollers, with or without spindles, whether or not for automotive use. This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) item numbers 8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.50, 8482.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80, 8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30, 8483.90.80, 8708.99.80.15, and 8708.99.80.80. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order and this review is dispositive.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to these new shipper reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated February 19, 2002, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues that parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/list.htm. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on our review of comments received and a reexamination of surrogate value data, we have made certain changes to the calculations for the final results. These changes are discussed in the Decision Memo or in the referenced final calculation memoranda for particular companies:

In the Preliminary Results, we adjusted the Japanese export data used to value the cup and cone steel inputs in order to reflect Indian imported steel values, which would assuredly include movement expenses. For the final results, we calculated a value for ocean freight for shipments made between Japan and India based on November 2001 rate quotes from Maersk Inc. submitted by Yantai Timken in its 20-day factual submission made on January 10, 2002. We adjusted this data to account for the marine insurance costs excluded from the rate quote and to make it contemporaneous with the current PORs. See Decision Memo, Comment 4.

From the Indian import data used to calculate the surrogate value used for pallets, we omitted those countries that had imports of small quantities. See Decision Memo, Comment 3.

For the final results, we relied upon Yantai Timken's submitted databases that reflect changes it made based on our findings at the U.S. verification of Yantai Timken's questionnaire response.

For the final results, we corrected the calculation of CPZ's inventory carrying costs in order to reflect the revised short-term interest rate, as noted in the memorandum to John Brinkmann, “Peer Bearing Company - Changshan Verification Report,” dated October 3, 2001. Also, we revised upwards CPZ's reported U.S. indirect selling expense ratio to account for administrative expenses. See Decision Memo, Comment 5.

On August 28, 2000, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Tin Mill Products from Japan 65 FR 52067 (August 28, 2000) (TMP Order). On December 3, 2001, Okaya (U.S.A.), Inc. (“Okaya”), a U.S. importer requested that the Department revoke in part the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan. Okaya also requested that the partial revocation apply retroactively for all unliquidated entries. Specifically, the U.S. importer requested that the Department revoke the order with respect to imports meeting the following specifications: Steel coated with a metallic chromium layer between 100-200 mg/m 2 and a chromium oxide layer between 5-30 mg/m 2 ; chemical composition of 0.05% maximum carbon, 0.03% maximum silicon, 0.60% maximum manganese, 0.02% maximum phosphorous, and 0.02% maximum sulfur; magnetic flux density (“Br”) of 10 kg minimum and a coercive force (“Hc”) of 3.8 Oe minimum. The U.S. importer indicated that, based on its consultations with domestic producers, the domestic producers lack interest in producing this specialized product.

On January 16, 2002, Weirton Steel, the only petitioner producer in the underlying investigation filed a letter stating that they did not object to the exclusion of this product from the order. Weirton Steel, a domestic producer of tin mill products, together with the Independent Steelworkers Union and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, were the petitioners in the underlying sales at less-than-fair-value investigation (see TMP Order). The Department noted that Weirton Steel is a producer of tin mill products, but individually does not account for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. See Certain Tin Mill Products From Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 66 FR 52109 (October 12, 2001). However, the Department had no information on the record that the other known domestic producers of tin mill products, Bethlehem Steel Corp., National Steel Corp., Midwest Division, Ohio Coatings Co., U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corp., and USS-Posco Industries, Inc., had no interest in maintaining the antidumping duty order with respect to certain tin-free steel described in Okaya's request. Therefore, we did not combine this initiation with the preliminary determination, which is our normal practice under section 351.221(c)(3)(ii). On January 25, 2002, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty order on certain tin mill products from Japan with respect to certain tin-free steel. See Initiation Notice. In the Initiation Notice, we indicated that interested parties could submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results not later than 20 days after publication of the initiation of the review, and submit responses to those comments no later than 10 days following the submission of comments. We did not receive any comments.

The products covered by this antidumping order are tin mill flat-rolled products that are coated or plated with tin, chromium or chromium oxides. Flat-rolled steel products coated with tin are known as tin plate. Flat-rolled steel products coated with chromium or chromium oxides are known as tin-free steel or electrolytic chromium-coated steel. The scope includes all the noted tin mill products regardless of thickness, width, form (in coils or cut sheets), coating type (electrolytic or otherwise), edge (trimmed, untrimmed or further processed, such and scroll cut), coating thickness, surface finish, temper, coating metal (tin, chromium, chromium oxide), reduction (single- or double-reduced), and whether or not coated with a plastic material. All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

- Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel with a thickness 0.238 mm (85 pound base box) (#10%) or 0.251 mm (90 pound base box) (#10%) or 0.255 mm (#10%) with 770 mm (minimum width) (#1.588 mm) by 900 mm (maximum length if sheared) sheet size or 30.6875 inches (minimum width) (# 1/16 inch) and 35.4 inches (maximum length if sheared) sheet size; with type MR or higher (per ASTM) A623 steel chemistry; batch annealed at T2 1/2 anneal temper, with a yield strength of 31 to 42 kpsi (214 to 290 Mpa); with a tensile strength of 43 to 58 kpsi (296 to 400 Mpa); with a chrome coating restricted to 32 to 150 mg/m 2 ; with a chrome oxide coating restricted to 6 to 25 mg/m 2 with a modified 7B ground roll finish or blasted roll finish; with roughness average (Ra) 0.10 to 0.35 micrometers, measured with a stylus instrument with a stylus radius of 2 to 5 microns, a trace length of 5.6 mm, and a cut-off of 0.8 mm, and the measurement traces shall be made perpendicular to the rolling direction; with an oil level of 0.17 to 0.37 grams/base box as type BSO, or 2.5 to 5.5 mg/m 2 as type DOS, or 3.5 to 6.5 mg/m 2 as type ATBC; with electrical conductivity of static probe voltage drop of 0.46 volts drop maximum, and with electrical conductivity degradation to 0.70 volts drop maximum after stoving (heating to 400 degrees F for 100 minutes followed by a cool to room temperature).

- Single reduced electrolytically chromium-or tin-coated steel in the gauges of 0.0040 inch nominal, 0.0045 inch nominal, 0.0050 inch nominal, 0.0061 inch nominal (55 pound base box weight), 0.0066 inch nominal (60 pound base box weight), and 0.0072 inch nominal (65 pound base box weight), regardless of width, temper, finish, coating or other properties.

- Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel in the gauge of 0.024 inch, with widths of 27.0 inches or 31.5 inches, and with T-1 temper properties.

- Single reduced electrolytically chromium coated steel, with a chemical composition of 0.005% max carbon, 0.030% max silicon, 0.25% max manganese, 0.025% max phosphorous, 0.025% max sulfur, 0.070% max aluminum, and the balance iron, with a metallic chromium layer of 70-130 mg/m 2 , with a chromium oxide layer of 5-30 mg/m 2 , with a tensile strength of 260-440 N/mm 2 , with an elongation of 28-48%, with a hardness (HR-30T) of 40-58, with a surface roughness of 0.5-1.5 microns Ra, with magnetic properties of Bm (KG)10.0 minimum, Br (KG) 8.0 minimum, Hc (Oe) 2.5-3.8, and MU 1400 minimum, as measured with a Riken Denshi DC magnetic characteristic measuring machine, Model BHU-60.

- Bright finish tin-coated sheet with a thickness equal to or exceeding 0.0299 inch, coated to thickness of 3/4 pound (0.000045 inch) and 1 pound (0.00006 inch).

- Electrolytically chromium coated steel having ultra flat shape defined as oil can maximum depth of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) and edge wave maximum of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) and no wave to penetrate more than 2.0 inches (51.0 mm) from the strip edge and coilset or curling requirements of average maximum of 5/64 inch (2.0 mm) (based on six readings, three across each cut edge of a 24 inches (61 cm) long sample with no single reading exceeding 4/32 inch (3.2 mm) and no more than two readings at 4/32 inch (3.2 mm)) and (for 85 pound base box item only: crossbuckle maximums of 0.001 inch (0.0025 mm) average having no reading above 0.005 inch (0.127 mm)), with a camber maximum of 1/4 inch (6.3 mm) per 20 feet (6.1 meters), capable of being bent 120 degrees on a 0.002 inch radius without cracking, with a chromium coating weight of metallic chromium at 100 mg/m 2 and chromium oxide of 10 mg/m 2 , with a chemistry of 0.13% maximum carbon, 0.60% maximum manganese, 0.15% maximum silicon, 0.20% maximum copper, 0.04% maximum phosphorous, 0.05% maximum sulfur, and 0.20% maximum aluminum, with a surface finish of Stone Finish 7C, with a DOS-A oil at an aim level of 2 mg/square meter, with not more than 15 inclusions/foreign matter in 15 feet (4.6 meters) (with inclusions not to exceed 1/32 inch (0.8 mm) in width and 3/64 inch (1.2 mm) in length), with thickness/temper combinations of either 60 pound base box (0.0066 inch) double reduced CADR8 temper in widths of 25.00 inches, 27.00 inches, 27.50 inches, 28.00 inches, 28.25 inches, 28.50 inches, 29.50 inches, 29.75 inches, 30.25 inches, 31.00 inches, 32.75 inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches, 36.25 inches, 39.00 inches, or 43.00 inches, or 85 pound base box (0.0094 inch) single reduced CAT4 temper in widths of 25.00 inches, 27.00 inches, 28.00 inches, 30.00 inches, 33.00 inches, 33.75 inches, 35.75 inches, 36.25 inches, or 43.00 inches, with width tolerance of # 1/8 inch, with a thickness tolerance of #0.0005 inch, with a maximum coil weight of 20,000 pounds (9071.0 kg), with a minimum coil weight of 18,000 pounds (8164.8 kg) with a coil inside diameter of 16 inches (40.64 cm) with a steel core, with a coil maximum outside diameter of 59.5 inches (151.13 cm), with a maximum of one weld (identified with a paper flag) per coil, with a surface free of scratches, holes, and rust.

- Electrolytically tin coated steel having differential coating with 1.00 pound/base box equivalent on the heavy side, with varied coating equivalents in the lighter side (detailed below), with a continuous cast steel chemistry of type MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or 7C, with a surface passivation of 0.7 mg/square foot of chromium applied as a cathodic dichromate treatment, with coil form having restricted oil film weights of 0.3-0.4 grams/base box of type DOS-A oil, coil inside diameter ranging from 15.5 to 17 inches, coil outside diameter of a maximum 64 inches, with a maximum coil weight of 25,000 pounds, and with temper/coating/dimension combinations of : (1) CAT 4 temper, 1.00/.050 pound/base box coating, 70 pound/base box (0.0077 inch) thickness, and 33.1875 inch ordered width; or (2) CAT5 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness, and 34.9375 inch or 34.1875 inch ordered width; or (3) CAT5 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 107 pound/base box (0.0118 inch) thickness, and 30.5625 inch or 35.5625 inch ordered width; or (4) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.50 pound/base box coating, 85 pound/base box (0.0093 inch) thickness, and 35.5625 inch ordered width; or (5) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.25 pound/base box coating, 60 pound/base box (0.0066 inch) thickness, and 35.9375 inch ordered width; or (6) CADR8 temper, 1.00/0.25 pound/base box coating, 70 pound/base box (0.0077 inch) thickness, and 32.9375 inch, 33.125 inch, or 35.1875 inch ordered width.

- Electrolytically tin coated steel having differential coating with 1.00 pound/base box equivalent on the heavy side, with varied coating equivalents on the lighter side (detailed below), with a continuous cast steel chemistry of type MR, with a surface finish of type 7B or 7C, with a surface passivation of 0.5 mg/square foot of chromium applied as a cathodic dichromate treatment, with ultra flat scroll cut sheet form, with CAT 5 temper with 1.00/0.10 pound/base box coating, with a lithograph logo printed in a uniform pattern on the 0.10 pound coating side with a clear protective coat, with both sides waxed to a level of 15-20 mg/216 sq. in., with ordered dimension combinations of (1) 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness and 34.9375 inch x 31.748 inch scroll cut dimensions; or (2) 75 pound/base box (0.0082 inch) thickness and 34.1875 inch x 29.076 inch scroll cut dimensions; or (3) 107 pound/base box (0.0118 inch) thickness and 30.5625 inch x 34.125 inch scroll cut dimension.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), under HTSUS subheadings 7210.11.0000, 7210.12.0000, 7210.50.0000, 7212.10.0000, and 7212.50.0000 if of non-alloy steel and under HTSUS subheadings 7225.99.0090, and 7226.99.0000 if of alloy steel. Although the subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) of the Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 C.F.R. 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it determines that (i) producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or (ii) if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. To the Department's knowledge the following are U.S. producers of tin mill products: Bethlehem Steel Corp., National Steel Corp., Midwest Division, Ohio Coatings Co., U.S. Steel Group, a Unit of USX Corp., and USS-Posco Industries, Inc. Since the Department did not receive any comments during the comment period, the Department is preliminarily revoking the order on certain tin mill products from Japan in part for all future entries with regard to the products which meet the specifications above.

Interested parties wishing to comment on these results may submit briefs to the Department no later than 14 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Parties will have five days subsequent to this due date to submit rebuttal comments, limited to

The issues raised in those comments. Parties who submit comments or rebuttal comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument (no longer than five pages, including footnotes). Any requests for hearing must be filed within 14 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, and must be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list. The Department will also issue its final results of review within 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the Federal Register. While the changed circumstances review is underway, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties on all subject merchandise, including the merchandise that is the subject of this changed circumstances review, will continue unless and until it is modified pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review or an administrative review.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222.

The adoption of an area and fishery-specific approach in recently adopted protection measures for threatened and endangered Stellar sea lion populations in Alaska included an exemption for certain small boats in the Unalaska area, allowing for a limited Pacific cod fishery by longliner catcher vessels on the west side of Unalaska Island. Consideration of a similar exemption for small-boats fishing in and around Chignik, Alaska was not adopted. This study will assess and compare the social impacts of the new small-boat fleet regulations on these two fishing communities. The information will provide an improved understanding of the value of small-boat fishing exemptions as a management tool for mitigating social impacts.

Study information will be collected in face-to-face interviews with key individuals. Participation will be entirely voluntary.

OMB Number : None.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Individuals or households, and business or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents : 100.

Estimated Time Per Response : 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours : 50 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public : $0.

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

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

All stock assessment reports and the guidelines for preparing them are available via the Internet at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/ PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html.

Section 117 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) requires NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prepare stock assessments for each stock of marine mammals that occurs in waters under the jurisdiction of the United States. These reports must contain information regarding the distribution and abundance of the stock, population growth rates and trends, estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury from all sources, descriptions of the fisheries with which the stock interacts, and the status of the stock. Initial reports were completed in 1995.

The MMPA requires NMFS and FWS to review the SARs at least annually for strategic stocks and stocks for which significant new information is available and at least once every 3 years for non-strategic stocks. NMFS and the FWS are required to revise a SAR if the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.

Draft 2001 SARs were made available for a 90-day public review and comment period on June 7, 2001 (66 FR 30706). Prior to their release for public review and comment, NMFS subjected the draft reports to internal technical review and to scientific review by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) established under the MMPA. Following the close of the comment period, NMFS revised the reports as needed to prepare final 2001 SARs. Printed copies may be obtained by request (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS appended the most recent versions of the SARs for polar bears, sea otters, walrus, and manatees to NMFS' final 2001 SARs. These reports were prepared by the FWS and were included so that interested constituents would have reports for all regional stocks in a single document.

NMFS received three letters containing comments on the draft 2001 SARs. Each letter contained multiple comments on stocks in each of the three regional reports. Other comments were related to national issues common among the regional reports. The comments and responses below are separated according to the regional scope of the comments.

Comment 1: Commenters recommended additional research, monitoring, or conservation measures based on information contained in the draft SARs. For example, commenters noted that revised abundance and mortality estimates are needed for some marine mammal stocks or that additional observer coverage is needed in some fisheries. Commenters also stated that NMFS should convene additional take reduction teams.

Response: NMFS understands that abundance and mortality estimates for many stocks of marine mammals are less precise or current than if they were based on additional information. Such a situation is the unfortunate consequence of a finite budget and many conservation issues. NMFS prioritizes abundance estimates according to the age and precision of the estimate and the estimated mortality level, particularly mortality incidental to commercial fishing interactions. When annual mortality is considered to be relatively small, the priority for updating the estimate is low. In those cases in which a low mortality rate (e.g., less than 10 per year) exceeds a Potential Biological Removal (PBR) level calculated from an abundance estimate that included only a small part of the stock's range (e.g., false killer whale, Hawaiian stock), the priority for obtaining an abundance estimate is low relative to many other situations.

Other than a rotating observer program in the Alaska Region, existing observer programs are tied directly to existing take reduction plans. NMFS will not be able to implement large, new observer programs until new funds are available or until the success of the current take reduction plans makes the associated observer programs unnecessary.

Although NMFS recognizes that fishery-related mortality exceeds PBR in some stocks of marine mammals, current funding levels limit NMFS' ability to implement additional take reduction programs.

Comment 2: Commenters noted that the SARs include many stocks of marine mammals with abundance estimates that are at least 5 years old. According to the guidelines for developing SARs, the calculated PBR values should be decreased by 20 percent per year when minimum population estimates are more than 5 years old. Commenters encouraged NMFS to follow these guidelines throughout the SARs and to schedule population surveys to obtain current abundance estimates for management and to avoid these default PBR levels and their possible impacts on fisheries. Other comments also noted abundance estimates that were old and recommended that PBR be changed to zero for several stocks of marine mammals nationally.

Response: NMFS and FWS prepared guidelines for the initial stock assessment reports in 1995 and included a provision for reducing the PBR where abundance estimates were more than 5 years old. NMFS and FWS reviewed these guidelines, in consultation with the regional SRGs, after the initial reports were completed to evaluate how well the guidelines were performing and to revise as appropriate. Following the review, the guidelines were revised to state that abundance estimates older than 8 years are not reliable indicators of the current number of marine mammals in the affected stock. The revised guidelines state that PBR will be undefined when abundance estimates are more than 8 years old unless there is compelling evidence that the stock has not declined since the last abundance estimate. All assessment reports and the guidelines for preparing them are available electronically (see Electronic Access).

Comment 3: One commenter stated that some regions included all stock assessments, whether or not they are revised, while some only include those that have been revised. Some regions did not review all strategic stocks. Stock assessments for all strategic stocks must be revised annually as required by the MMPA. The commenter also stated that the MMPA requires that stock assessments for strategic stocks be reviewed annually and stipulates that updates are also warranted when new information is available that may affect the status of the stocks.

Response: MMPA section 117(c) provides that SARs are to be reviewed based on an established schedule (at least annually for strategic stocks or stocks for which significant new information is available; at least once every 3 years for all other stocks). When it is determined, based on review, that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined, the SAR must be revised.

All strategic stocks are reviewed each year. However, the stock assessment reports must be revised only when the review indicates that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined. For example, new abundance estimates or new information on fishery and/or natural mortality could result in the revision of a stock assessment report. However, NMFS routinely revises the SARs with new information even when it is not significant or does not indicate that the status of the stock has changed or can be more accurately determined.

To make it easier to find information on marine mammal stocks, NMFS is printing all SARs, revised or not, in the final SARs for each year. However, for the draft report, the regions have only been asked to include revised SARs.

Additionally, the review schedules for non-strategic stocks vary across regions. For example, the Pacific SRG requested that reports for non-strategic stocks be reviewed as a group every 3 years. The Alaska SRG requested that NMFS review and revise, as needed, one third of the reports annually so that each is reviewed every 3 years.

Comment 4: One commenter noted that the SARs only included information through 1999 and asked why it was not possible to provide more updated information.

Response: The process of preparing and reviewing SARs takes time, which results in an unfortunate but necessary lag in the data that is included in each SAR relative to when that SAR is published. NMFS staff began working on the draft 2001 SARs in the summer of 2000. At that time, the most recent full year of data were used. In the case of the 2001 SARs, 1999 data were available, but a full year of 2000 data were not yet available. The SARs were reviewed by the appropriate SRG in the fall of 2000. Based on comments received from the SRGs, the draft SARs were revised before being released for public review and comment in the summer of 2001. The draft 2001 SARs were made available for a 90-day public comment period, after which NMFS staff needed to respond to comments received and revise the SARs accordingly.

NMFS does use more updated information than is presented in the most recent final SAR. For example, the newly formed Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Team is considering information about Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins that has been reviewed by the Atlantic SRG, but that will not be available for public review and comment in the SAR until the draft 2002 SARs are released in the spring of 2002. Similarly, information on marine mammal mortality of relevance to other Take Reduction Teams are made available for Team use prior to being published in a final SAR.

Comment 5: One commenter recommended that estimates of entanglement- or collision-related mortality should consider all available data and use analytical procedures intended to provide the best possible estimates of mortality rather than minimum estimates. The commenter specifically expressed concern about the SARs for right whales and humpback whales in the North Atlantic, which base estimates of entanglement- or collision-related mortality only on those cases where “substantial evidence” is available.

Response: NMFS uses all available data and analytical procedures to develop estimates of mortality and takes a precautionary approach by using standards for interpreting serious injuries that equate seriously injured animals with mortalities. However, it is not appropriate to apply the bycatch estimation protocols used for small cetaceans to entangled animals. Any attempt to do this with the current limited knowledge of entanglement rates would yield unreliable estimates.

It is also not correct to assume that all injuries are serious and lead to the mortality of an animal. For example, we know from scarring and other data that many entanglements are not serious. NMFS has determined that the best approach is to investigate each case individually, collecting all available information and assigning anthropogenic causes to those cases for which there is appropriate evidence.

The quality of the reports received from the field has the greatest impact on NMFS' ability to assess and injury as serious or not. NMFS is working to improve reporting on the beach by requiring stranding personnel to complete a new “Human Interaction Form” in addition to the standard Level A stranding reporting form. The new form prompts responders to look for and report indications of human interactions on stranded animals in greater detail, which should allow NMFS to make determinations with a higher degree of confidence. To address reports of entanglements and mortalities offshore, NMFS initiated a streamlined, East and Gulf coast-wide communications network involving the Coast Guard to assist in realtime reporting of events. The system will put observers in direct contact with experts who can then ask case-specific questions to thoroughly assess each event.

Comment 6: One commenter stated that NMFS should incorporate in the SARS analyses to measure the power with which observer programs can estimate mortality and serious injury levels equivalent to the potential PBR level.

Response: NMFS is aware of the limitations of the observer program to yield precise estimates of mortality rates. Considering available funding, NMFS tries to balance the need to obtain marine mammal mortality estimates for a variety of fisheries with the need to obtain mortality estimates that are as precise as possible. NMFS will consider the suggestion to include a power analysis for future SARs.

Comment 7: One commenter stated that for some stocks, it may be more efficient for NMFS to develop mechanisms to calculate PBR or a PBR-equivalent using general density or relative indices of abundance.

Response: For some stocks, NMFS has used the approach suggested by the commenter. In cases where a mortality estimate is available, but reliable abundance estimates are not, NMFS has used the PBR equation to calculate the population size that would be needed to support known mortality levels. This method provides an idea of whether the mortality level is sustainable. However, section 3(20) the MMPA includes an equation to calculate PBR levels.

Comment 8: One commenter noted that the SARs describe mortality and serious injury that occur as a result of direct interactions with commercial fisheries, but do not address indirect interactions with commercial fisheries, which also may restrict population growth. NMFS should expand the reports to include all human-related factors that could impede population growth or recovery as required by section 117(a)(3) of the MMPA. Although quantitative descriptions of indirect effects will be very difficult, the potential for such effects should be described for each species or stock vulnerable to such effects.

Response: Section 117(a)(3) of the MMPA requires NMFS to, “estimate the annual human-caused mortality and serious injury of the stock by source and, for a strategic stock, other factors that may be causing a decline or impeding recovery of the stock, including effects on marine mammal habitat and prey.” NMFS recognizes the need to identify other factors that may affect a marine mammal population in the Guidelines for Assessing Marine Mammal Stocks (Wade and Angliss 1997): “A statement about habitat issues should be included in the Status section of the Reports, or, if needed, in a separate section titled “Habitat Issues”. If data exist that indicate a problem, they should be summarized and included in the Reports. If there are no known habitat issues for a stock, this should be explicitly stated, as consideration of habitat issues are mandated by the act.” However, NMFS does not have the information necessary to make a statement in the SARs indicating whether habitat issues are or are not of concern for each marine mammal stock. NMFS has been focusing its limited resources on improving estimates of direct interactions with commercial fisheries.

Comment 9: One commenter recommended that NMFS should improve the incorporation of stranding data in fishery mortality estimates for all stocks.

Response: NMFS considers stranding data and incorporates it as appropriate into the SARs. In situations where observer coverage allows calculation of a mortality estimate, it is not appropriate to use stranding data to supplement the mortality estimate if the stranded animal could be included in the projection of a mortality estimate resulting from observer coverage. However, NMFS has used stranding data to supplement mortality estimates if observer coverage is not available or if the stranded animal would not have been included in the mortality estimate from observer coverage.

Comment 10: One commenter recommended that NMFS make every effort to increase compliance with the self-reporting requirements of the MMPA.

Response: NMFS conducts outreach and education to the fishing industry that informs them of the requirement to report incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing activities. To expand these efforts, NMFS would have to redirect funding and staff from other research and conservation needs, such as abundance estimates, observer coverage, or implementation of take reduction plans. Other comments note that these other research and conservation efforts should be expanded.

Comment 11: One commenter stated that NMFS should finalize its definition of serious injury. NMFS should then provide the SRGs with clear guidance, so they may consistently determine what constitutes serious injury and incorporate that into their assessments.

Response: NMFS agrees and will make finalizing the serious injury guidelines a priority.

Comment 12: One commenter suggested that NMFS publish the recommendations made by the SRGs with the SARs, as well as NMFS' plans to implement the recommendations. Additionally, NMFS should include proposed budgets to undertake these programs. Publishing this information could potentially facilitate greater involvement and support from interest groups who are dedicated in their efforts to secure adequate funding for NMFS and its programs.

Response: NMFS will consider the commenter's recommendation to make SRG comments, NMFS response, and budget information more widely available.

Comment 13: One commenter stated that the preface to the Alaska SARs should be modified to indicate that descriptions of geographic range, a minimum population estimate, current population trends, current and maximum net productivity rates, optimum sustainable population levels and allowable removals, and estimates of annual human-caused mortality and serious injury are estimated when sufficient data are available.

Response: NMFS will make the recommended change in the preface to the Alaska SARs.

Comment 14: One commenter noted that sections of the SAR for Cook Inlet beluga whales contain different estimates of population abundance. This should be corrected.

Response: The SAR has been corrected to identify 435 whales as the correct estimate of abundance.

Comment 15: One commenter stated that, given the extremely low abundance of the Cook Inlet stock of beluga whales, the recovery factor should be set to 0.1, as recommended by the Alaska SRG or NMFS should provide a justification for the selection of 0.3 based on an analysis of factors that may affect the population in the future.

Response: NMFS determined that it was not appropriate to list this stock under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2000 (65 FR 38778, June 22, 2000). If an ESA listing was determined to be appropriate, NMFS would have considered using the default recovery factor of 0.1, which is typically used for endangered species. NMFS determined that it was appropriate to designate this stock as depleted under the MMPA (65 FR 34590; May 31, 2000). The default recovery factor for a depleted stock is 0.5. However, because of the small size of the population, NMFS decreased the recovery factor from 0.5 to 0.3. A more conservative recovery factor is not necessary because the largest source of mortality, which is from the local subsistence harvest, has greatly decreased since 1999 and is being carefully managed through statutory authority and a co-management agreement between the Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council and NMFS.

Because the harvest has been limited, direct human-caused mortality is not an important factor for Cook Inlet beluga whales; thus, a lower PBR level would serve no purpose.

Comment 16: One commenter stated that reliable, updated, or improved estimates of abundance are needed for stocks of spotted seal, Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall's porpoise, sperm whale, all stocks of beaked whales, both stocks of humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, ribbon seal, North Pacific right whale, and bowhead whale. In addition, estimates for stocks of bearded seal and ringed seal are based on an incomplete survey of their range. This should be rectified.

Response: NMFS has obtained abundance estimates of pinnipeds and cetaceans that are of highest conservation concern, including Steller sea lions, Cook Inlet beluga whales, humpback whales, northern fur seals, harbor seals, killer whales and harbor porpoise. Surveys to collect abundance estimates of other species are conducted as funds are available. Conducting surveys for stocks that are known or strongly suspected to be abundant and broadly distributed are prioritized lower than stocks that are designated as threatened or endangered under the ESA, as depleted under the MMPA, or for which the conservation issues are known or severe. NMFS determines population abundance estimates for all marine mammal stocks as required by the MMPA as resources allow.

NMFS' plans to collect information on the stocks identified by the commenter follow.

Spotted seal, bearded seal, ringed seal: surveys of a portion of each stock's range were conducted during the 1990's. Based on these surveys, other stocks of “ice seals” are suspected to be abundant and broadly distributed across the Arctic based on surveys that include at least a portion of the stock's range. Available information about human-related mortality of these stocks indicates that direct mortality is not likely to negatively affect these stocks in the foreseeable future. Conducting surveys of these stocks is very expensive and likely to be a low priority because there are no immediate conservation concerns. NMFS is currently exploring options for collecting information on stock abundance of these animals using remote sensing.

Ribbon seal: ribbon seals are distributed far offshore in the ice pack during the winter and spring; thus, traditional aerial surveys with a land-based aircraft are unable to census a representative portion of this stock's range. Alternative survey techniques, such as remote sensing or conducting surveys from helicopters based on ice breakers, will have to be explored. Because of these logistic and technological challenges, NMFS does not expect to be able to develop a minimum population estimate for this stock in the near future.

Pacific white-sided dolphin and Dall's porpoise: the most recent abundance estimates for these stocks were based on data collected during 1987-1990 during a vessel survey designed to collect information on cetaceans in offshore waters. At this time, there are no current plans to conduct a similar vessel survey, so new estimates of total abundance should not be expected within the next few years. NMFS will be investigating whether estimates and relative distribution of these stocks in coastal waters might be obtained from a variety of aerial and vessel line-transect surveys conducted in Alaska over the past 10 years.

Humpback whales: humpback whale population size is estimated either by applying mark-recapture techniques to photo-identification data (estimate published in 1997) or by vessel line transect surveys (most recently conducted in 1999). NMFS has supported the collection of one or both types of data annually for many years, and substantial amounts of new information has been collected since the last population estimate was made. NMFS plans to support the analysis of these new data and be able to include a new population estimate in the draft SARs for 2002.

Bowhead whales: Congress provides funding to the North Slope Borough each year to support the collection of information on bowhead whale biology, abundance, and population dynamics. The North Slope Borough completed a census of the population during the spring of 2001. A new abundance estimate based on this census will be included in the draft SARs for 2002.

North Pacific right whales: North Pacific right whales have only recently been documented to be seasonally present in a limited area in the Bering Sea. Both vessel and aerial surveys for this stock have occurred annually since 1996, and additional surveys are planned for 2002. Because NMFS' research on this stock has only recently begun, it will likely be several more years before sufficient information is available to provide a reliable population estimate. In addition, the discreteness of the population in the western North Pacific (e.g., Sea of Okhotsk) and eastern North Pacific remains to be determined.

Fin whales: new information on the abundance of fin whales in a portion of their range has been collected during the past 3-4 years, and additional information will be forthcoming as a result of vessels surveys in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea. However, an abundance estimate of their entire range would require a dedicated vessel survey in the North Pacific. At this time, this type of survey is not being planned. However, the surveys conducted and planned for a portion of their range should be sufficient to calculate a minimum population estimate for a portion of the stock's range within a few years.

Minke whales, sperm whales, and beaked whales: these stocks are broadly distributed over the North Pacific. Ideally, population estimates for these stocks would be based on sightings from dedicated vessel surveys. At this time, this type of survey is not being planned.

Comment 17: One commenter requested that NMFS should improve the estimates of fisheries and subsistence takes. NMFS should aggressively pursue developing and implementing an observer program for those fisheries that have had documented marine mammal takes.

Response: Estimates of incidental mortality of marine mammals from commercial fisheries that are observed are quite good, including the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska groundfish trawl and longline fisheries, and the crab pot fisheries. NMFS currently only has funding available to observe one Alaska fishery for marine mammal interactions each year (not including fisheries that are observed for fishery management reasons). Because previous observer programs for the Prince William Sound salmon drift gillnet fishery and self-reported information documented some mortality of marine mammals incidental to salmon gillnet operations in the 1990s, NMFS is rotating an observer program among various gillnet fisheries.

The Cook Inlet set and drift gillnet fisheries were observed in 1999 and 2000. During the two years of the program, no mortalities of any marine mammals were observed, although one serious injury of a harbor porpoise was observed. In 2001, NMFS began working to implement an observer program in the salmon gillnet fisheries around Kodiak Island. That observer program will be fully implemented for the 2002 fishing season. NMFS continues developing the program to rotate among other fisheries in the future.

Reliable subsistence harvest information is available for some species, such as bowhead whales, beluga whales, and fur seals. Subsistence harvest information for harbor seals and Steller sea lions was collected annually by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence for several years. There was a hiatus in data collection in the late 1990's because of a lack of funding. A grant was provided to the Alaska Steller Sea Lion and Sea Otter Commission (ASSLOC) for the collection of information on the Steller sea lion subsistence harvest. NMFS will include information on the subsistence harvest provided by the ASSLOC in the draft SAR for 2003. NMFS will continue to work with the Alaskan Native community to collect information on the subsistence use of other species as resources allow.

Comment 18: One commenter stated that it is important to obtain reliable and recent information on the level of mortality that results from native hunting. Another commenter recommended that NMFS continue to pursue co-management agreements with the Alaskan native community that would result in the effective monitoring, reporting, and control of subsistence takes.

Response: NMFS uses the best data available on the level of mortality of marine mammals that results from Alaska Native subsistence harvest. The amount of data available on subsistence harvests varies widely by species. For example, data on harbor seal and Steller sea lion subsistence harvest has been collected by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game nearly annually at all villages that hunt these species at least since 1996. Collection of data on ice seal subsistence harvest by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has occurred less frequently, and are only available for some villages during some years. Preliminary information on ice seal harvest levels were presented to the Alaska SRG in 2001, but the data were too preliminary to include in the 2001 SARs. This information will be included in the draft 2002 SARs.

NMFS has aggressively pursued co-management agreements for stocks such as Cook Inlet beluga whales and the three Alaska harbor seal stocks because of known declines in all or a portion of the stock's respective ranges. NMFS will pursue other co-management agreements as resources allow.

Comment 19: One commenter requested that the SAR for the eastern stock of Steller sea lions should include data on take in the Canadian fisheries and in the Canadian subsistence harvest.

Response: The draft SAR for 2001 indicates that an average of about 41 Steller sea lions per year are intentionally killed in the British Columbia aquaculture predator control program. NMFS is not aware of any additional intentional or incidental mortalities of Steller sea lions in Canadian fisheries, although NMFS formally requested such information from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Additional information on mortalities in Canadian waters will be included in the SARs when it becomes available.

Comment 20: One commenter stated that the magnitude of intentional killing, disturbance, and illegal fishing on the high seas on the eastern Pacific stock of northern fur seals is unknown. Stranding data and other information should be collected to develop a better understanding of this situation and its effect on the population.

The SSC, HAP and AP will meet to discuss the items contained in the following agendas:

Recovery Plan

EFH Final Guidelines

MRAG America's Inc. Outline and Discussion of Issues on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

Coral Reef Conservation Opportunities for Grant Proposals

Procedure for HAP Comments on Proposed Projects

Fishing Gear Impact on EFH

Coral Reef Conservation Opportunities for Grant Proposals

Education/Orientation

Comments

The meetings are open to the public, and will be conducted in English. However, simultaneous interpretation (Spanish-English) will be available during the AP meeting (March 21, 2002). Fishers and other interested persons are invited to attend and participate with oral or written statements regarding agenda issues.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolon, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 268 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 1108, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-2577, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least five days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of the telephone conference is to review preliminary results from a descriptive analysis of the groundfish open access fleet.

Although nonemergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may come before the subcommittee for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal subcommittee action during this meeting. Subcommittee action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the subcommittee's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant requests authorization to import one male, adult beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), identified as “Imaq”, from the Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center; British Columbia, Canada to Sea World of California in San Diego, California. The applicant requests this import for the purpose of public display. The receiving facility, Sea World San Diego, 1720 South Shores Road, San Diego, California 92109 is: (1) open to the public on regularly scheduled basis with access that is not limited or restricted other than by charging for an admission fee; (2) offers an educational program based on professionally accepted standards of the AZA and the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums; and (3) holds an Exhibitor’s License, number 93-C-069, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act.

In addition to determining whether the applicant meets the three public display criteria, NMFS must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity is humane and does not represent any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals; that the proposed activity by itself or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock; and that the applicant’s expertise, facilities and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

NTIA serves as the principal adviser to the President on telecommunications policies as they pertain to the Nation's technological and economic advancement. NTIA is the primary Executive Branch agency responsible for developing and articulating domestic and international telecommunications policies. NTIA also manages use of the radio frequency spectrum by all federal agencies.

Radio spectrum is a key component for many government and private sector telecommunications and commercial services. Over the years, the demand for spectrum to be used for both governmental and commercial purposes has increased significantly. Key government organizations rely on radio spectrum to conduct national security, air traffic control, law enforcement, and other public safety efforts, among many other services. Spectrum use also supports the operations of the most competitive and technologically sophisticated industries in the United States. As such, effective spectrum policy and management is of great importance to the national economy. The increasing spectrum needs of the government and private sector has made the current spectrum management process more difficult, especially as the amount of available, unencumbered spectrum, becomes limited.

The Spectrum Summit, therefore, will focus on policies affecting the management of the Nation's airwaves, on new ideas and approaches to make more efficient use of spectrum, and on making the national and international spectrum processes more effective. NTIA will have the opportunity during the Spectrum Summit to initiate a dialogue with key industries and organizations that use spectrum, economists and analysts, technologists and futurists, and other interested parties. The four major areas of discussion throughout the two-day Spectrum Summit are: (1) Spectrum allocation and planning; (2) spectrum efficiency; (3) spectrum for new technologies; and (4) spectrum management regulatory processes.

Public Participation: These meetings will be open to the public and are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Any member of the public wishing to attend and requiring special services, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aid, should contact Derrick Owens or Joe Gattuso at least three (3) days prior to the meeting via the contact information provided above. All persons entering the Department of Commerce and the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center must go through the security screening. To facilitate entry into the Department of Commerce building, please have photo identification available and/or a U.S. Government building pass, if applicable.

The CBTPA provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for qualifying textile and apparel products. Such treatment is generally limited to products manufactured from yarns or fabrics formed in the United States or a beneficiary country. The CBTPA also provides for quota- and duty-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more CBTPA beneficiary countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a CBTPA beneficiary country, if it has been determined that such fabric or yarn cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. In Executive Order No. 13191, the President delegated to CITA the authority to determine whether yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the CBTPA. On March 6, 2001, CITA published procedures that it will follow in considering requests. (66 FR 13502).

On January 4, 2002 the Chairman of CITA received a petition from School Apparel, Inc. alleging that certain fabrics, classified in subheadings 5210.21 and 5210.31 of the HTSUS, not of square construction, containing more than 70 warp ends and filling picks per square centimeter, of average yarn number exceeding 70 metric, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. It requested that women’s and girls’ blouses of such fabrics be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA.

On January 10, 2002, CITA solicited public comments regarding this request ( 67 FR 1330) particularly with respect to whether these fabrics can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On January 29, 2002, CITA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative offered to hold consultations with the relevant Congressional committees. We also requested that advice of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the relevant Industry Sector Advisory Committees.

CITA has determined that certain fabrics, classified in sub-headings 5210.21 and 5210.31 of the HTSUS, not of square construction, containing more than 70 warp ends and filling picks per square centimeter, of average yarn number exceeding 70 metric, used in the production of women’s and girls’ blouses, can be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On the basis of currently available information, including its review of the petition, public comments and advice received, and its understanding of the industry, CITA has found that there is domestic capacity to produce these fabrics. School Apparel’s request is denied.

The Corporation is a Federal Government corporation that encourages Americans of all ages and backgrounds to engage in community-based service to meet the nation's educational, public safety, environmental and other human needs. In doing so, the Corporation fosters civic responsibility, strengthens the ties that bind us together as a people, and provides educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment to service. This year, the Corporation will help support more than 1.5 million Americans who perform substantial service in communities across the country.

On November 8, President Bush announced that the Corporation will support homeland security in the coming year in three major areas: public safety; public health; and disaster mitigation and preparedness. The President said:

In the State of the Union address, the President announced the USA Freedom Corps that will build on the great American ethic of service. The USA Freedom Corps will promote a culture of responsibility, service, and citizenship. It will work with key service agencies in government and the nonprofit sector to provide incentives and new opportunities to serve at home and abroad. The USA Freedom Corps will draw on help from Americans of all ages and of every background. The Corporation for National and Community Service and its programs—National Senior Service Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America—are part of the efforts under the USA Freedom Corps.

The Corporation's support for homeland security includes:

Public safety is one of the four primary service activities for AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. Thousands of volunteers serve with and for police departments, fire departments, rescue teams, emergency response agencies, and land management agencies. They are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups, community policing, victim assistance, fingerprinting and other tasks that free officers and other professionals to do front line work. In its first five years, AmeriCorps has organized 46,000 safety patrols, and in one year alone senior volunteers carried out 131,000 patrols that freed up 540,000 hours of police time.

Currently, AmeriCorps members, Learn and Serve America participants, and Senior Corps volunteers fulfill a variety of public health roles including assisting in immunizing children and adults, serving as case managers, distributing health information, and providing health screenings. Last year alone, AmeriCorps members distributed health information materials to 500,000 people and provided health screenings to 181,000 individuals, while Senior Corps volunteers assisted in immunizing 270,000 children and adults. Learn and Serve America students, faculty, and teachers developed education materials on a broad range of health topics, served in clinics, and provided needed medical care in underserved areas.

AmeriCorps members, including the National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps volunteers have a long track record of working with Federal Emergency Management Agency and other relief agencies in helping communities to respond to disasters. Learn and Serve America participants respond to local disasters as well. National and community service participants help run emergency shelters, assist law enforcement, provide food and shelter, manage donations, assess and repair damage, and help families and communities rebuild. Since September 11, many have been actively engaged in relief efforts.

The grants made under this announcement are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front.

In the area of public safety, the grants will help provide AmeriCorps members, senior volunteers, students, and other community members to support police departments, fire departments and other local agencies such as rescue units and parks and recreation departments. These participants will free up local personnel to meet their front-line responsibilities by performing administrative tasks and other supportive functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers.

In the area of public health, AmeriCorps members, senior volunteers, students, and others will support public health agencies in outreach and information dissemination and administrative support.

In the area of disaster relief and preparedness, AmeriCorps members, senior volunteers, students, and others will perform a wide variety of activities that support immediate and long-term recovery efforts, as well as preparedness and mitigation. These individuals will run emergency shelters, help law enforcement, provide food and shelter, manage donations, assess and repair damage, and help families and communities rebuild. Members and volunteers may also support disaster preparation and mitigation activities.

In general, activities must fall within the categories of public safety, public health, or disaster response and preparedness. To be responsive to this Notice the activities must relate to homeland security and to the current challenges that communities face. A grant may support programs that:

The above are examples only. Local communities will determine the best strategies for integrating service and volunteering into homeland security efforts. The Corporation expects all activities we support under this announcement to relate to or be part of the Citizen Corps that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is charged with bringing together in communities. If there is no Citizen Corps in an area where you propose program activities, the activities should be part of a community-wide or statewide strategy to strengthen homeland security.

We encourage programs to make use of volunteers from throughout the community, including students and senior volunteers, to design and implement programs. We expect that resources from a variety of sources will be employed and that multiple organizations will work together effectively. Because of statutory requirements, an entity seeking to sponsor more than one program (AmeriCorps, Special Volunteer Programs, RSVP) described in this Notice must submit separate applications, noting its proposed relationships between the programs.

The Corporation also encourages efforts that will have a lasting impact on strengthening homeland security in the communities being served. It may be advantageous, for example, to use a “train the trainers” model where a program trains teachers or first aid workers, who in turn use their new skills to educate children or community volunteers. Applicants should address in the application narrative plans for assuring the sustainability and long-lasting effects of activities supported with these grants.

For more information on the programs supported by the Corporation, see our Web site at www.nationalservice.org.

Eligible applicants are described below under each program category, Category A. AmeriCorps* State and AmeriCorps National programs, Category B. Special Volunteer Programs and Category C. Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. A single organization may submit the same application only once, and should specify the category for which it is applying. A single organization may submit different applications that propose entirely different activities to more than one category. Within a category, an organization may submit only one application. If an organization seeks to sponsor programs in more than one category, it should note the proposed relationship between the programs in each application.

Applicants that have never received funding from the Corporation are eligible and encouraged to apply for funding under this Notice. Applicants currently operating or applying for Corporation funding may apply for funding under this Notice. In doing so, the applicant must differentiate between the proposed objectives and activities and those of its currently-funded national service program or pending application.

In awarding these grants, the Corporation will consider: program design (60%); organizational capacity (25%); and budget/cost effectiveness (15%). The details of the selection criteria are contained in each application package. The Corporation anticipates that the final awardees in the aggregate will represent a mix of homeland security activities in the areas of public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and relief. In evaluating proposals, the Corporation will use its discretion to achieve such a mix. The Corporation will make all final decisions concerning awards and may require revisions to the grant proposal in order to achieve the objectives under this Notice.

The Corporation will make awards covering a period not to exceed three years. Applications must include a proposed budget and proposed activities for the entire award period. If the Corporation approves an application and enters into a multi-year award agreement, the Corporation will initially provide funding based only on the first year's budget. The Corporation has no obligation to provide additional funding. Additional funding is contingent upon satisfactory performance, the availability of funds, and other criteria established in the award agreement.

In order to gauge the number of applications we are likely to receive, we request that applicants send an email by April 1, 2002, to the individual named below in each specific category (AmeriCorps, Special Volunteer Programs and RSVP). The email notice of intent should state that you plan to submit an application for the homeland security competition by the applicable deadline. Although submission of the notice of intent to apply is not mandatory, we encourage you to submit one to help the Corporation to plan more efficiently for our review.

The notice should include the name of your organization, address, contact person, phone number. State commissions should email a letter of intent that includes an estimate of the number of subgrantee programs they plan to submit to the Corporation.

The Corporation will make available approximately $5 million under this announcement for AmeriCorps*State and National programs. We anticipate funding approximately 10 to 15 grant awards ranging from $200,000 to $750,000. The Corporation will consider requests to use a portion of the $5 million in new funds earmarked for AmeriCorps*State competitive and National to expand existing programs.

For AmeriCorps*State competitive funds , generally any eligible entity, including Indian tribes and faith-based organizations, proposing to operate a program within a single state may apply for these funds. These organizations should apply to the relevant state commission for funds. Because North Dakota, South Dakota, and U.S. territories other than American Samoa do not have state commissions, entities proposing to operate a program within these states or territories are not eligible for AmeriCorps*State competitive funds.

For AmeriCorps*National funds , nonprofit organizations, including faith-based organizations, that will operate a program in two or more states are eligible to seek funding under this category directly from the Corporation. Eligible applicants also include partnerships or consortia formed across two or more states that consist of institutions of higher education, Indian tribes, or other nonprofits, including labor and religious organizations.

An organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply, serve as a host site for members, or act in any type of supervisory role in the program.

Applicants for AmeriCorps funds generally are required to meet previously published (application guidelines and instructions) limitations on per-member costs to be paid by the Corporation. However, we will consider granting a waiver if the applicant demonstrates a strong need in its program design for flexibility.

Applicants must propose activities for AmeriCorps members to support homeland security. Proposals that do not address homeland security through service and volunteering will be judged nonresponsive. Applicants should consider relating program activities to a Citizen Corps planning team or initiative. In the event that a Citizen Corps has not been identified or is not underway, then applicants must demonstrate that they are part of a community-wide or statewide effort to support homeland security. One way that eligible organizations can demonstrate that they are part of a coordinated strategy is to apply in consortia with one organization serving as the legal applicant or to have a statewide or local entity coordinating homeland security ( e.g. , mayor's office) be the grant applicant.

Volunteer mobilization is a requirement under this Notice. Applicants must include a plan for mobilizing non-paid volunteers, e.g. , seniors, students, or members of the community of all ages and backgrounds, in the design of their program. Applicants that do not mobilize volunteers as part of their program activities will not be considered for funding.

All eligible applicants must meet all of the applicable requirements contained in this Notice. Eligible applicants under AmeriCorps*State competitive funds, other than state commissions themselves, should contact the state commission for application guidelines and instructions and specific deadline information. A complete listing of state commissions, as well as contact information, is available on the Corporation's website, www.americorps.org.

Eligible applicants under AmeriCorps*National can obtain a copy of the application guidelines and instructions from the Corporation website.

For a printed copy of any of these materials, please contact Shelly Ryan at 202-606-5000, x549 ( sryan@cns.gov ).

Applicants are urged to pay close attention to these application materials. They contain a wide variety of relevant requirements, including matching funds, AmeriCorps member benefits, the activities in which AmeriCorps members may engage, and the requirements for organizations proposing to operate a program.

Please email your intent to apply by April 1, 2002, to Shelly Ryan at sryan@cns.gov .

Applications must arrive at the Corporation no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on May 8, 2002. The Corporation will not accept applications that are submitted via facsimile. Due to delays in delivery of regular USPS mail to government offices, there is no guarantee that your application will arrive in time to be considered. We suggest that you use USPS priority mail or a commercial overnight delivery service.

We anticipate announcing AmeriCorps*National selections under this Notice no later than June 28, 2002.

Proposals must be submitted to the Corporation at the following address: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attn: Nancy Talbot, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Box H.S., Washington, DC 20525.

For further information, contact Peter Heinaru at 202-606-5000 x302 ( pheinaru@cns.gov ). The TDD number is 202-565-2799. This Notice is available in an alternative format for people with visual impairments.

AmeriCorps*State competitive and AmeriCorps*National programs are authorized by the National Community Service Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12571-12595.

The Corporation will make available approximately $5 million under this announcement for grants to support Special Volunteer programs. We anticipate funding approximately 25 grant awards ranging from $100,000 to $500,000. Grantees may make subgrants to local groups.

Eligible applicants include: state commissions on national and community service; nonprofit organizations operating in more than one state; consortia of local nonprofit organizations, including faith-based organizations; and public entities at the state and local level.

An organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply, serve as a host site for volunteers, or act in any type of supervisory role in the program.

The statutory purpose of Special Volunteer Programs is to strengthen and supplement efforts to meet a broad range of needs, including those in low-income communities, by encouraging “persons from all walks of life and from all age groups to perform meaningful and constructive service.” Programs funded under this category must propose activities to support homeland security. Such activities may include:

The above are examples. Any questions concerning whether a proposed activity is eligible under this category should be directed to Nancy Talbot at 202-606-5000 ext.470, ( ntalbot@cns.gov ).

While programs in this category may include volunteers of all ages, they should primarily involve seniors in service. Service options for this program may include volunteer service that is part-time, full-time, short-term or episodic service. The applicant determines the options that will make the program successful.

The grant may support reasonable and necessary costs typically associated with a program of this type. Grant funds are for management and administrative support for volunteer activities related to homeland security, with particular emphasis on involving seniors in service. In general, funds are not available for stipends under this category. If modest stipends are to be paid to leaders or others serving on a full-or substantial part-time basis, the applicant should specify the amounts. Such amounts should be very limited and are justifiable only when necessary to encourage service on a sustained basis ( e.g. , minimum of 15-20 hours per week for a year).

Although there is no minimum matching requirement for grants under this category, grantees are required to provide a non-federal contribution (cash or in-kind) and must identify the sources(s) and amount(s) of the contribution.

There are no restrictions for participation concerning age or income. The Corporation anticipates that the majority of individuals involved will be seniors. Veterans are encouraged to participate. The applicant must demonstrate the involvement of seniors in the program and will be asked, if a grant is awarded, to document the participation of those 55 years of age and older. The program design should be replicable.

Applicants should consider relating program activities to a Citizen Corps planning team or initiative. In the event that a Citizen Corps has not been identified or is not underway, then applicants must demonstrate that they are part of a community-wide or statewide effort to support public health, public safety or emergency preparedness. One way that eligible organizations can demonstrate that they are part of a coordinated strategy is to apply in consortia with one organization serving as the legal applicant or to have a statewide or local entity coordinating homeland security ( e.g., mayor's office) be the grant applicant. In addition, applicants must propose activities to support homeland security.

Proposals that do not address homeland security through service and volunteering will be judged nonresponsive.

Applicants currently operating or applying for Corporation funding may apply for funding under this Notice. In doing so, the applicant must differentiate between the proposed objectives and activities and those of its currently funded national service program or pending application.

All eligible applicants must submit an application that meets all of the requirements contained in this Notice. Eligible applicants under Special Volunteer Programs can obtain a copy of the application from Nancy Talbot at 202-606-5000, ext. 470 ( ntalbot@cns.gov ). Applicants are urged to pay close attention to these application materials.

Please email your intent to apply by April 1, 2002, to Shelly Ryan at sryan@cns.gov.

Applications must arrive at the Corporation no later than 5 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time, on May 8, 2002. The Corporation will not accept applications that are submitted via facsimile. Due to delays in delivery of regular USPS mail to government offices, there is no guarantee that your application will arrive in time to be considered. We suggest that you use USPS priority mail or a commercial overnight delivery service.

We anticipate announcing Special Volunteer Program selections under this Notice no later than June 28, 2002.

Proposals must be submitted to the Corporation at the following address: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attn: Nancy Talbot, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Box H.S., Washington, DC 20525.

For further information, contact Nancy Talbot at 202-606-5000 x470, ( ntalbot@cns.gov ). The TDD number is 202-565-2799. This Notice is available in an alternative format for people with visual impairments.

The demonstration authority for Special Volunteer Programs, 42 U.S.C. 4991-4993, authorizes the Corporation to make grants to pay for the federal share of support to service programs that strengthen and supplement efforts to meet a broad range of needs.

The Corporation will make available approximately $1,400,000 under this announcement to support up to 2,800 Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) volunteers serving in roles that strengthen homeland security. We anticipate funding approximately 14 new federally-funded RSVP grant projects in geographic areas currently unserved by RSVP. The average amount of the awards will be approximately $100,000.

Public agencies (including state and local agencies and other units of government), non-profit organizations, including faith-based organizations, institutions of higher education and Indian Tribes are eligible to apply. Sponsors of RSVP projects that receive no funds from the Corporation, other than funding for Programs of National Significance (PNS), are eligible to apply. Current sponsors of RSVP Projects funded by the Corporation are not eligible to apply under this Notice.

An organization described in Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4), that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to apply, serve as a host site for volunteers, or act in any type of supervisory role in the program.

Under RSVP the Corporation provides grants to eligible organizations for the dual purpose of engaging persons 55 and older in volunteer service to meet critical community needs and to provide a high quality experience that will enrich the lives of volunteers. RSVP matches volunteers' skills, life experiences, and interests with priority needs across the nation.

In 2000, RSVP included 766 local projects with over 470,000 RSVP volunteers contributing over 78 million hours of service to their communities through a network of 67,500 local non-profit and community-based organizations. RSVP serves in more than 1,400 counties nationally. Last year alone, RSVP volunteers carried out 131,000 patrols that freed up 540,000 hours of police time, assisted in immunizing 270,000 children and adults, and since September 11, many have been actively engaged in relief efforts and strengthening disaster response capacity in their communities.

The grant may support reasonable and necessary costs typically associated with a program of this type. Such costs are delineated in the RSVP application guidelines and instructions.

Applicants should consider relating program activities to a Citizen Corps planning team or initiative. In the event that a Citizen Corps has not been identified or is not underway, then applicants must demonstrate that they are part of a community-wide or statewide effort to support public health, public safety or emergency preparedness. Applicants that are not part of such an effort will not be considered for funding. In addition, applicants must propose activities to support homeland security. Proposals that do not address homeland security through service and volunteering will be judged nonresponsive.

There are no restrictions concerning the geographic location of an applicant. However, projects proposed under this Notice must be in geographic areas currently unserved by RSVP. An organization currently receiving funds under the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program may apply for similar program activities through “programs of national significance.”

All eligible applicants must submit an application that meets all of the criteria and requirements contained in this Notice. Application guidelines and instructions can be downloaded from the Corporation's Web site, www.nationalservice.org; or obtained by contacting the appropriate Corporation State Office. Information on how to contact state offices is located on our website: click on “Contact Us” at the bottom of the page.

Applicants are urged to pay close attention to these application materials. They contain a wide variety of relevant requirements, including non-federal contributions, the amounts of stipends volunteers may receive, and the requirements for organizations proposing to operate a program.

Please email your intent to apply by April 1, 2002, to John Keller at jkeller@cns.gov.

Applications must arrive at the Corporation for National and Community Service by 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time), May 8, 2002. The Corporation will not accept applications that are submitted via facsimile. Due to delays in delivery of regular USPS mail to government offices, there is no guarantee that your application will arrive in time to be considered. We suggest that you use USPS priority mail or a commercial overnight delivery service.

We anticipate announcing RSVP selections under this Notice no later than June 28, 2002.

Proposals must be submitted to the Corporation at the following address: Corporation for National and Community Service, Attn: John Keller, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Box H.S., Washington, DC 20525.

For further information, contact John Keller at 202-606-5000 ext. 554, ( jkeller@cns.gov ). The TDD number is 202-565-2799. This Notice is available in an alternative format for people with visual impairments.

RSVP programs are authorized by the Domestic Volunteer Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 5001.

In the State of the Union address, the President announced the USA Freedom Corps that will build on the great American ethic of service. The USA Freedom Corps will promote a culture of responsibility, service, and citizenship. It will work with key service agencies in government and the nonprofit sector to provide incentives and new opportunities to serve at home and abroad. The USA Freedom Corps will draw on help from Americans of all ages and of every background. The Corporation and its programs—National Senior Service Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America—are part of the efforts under the USA Freedom Corps.

The Corporation's support for homeland security includes:

Public safety is one of the four primary service activities for AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. Thousands of volunteers serve with and for police departments, fire departments, rescue teams, emergency response agencies, and land management agencies. They are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups, community policing, victim assistance, fingerprinting and other tasks that free officers and other professionals to do front line work. In its first five years, AmeriCorps has organized 46,000 safety patrols, and in one year alone senior volunteers carried out 131,000 patrols that freed up 540,000 hours of police time.

Currently, AmeriCorps members, Learn and Serve America participants, and Senior Corps volunteers fulfill a variety of public health roles including assisting in immunizing children and adults, serving as case managers, distributing health information, and providing health screenings. Last year alone, AmeriCorps members distributed health information materials to 500,000 people and provided health screenings to 181,000 individuals, while Senior Corps volunteers assisted in immunizing 270,000 children and adults. Learn and Serve America students, faculty, and teachers developed education materials on a broad range of health topics, served in clinics, and provided needed medical care in underserved areas.

AmeriCorps members, including the National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps volunteers have a long track record of working with FEMA and other relief agencies in helping communities to respond to disasters. Learn and Serve America participants respond to local disasters as well. National and community service participants help run emergency shelters, assist law enforcement, provide food and shelter, manage donations, assess and repair damage, and help families and communities rebuild. Since September 11, many have been actively engaged in relief efforts.

The Corporation announces that organizations that currently receive program grant funds or any type of federal program assistance from the Corporation and use service and volunteering as a strategy to meet community needs are encouraged, where appropriate, to direct activities to support homeland security in the three areas described above—public safety, public health, and disaster preparedness and relief. This notice applies to all Corporation grantees, including state commissions on national and community service, nonprofit organizations, state education agencies, institutions of higher education, and state and local governments.

In general, organizations receiving Corporation program grants or federal program assistance have considerable flexibility to focus activities on meeting community needs. The Corporation encourages all organizations to consider directing resources toward the needs associated with homeland security. Please address any specific questions concerning the flexibility to redirect any available resources to your appropriate program officer at the Corporation. Any material change in activity that will prevent your organization from accomplishing the objectives for which the grant was issued requires that you notify the Corporation in writing and that the Corporation provides you written approval. Similarly, changes in applicable budget categories, as specified in the grant provisions, requires written approval. To ensure that you are aware of any specific requirements concerning the redirection of Corporation resources or activities, we advise you to inform your appropriate program officer of your proposed changes.

The prospect of a rapidly changing and more turbulent, unpredictable, global security environment underscores the need for a high level of U.S. defense preparedness. To meet the challenges of a wider range of threats and a more complex set of operating environments, the U.S. will require an Army capable of rapid response and dominance across the entire spectrum of operations in joint, interagency, and multinational configurations. Today's Army force structure and supporting systems were designed for a different era and enemy. They lack the capability to operate optimally across the full range of likely future operations. The Army's superb heavy forces are unequalled in their ability to gain and hold terrain in the most intense, direct fire combat imaginable, and, once deployed, are the decisive element in major theater wars. The current heavy forces, however, are challenged to get to contingencies where we have not laid the deployment groundwork; and once deployed, these forces have a large logistical footprint. On the other hand, the Army's current light forces can strike quickly but lack survivability, lethality and tactical mobility once inserted. Therefore, to meet the defense challenges of the future and provide the National Command Authority the decisive land power forces necessary to support the National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army have articulated a clear Army Vision that includes transforming the most respected Army in the world into a strategically responsive force that is dominant across the full spectrum of operations.

The Army proposes to implement transformation as rapidly as possible, while continually maintaining the warfighting readiness of its operational forces, improving its installations and business practices, and taking care of its people. The proposed program of Army transformation would be the mechanism used to integrate and synchronize the implementation of the Army Vision. To validate early transformation concepts, an initial force of two brigade combat teams at Fort Lewis, Washington, is receiving off-the-shelf equipment to support evaluation and refinement of new doctrinal organizational concepts. An interim force of six to eight brigade combat teams will following the future. The Interim Force would be a transition force—one that seeks the objective force state-of-the-art technology, but leverages today's technology together with modernized legacy forces as a bridge to the future. The objective force would be the force that achieves our transformation objective. It would be a future force that would be a strategically responsive Army capable of dominating at every point across the full spectrum of operations and rapidly transitioning across mission requirements without loss of momentum. It would be able to operate as an integral member of joint, multinational, interagency teams and would be dominant against the asymmetric application of conventional, unconventional, and weapons of mass destruction threat capabilities.

The PEIS complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Implementation of the Army transformation, as envisioned, will be a major undertaking entailing a series of changes in equipment, force structure and training practices. As changes are proposed for specific sites and for equipment acquisition and testing, there will likely be a range of adverse and beneficial effects on the environment. The PEIS informs the public, regulators, concerned groups and Army decision-makers about potential environmental concerns that should be factored into all aspects of Army transition. Additionally, the PEIS provides all stakeholders with an opportunity to present their views to Army decision makers.

Alternatives: (1) No Action Alternative: Whereby Army transformation would not be implemented and needed changes to Army equipment, force structure and training practices would be separately analyzed on a piecemeal basis; (2) Action Alternative: Whereby Army transformation, as envisioned by Army decision-makers, would be implemented to better meet present and future national security requirements and fulfill the Army Vision.

Significant issues: The PEIS addresses issues including noise, impacts to wetlands and riparian areas, soil erosion, air and water quality, endangered species, and cultural resources.

Public Comment: Comments received as a result of the NOA will be used to assist the Army in final decision making. Individuals or organizations may participate in this process by written comment by mail or by facsimile through the Army Homepage web site www.army.mil/a-z.htm, scrolling to Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. To be considered in the final decision making process, comments and suggestions should be received no later than 30 days following the EPA announcement of the availability of the PEIS in the Federal Register. Questions regarding this PEIS may be directed to Headquarters, Department of the Army at the above address or by facsimile transmission to (703) 692-4735.

The Kisatchie National Forest encompasses approximately 604,000 acres of national forest land in northwest and west-central Louisiana. The JRTC and Fort Polk is located in Vernon Parish, in west-central Louisiana. The main post consists of 107,024 acres that are divided between Army fee-owned land on the northern portion of the post (66,998 acres) and Forest Service fee-owned land on the southern portion (40,026 acres) referred to as the Intensive Use Area (IUA). The IUA is used intensively by the Army under the terms of a Special Use Permit (SUP) agreement between the Forest Service and Fort Polk. An area contiguous to and south of the main post is used for less intensive military training under the terms of the SUP an is known as the Limited Use Area (LUA). The LUA consists of 44,799 acres that are fee-owned and managed by the Forest Service. Peason Ridge is a non-contiguous training area north of the main post consisting of Army lands (33,011 acres) and Forest Service lands (480 acres). North of Peason Ridge is an area referred to as the Special Limited Use Area (SLUA) in the SUP, consisting of 12,820 acres. The SLUA is made available for limited training by JRTC and Fort Polk.

The JRTC, established at Fort Polk in 1993, is the only Combat Training Center devoted to and capable of supporting Army light infantry brigade-level training. JRTC training focuses on training light infantry with support from armor, mechanized equipment, and aircraft. Ten JRTC rotations (extensive field training exercises for visiting Army brigade and supporting Air Force, Navy and Marine units) are normally conducted at Fort Polk each year, with an average of more than 5,000 troops involved in each training event.

Fort Polk also serves as an Army power projection platform from which fores deploy by air, rail and sea to areas of operation around the world. It is home to the 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light) (2d ACR) and several other rapid deployment and combat service support units. In addition to the 2d ACR, active Army units assigned to Fort Polk include the 519th Military Police Battalion (519th MP Bn); the Warrior Brigade, consisting of the 46th Engineer Battalion, 83d Chemical Battalion, 115th Field Hospital, 142d Corps Support Battalion, and Headquarters and Headquarters Company, U.S. Army Garrison; and the 1st Battalion, 509th Infantry (1-509 IN), which portrays the Opposing Force during JRTC rotations. Fort Polk also provides training opportunities for the 256th Brigade (Mechanized) (Enhanced), Louisiana Army National Guard (LANG) and various reserve component units.

In October 1999, the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army articulated a vision to posture the Army to meet the demands of the 21st century: The Army Vision is about people, readiness, and transformation. Transformation addresses the need for change based on emerging security challenges of the 21st century. Chief among these challenges is the need to be able to respond more rapidly to different types of operations requiring military action. Toward these ends, the Army will field an Interim Force to address strategic near-term capability gaps and to validate and develop operational concepts on which subsequent transformation planning and implementation activities can logically build. Ultimately, the Army will field an Objective Force designed to render the Army more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile, lethal, survivable, and sustainable.

In support of Army initiatives to meet evolving security requirements, the Army has designated the 2d ACR to transform as an element of the Interim Force to the 2d Interim Cavalry Regiment (2d ICR), a medium-weight force that is strategically responsive and more rapidly deployable by air. In addition to transformation of the 2d ACR, other medium-weight, brigade-sized Interim Force elements—known as Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs)—would participate in rotational exercises at JRTC and Fort Polk.

To these ends, the Army proposes to implement force transformation and mission capability enhancements at JRTC and Fort Polk with respect to home station training (maneuver and gunnery exercises for Army units assigned to Fort Polk), rotational unit exercises, and facilities construction. The purpose of the proposed action is to bring the Interim Force to operational capability and to support an ICR that will function as part of the Interim Force; to provide realistic, advanced field training, modernized weapons training, and performance evaluation opportunities for IBCTs and other Army brigades; and to provide training lands and supporting facilities for both rotational brigades and for forces assigned to Fort Polk. The need for the proposed action is to provide the Nation with capabilities that meet current and evolving national defense requirements.

The proposed action involves federal jurisdictions of the Army and Forest Service. The decision to be made by the Army, based on the results of the EIS and upon consideration of all relevant factors (including mission, cost, technical factors, and environmental considerations) is how best to provide for military training, readiness and facilities requirements while ensuring the sustained use of resources entrusted to the stewardship of the Army. The decision to be made by the Forest Service is what military activities and land uses may occur on national forest lands and how best to balance military and non-military uses while sustaining resources entrusted to Forest Service stewardship. In addition, the information compiled in the EIS will serve as a foundation for the Army's application to the Forest Service to renew its permit for continued use of Kisatchie National Forest lands.

The Army's proposed actions associated with force transformation and mission capability enhancements at JRTC and Fort Polk may be categorized into the following six activity groups:

(1) Systems Fielding. This activity group involves fielding of new and modernized vehicles, weapons systems and equipment for Interim Forces, including the Mobile Gun System and a family of interim armored vehicles (IAVs).

(2) Construction. This activity group includes construction, modernization and revitalization of buildings, training facilities ( e.g. , live fire ranges), and infrastructure. Proposed construction activities and infrastructure improvements are divided according to location in one of six areas: Fort Polk cantonment areas; Fort Polk maneuver areas and ranges; Peason Ridge maneuver areas and ranges; Forest Service IUA; Forest Service LUA; and England Industrial Airpark, the Army's port of embarkation at Alexandria, Louisiana.

(3) Land Transaction. This activity group involves Army use of lands through permit, lease or other agreement. Proposed land transactions include continued use of Kisatchie National Forest lands through Special Use Permit agreement between the Army and Forest Service and use of private, non-residential lands under contractual lease or other agreement. No acquisition of land through purchase or withdrawal of public domain lands is proposed.

(4) Deployment. This activity group involves operational deployment of forces, as well as training that is specifically tied to deployment of forces. Deployment or training for deployment of Army units from Fort Polk would occur at England Industrial Airpark or by rail or seaport.

(5) Training. This activity group involves achieving and maintaining readiness to perform assigned missions, along with management of training ranges and maneuver areas. Proposed training includes both brigade-level training rotations at JRTC and training exercises for Army units assigned to Fort Polk.

(6) Environmental Stewardship. Proposed environmental stewardship activities include continuation of the following: (a) Implementation of approved Army and Forest Service management and monitoring requirements for the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat, (b) implementation of approved integrated natural and cultural resource management plans, (c) management of Exemplary Natural Areas, (d) implementation of sustainable design and development principles, (e) development and implementation of adaptive ecosystem management strategies and practices, and (f) development and implementation of an Environmental Management System for JRTC and Fort Polk.

Scoping and Public Involvement: The scoping process begun by this notice of intent will help to clarify issues of major concern, may identify any information sources available to analyze and evaluate impacts, and obtain public input on the range and acceptability of alternatives. Based on the results of scoping the Army and Forest Service will develop a range of alternatives, including no action. Action alternatives will include options for construction, siting and design of facilities and the types and intensities of maneuver and gunnery exercises to occur within Army lands at Fort Polk and Peason Ridge; the IUA, LUA and SLUA of the Kisatchie National Forest; and at England Industrial Airpark in Alexandria, Louisiana. Military use of surrounding private, non-residential lands under contractual lease or other agreement will also be evaluated.

The Army and Forest Service recognize numerous issues of concern that will affect selection of alternatives and identification of issues to be addressed in the EIS. A representative listing of such issues includes: changes in operational training intensity, sustainability of training lands (maneuver areas and ranges), historic land uses and changes in land conditions, red-cockaded woodpecker status and recovery, status of Management Indicator Species and their habitats, rare and sensitive species, soil erosion, surface and groundwater resources, scenic streams and streamside management zones, air quality, energy consumption, pollution prevention, socioeconomic conditions, recreational opportunities and public access, noise, road conditions and other effects on LUA residents and surrounding communities, and cumulative effects. Additional issues of concern may be identified as a result of the scoping process.

The Army and Forest Service invite the general public, local governments, Federally recognized Indian tribes, other Federal agencies, and state agencies to submit written comments concerning the scope of the issues to be addressed, alternatives to be analyzed, and the environmental impacts and cultural impacts to be addressed in the DEIS. The Army and Forest Service will jointly conduct open houses/workshops to enable the submission of oral or written comments by all interested parties. Oral and written comments will be considered equally in preparation of the DEIS. The open house/workshops will be held in Shreveport, Leesville, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in March 2002. The dates, times, and specific locations of the open house/workshops will be announced at least 15 days before each session. Persons or organizations unable to attend the open house/workshop sessions are invited to submit written comments not later than 60 days from the date of this NOI to the individual and office shown in the addresses given above.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on February 22, 2002, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

1. Description of Proposed Action: The project is limited to Weston's commercial operation of the former Naval dredge disposal ponds through a 50-year sublease from the City of Vallejo under the City's long-term lease of the property from the State Lands Commission. Individual dredging projects that select the proposed facility as a disposal site are not the subject of this permit application and would require separate review and authorization by the department of the Army. If alternative future uses for the ponds, such as community recreational uses or rehandling facilities are proposed, separate environmental assessments and permit evaluations will have to be conducted for those uses.

The scope of this project is limited to using the seven ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S, and 7) during Weston's operation of the site.

a. Install a permanent slurry pipeline from the Carquinez Straits near Pier 35 to Ponds 4S and 2S along the rights-of-way for Tyler and Ribeiro roads.

b. Maintain existing roadways and improve infrastructure that may include roadway upgrades, pump facilities, piping and appurtenances.

c. Use dredge material to increase pond capacity by raising the levees of the seven ponds. Increasing pond capacity will result in pond area loss of up to 17.9 acres of waters of the United States. No mitigation has been proposed for this permanent fill.

d. Transport material in sealed trucks from Pier 35 and mechanically place material from smaller projects into the Pond 7, the one existing separate pond closest to the offloading area.

e. Offload hydraulically or with a mechanical crane dredged material form scows in the vicinity of Pier 35. Fro large projects, the use of dilution water pumped from the Carquinez Straits would involve the temporary and periodic installation of hydraulic offloading equipment and a floating slurry discharge pipe in the waters of Carquinez Strait near Pier 35.

f. Hydraulically place dredged material slurry into six contiguous ponds (2N, 2M, 2S, 4N, 4M, 4S) using a combination of existing and new distribution piping from the offloading area to the six contiguous ponds.

g. Use of gravity settling methods on the placed dredged material slurry to allow solids to separate from excess water in the six contiguous ponds.

h. Discharge clarified decants water by gravity to San Pablo Bay that will meet Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) waste discharge requirements for effluent.

2. Reasonable Alternatives: In accordance with the requirements of Section 15124 of the State CEQA Guidelines and 40 CFR 1502.14, reasonable alternatives to the proposed action will be evaluated in the Draft EIR/EIS as listed below:

a. Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative): This alternative is the proposed action and is described above.

b. No Action Alternative: All seven ponds remain seasonal wetland habitat.

c. Effluent Discharge into Carquinez Strait: In this alternative, effluent would be piped from the southern most perimeter of ponds 2S and 4S and discharge into Carquinez Strait in the vicinity of Pier 5.

d. Effluent Water Recycling: In this alternative, effluent would be piped from the southern most perimeters of ponds 2S and 4S of Pond 7.

3. Scoping Process: Pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, the City of Vallejo and the USACE must include a scoping process for the Draft EIR/EIS. Scoping primarily involves determining the scope of the issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS and identifying the anticipated significant issues for in-depth analysis. The scoping process included public participation to integrate public needs and concerns regarding the proposed action into the process.

a. Public Involvement Program: Venues for public comment on the proposed action will include: a public workshop to be conducted jointly by the City of Vallejo and the USACE; the preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS and receipt of public comment in response to the Draft EIR/EIS; and public hearings.

b. Significant Issues to be Analyzed in Depth in the Draft EIR/EIS: The EIS will address the following issues: impacts to aquatic, wetland, and upland ecosystems; water flows; socio-economic impacts; hazardous and toxic waste; water quality; aesthetics and recreation; fish and wildlife resources, including protected species; cultural resources; and other impacts identified through scoping public involvement, and interagency coordination.

c. Environmental Review/Consultation Requirements:

• National Environmental Policy Act

• Section 404 of Clean Water Act

• Section 10 of Rivers & Harbors Act

• Endangered Species Act

• Magnusun-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat

• Clean Air Act

• National Historic Preservation Act

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

• Coastal Zone Management Act

• Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum—Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands

4. Scoping Meeting/Availability of Draft EIR/EIS: The City of Vallejo and the USACE will hold a scoping meeting to provide information on the project and receive oral comments on the scope of the document. The scoping meeting for the project will be held at 7:00 PM on Tuesday March 13th, 2002 at the Vallejo City Hall, located at 555 Santa Clara in the City of Vallejo. The Draft EIR/EIS is expected to be available for public review in June 2002.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are businesses or other for-profit organizations, including manufacturers of vehicles and importers of racing vehicles.

Title: Motor Vehicle Exclusion Determinations, EPA ICR Number 0012.11, OMB Control Number 2060-0124, expiration date 05/31/02; and Exclusion Determinations for New Non-Road Spark-ignited Engines at or Below 19 Kilowatts, New Compression-ignited Engines at or Above 37 Kilowatts, New Marine Engines, New On-road Heavy Duty Engines and Locomotive Engines, EPA ICR Number 1852.01, and OMB Control Number 2060-0395, expiration date 05/31/02. This is a request for an extension of currently approved collections.

Abstract: The EPA Office Transportation and Air Quality's Certification and Compliance Division, determines whether a vehicle is excluded from requirements under the Clean Air Act (ACT) based on the criteria listed in 40 CFR 85.1701—Exclusions and Exemption of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Engines. A manufacturer may make an exclusion determination by itself; however, manufacturers and importers may routinely request EPA to make such a determination to ensure that their determination does not differ from EPA's. Only needed information such as engine type, horsepower rating, intended usage, etc., is requested to make an exclusion determination. A manufacturer who desires a determination by the EPA as to whether a particular type of vehicle is excluded from coverage under the ACT must submit vehicle specifications such as size, use, and top speed. This ensures that motor vehicles which may be legally operated or are capable of being legally operated on streets or highways will not be imported under a racing vehicle exclusion. Some types of engines are excluded from compliance with current regulations. EPA ICR No. 1852.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0395, is being consolidated into EPA ICR No. 0012.11, OMB Control Number 2060-0294. This consolidation will eliminate the need for similar ICRs with the same requirements.

Responses to this collection are voluntary. The information is collected by the Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Certification and Compliance Division. Confidentiality to proprietary information is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

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

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per respondent. The proposed frequency of response is on occasion and the estimated number of likely respondents is 210 per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Title: Reporting Requirements for BEACH Act Grants (EPA ICR No. 2048.01). This is a new collection.

Abstract: Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act in October 2000, to amend the Clean Water Act in part by adding section 406 “Coastal Recreation Water Monitoring and Notification.” Section 406(b) requires EPA to make grants to States and local governments to develop and implement programs for monitoring and public notification for coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public, if the State or local government satisfies the requirements of the BEACH Act.

Several of these requirements require a grant awardee to collect and submit information to EPA as a condition for receiving the grant. Section 406(b) requires a grant awardee to provide the factors that the awardees use to prioritize funds and a list of waters for which the grant funds will be used. Section 406(b) also requires that a grant awardee's program is consistent with the performance requirements set by EPA under section 406(a); EPA needs information from the grant awardee to determine if the monitoring and notification programs are consistent with these criteria. On July 31, 2001, EPA published the draft performance criteria for BEACH Act grants (66 FR 39510, July 31, 2001). Section 406(b) also requires that a grant awardee submit a report to EPA that describes the data collected as part of a monitoring and notification program and the actions taken to notify the public when water quality standards are exceeded. Section 406(c) requires a grant awardee to identify lists of coastal recreation waters, processes for States to delegate to local governments the responsibility for implementing a monitoring and notification program, and the content of the monitoring and notification program.

The information covered by this ICR is required of States and local governments that seek to obtain BEACH Act funding. It allows EPA to properly review State and local governments' monitoring and notification programs to determine if they are eligible for BEACH Act grant funding. This information also enables EPA to fulfill its obligations to make this information available to the public as required by sections 406(e) and (g).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 26, 2001 (66 FR 49176 ); No (zero) comments were received.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,993 hours per state per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Eligible state and local governments interested in receiving BEACH Act Grant funds.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30 states and five territories.

Frequency of Response: Annual.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 69,755 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $473,025 per year.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 2048.01 in any correspondence.

This action is directed to any federally recognized Tribal government or intertribal consortium eligible to receive federal funds. Only one project proposal may be submitted by each Tribal government or intertribal consortium. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. You may also access this document on the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides. Select “What's New.”

You may submit a project proposal through the mail, by fax, or electronically to the EPA Tribal Pesticide staff in your Region, as listed below. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00763 in the subject line on the first page of your proposal.

Rob Koethe, EPA Region I, One Congress St., Suite 1100, (CPT), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone: (617) 918-1535, fax: (617) 918-1505, e-mail: koethe.robert@epa.gov.

Adrian Enache, EPA Region II, U.S. EPA Facilities, Raritan Depot, 2890 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08837-3679, telephone: (732) 321-6769, fax: (732) 321-6771, e-mail: enache.adrian@epa.gov.

Fatima El Abdaoui, EPA Region III, Chestnut Building (3AT11), Philadelphia, PA 19107,telephone: (215) 814-2129, fax: (215) 814-3114, e-mail: el-abdaoui.fatima@epa.gov.

Jeaneanne Gettle, EPA Region IV, 61 Forsyth St., SW., Atlanta, GA 30303, telephone: (404) 562-8979, fax: (404) 562-8972, e-mail: gettle.jeaneanne@epa.gov.

Meonii Crenshaw, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (DRT8J), Chicago, IL 60604-3507,telephone: (312) 353-4716, fax: (312) 353-4788, e-mail: crenshaw.meonii@epa.gov.

Jerry Collins, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,telephone: (214) 665-7562, fax: (214) 665-7263, e-mail:collins.jerry@epa.gov.

John Tice, EPA Region VII, 100 Centennial Mall N., Room 289, Lincoln, NB 68508,telephone: (402) 437-5080, fax: (402) 323-9079, e-mail: tice.john@epa.gov.

Art Roybal, EPA Region VIII, 999 18th St., (8P-P3T), Denver, CO 80202-2466,telephone: (303) 312-6395, fax: (303) 312-6044, e-mail: roybal.art@epa.gov.

Marcy Katzin, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., (CMD-4-3), San Francisco, CA 94105,telephone: (415) 947-4215, fax: (415) 947-3583, katzin.marcy@epa.gov.

Gary McRae, EPA Region X, Idaho Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard St., Boise, ID 83706, telephone: (208) 378-5765, fax: (208) 378-5744, e-mail: mcrae.gary@epa.gov.

Contact the appropriate regional staff person listed above if you need assistance or have questions regarding the creation or submission of a project proposal.

1. Scope and purpose of the OPP Tribal Pesticide Project Cooperative Agreements . The purpose of Tribal pesticide project cooperative agreements is to provide financial assistance to eligible Tribal governments or intertribal consortium to carry out projects related to human health and the environment that assess or reduce risk from pesticide exposure. Funds can be used for new activities or to further an existing eligible project or program.

2. Eligible applicants and activities —i. Who may submit a project proposal and may an applicant submit more than one ? Any federally recognized Tribal government or intertribal consortium eligible to receive Federal funds may submit a project proposal. Only one project proposal may be submitted by each Tribal government or intertribal consortium.

ii. What types of projects are eligible for funding ? The Agency will consider projects related to human health and the environment that assess or reduce risk from pesticide exposure. Projects may be targeted to any pesticide concern or need facing a Tribe or intertribal consortium, including:

a. Water quality.

b. Subsistence.

c. Assessment of the need for and/or development of a pesticide management policy or plan.

d. Consideration of integrated pest management, reduced pesticide use, or alternatives to pesticides.

e. Sampling.

f. Effects of pesticides on cultural activities.

g. Education about the use of pesticides in Tribal museum curation.

h. Noxious weed educational materials and/or control alternatives.

i. Public outreach/education materials relating to pest management and/or the safe use, storage and disposal of pesticides.

Water quality work products may be focused on monitoring of surface or ground water (e.g., assessing dietary exposure to pesticides via drinking water, determining those water bodies that may be impaired due to pesticides, predicting potential exposure to endangered and threatened aquatic species, or establishing a baseline of contamination from which to measure progress in the future.) Water quality projects may also include information gathering and development such as a vulnerability assessment, determining the pesticides that are most likely to impact water quality, and/or providing information to pesticide users on ways they can assist in ensuring quality water sources. Finally, water quality work may also focus on the development or implementation of programs aimed at preventing contamination of water sources, mitigating contaminated water sources or implementation of best management practices.

Other types of projects not related to water quality may include the establishment of a Tribal code, a system for the proper disposal of pesticides, and/or educational outreach to the community. Sampling projects may include soil sampling, residue sampling on culturally significant/medicinal plants, or sampling to determine the effects of pesticides on cultural activities, such as subsistence hunting and fishing.

iii. How much money may be requested, and are matching funds required ? Maximum funding awarded will not exceed $50,000 per project. Indirect cost rates will not increase the $50,000 maximum funding amount. No matching funds are required.

In order to be considered for funding, applicants must submit the following to the regional Tribal pesticide staff contact indicated in Unit I.C.:

1. Project proposal (maximum 6 pages of narrative), including:

i. Name of project.

ii. Tribal project contact (including qualifications).

iii. Project description, including:

• Purpose and goal(s) of the project.

• New or continuing project.

• Environmental or health issues addressed.

• Approach and methods (how the project will be carried out).

• Deliverables.

• Expected/desired outcome.

• Indicators/measures of success.

• Resources and time frame required for project, including beginning and ending dates.

iv. Need for assistance--Provide the following information to the extent it relates to and is relevant to demonstrating the need for the specific project that is proposed:

• A list of other sources of funding you have sought for the project.

• A description of similar, identical, or otherwise relevant work that you have undertaken, including sources of funding for that work.

• A description of Tribal or other studies, surveys and other sources of information that document the environmental issues that will be addressed by the project.

v. Responsible parties and location.

• Identify persons in charge of the project and their qualifications.

• Identify major participants in the project and their qualifications.

• Identify location(s) where the project will be conducted.

vi. External stakeholders.

• Identify those who will be affected by the project and how they will be affected.

• Identify those who will participate in the project and their roles.

vi. Resources.

• Identify any personnel and/or contractors to be involved in the project, including their role and qualifications. Description should include any relevant training or experience. For example, if the project includes sampling and writing of a Sampling and Analysis Plan, describe any experience the person(s) has in writing a Sampling and Analysis Plan, in conducting soil or water sampling, etc.

• Identify existing resources/information that will be used in conducting project.

• Identify any additional resources (including but not limited to training) that will be required for project.

• Describe any EPA training or assistance that will be required for Tribal personnel who will be working on the project. Such training may include the development of outreach material or a Sampling Analysis Plan, etc.

vii. Infrastructure and coordination.

• Identify coordination efforts required to conduct project, within or outside Tribe.

• Identify ways in which this project will improve or build Tribal capacity.

• Identify any assistance you may require in coordinating with other Federal, State or local agencies.

2. Draft workplan (1-2 pages) . The submitted draft workplan should outline:

i. Deliverables.

ii. The separate phases of the project.

iiii. The tasks associated with each phase of the project.

iv. The time frames for completion of each phase or task.

v. The name, title of the person(s) who will conduct each phase or task.

vi. The dates when progress reports will be provided to EPA, clearly showing deliverables, accomplishments, delays and/or obstacles. Project costs cannot be incurred until a final workplan has been approved by the appropriate EPA regional office.

3. Estimated budget . The estimated budget should outline costs for personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, indirect cost rate, or any other costs associated with the proposed project.

4. Letter or resolution from Tribal Council or Chairperson showing support for and commitment to the project . (If it is not possible to obtain a letter/resolution from the Tribal council or chairperson to submit with your project proposal, an interim letter of explanation must be included with the proposal. The original letter/resolution will still be required prior to project award.)

5. Letter of confirmation for any other funds needed to complete project . If your proposal requires the use of additional funds for leveraging, please include a letter from the funding source confirming that these monies are available for the project. If the budget includes a Tribal in-kind contribution, a letter of confirmation is not needed.

6. Confidential business information . Applicants must clearly mark information considered confidential business information. EPA will make a final confidentiality determination for information the applicant claims as confidential business information in accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

The applicant may submit a project proposal to the appropriate EPA Regional contact by mail, fax, or electronically. The proposal must be received by the EPA Regional contact listed in Unit I.C. no later than close of business May 15, 2002. If the project proposal is submitted by fax or electronically by May 15, 2002, the EPA Regional contact must receive an original copy of the proposal by mail as soon as possible thereafter. Incomplete or late proposals will be disqualified for funding consideration.

Tribal project proposals will be reviewed and approved for validity and completeness by each respective region and then forwarded, along with regional comments, to an OPP review team. The team will consult with regional staff regarding their comments as necessary. If there is money left over after the selection process is completed, the review team will discuss and determine the allocation of the money. Selections will be made by close of business June 15, 2002. EPA reserves the right to reject all applications or initial/final proposals and make no awards. All costs charged to these awards must be allowable under OMB circular A-87.

Regions will notify their respective applicants of the selections. Those applicants not awarded funds may request an explanation from EPA regional staff.

Criteria on which the project proposals will be ranked are listed below. Applicants must submit information specified in this solicitation to address the award criteria. Applicants must also provide information specified in this solicitation that will assist both a Tribe and EPA in assessing the Tribe's capacity to do the project work outlined in the project proposal. The workplan and budget should reflect the training and the work that can realistically be accomplished.

Environmental issues addressed . Does the project proposal identify the environmental and human health benefits associated with the activity? What are the quality of life issues (benefits) gained by the project?  [0 to 20 points]

Deliverables/outcome . What are the deliverables expected from this project? What is the environmental outcome of the project? Does the project have limited or broad application to address risks related to pesticides? Does the project proposal clearly state what it expects to achieve or deliver?  [0 to 10 points]

Past performance . If the Tribe has received project funding from EPA in the past, was the outcome/deliverable(s) of the project a success? If the project is still ongoing, was progress made?   [0 to 10 points]

Impact assessment/indicators . How does the project propose to quantify and measure its success? How will you evaluate the success of the project in terms of measurable environmental results?  [0 to 10 points]

Resources and time frame required for project . Can the project be accomplished with available or existing resources (Tribal or Non-tribal) and within the identified time frame?  [0 to 10 points]

Tribal project contact(s) . Does the person(s) designated to lead the project have technical expertise and experience? If the project contact(s) assigned to this project do not have relevant training or experience, how will the training necessary to ensure successful completion of the project be obtained?  [0 to 5 points]

Major participants/external stakeholders . Has the Tribe identified the need for other parties (Tribal or Non-tribal) who will be involved or who will participate in the project? Who will be affected by the outcome of the project?  [0 to 5 points]

Coordination/capacity building . Does the applicant understand/acknowledge the need for coordination between Tribal departments and with outside communities, Federal, State or local government? Will the project help build Tribal infrastructure or capacity?  [0 to 5 points]

Transferability . Can the project results be incorporated into the Tribe's pesticide program (if the Tribe has one) or future activities? Can any of the deliverables, experiences, products, or outcomes gained as a result of the project be transferred to other communities? Could this project be implemented by another Tribe?  [0 to 5 points]

Selected applicants must formally apply for funds through the appropriate EPA regional office. In addition, selected applicants must negotiate a final workplan, including reporting requirements, with the designated EPA regional project officer. For more general information on post award requirements and the evaluation of grantee performance, see 40 CFR part 31.

The Office of Pesticide Programs, in coordination with the EPA regions, is soliciting Tribal pesticide projects for FY 2002 funding. The total amount of funding available in FY 2002 to be awarded to Tribal governments and/or intertribal consortium for pesticide projects is $445,500.

Sections 23(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorize EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with States and Indian Tribes to implement pesticide enforcement programs. Pursuant to the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 1999, pesticide program implementation grants under section 23(a)(1) of FIFRA are available for “pesticide program development and implementation, including enforcement and compliance activities.”

The award and administration of these grants will be governed by the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments set forth at 40 CFR part 31. Grants awarded pursuant to this solicitation are program grants subject to the regulations for “Environmental Program Grants for Tribes” set forth at 40 CFR part 35, subpart B.

The number assigned to this grant in the Catalogue of Domestic Assistance is 66.500.

Grant solicitations such as this are considered rules for the purpose of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import pesticides chemicals, substances that may have an effect cumulative to an effect of a pesticide, or substances found in sources of drinking water. To determine whether you or your business may have an interest in this notice you should carefully examine section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-170), 21 U.S.C. 346A(p) and amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Public Law 104-182), 42 U.S.C. 300j-17. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . A list of EDMVS members and information from previous meetings is available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo. To access this document, on the EPA Home Page search for “Endocrine,” which will take you to the EDSP web site. You can also go directly to the Federal Register listing at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an administrative record for this meeting under docket control number OPPT-42212F. The administrative record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this notice, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to Endocrine Disruptor Method Validation, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). The public version of the administrative record is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall, Rm B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open form noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Center is (202) 260-7099.

You may submit a request to participate in the meeting by electronic mail, telephone, by fax, or in person. We would normally accept requests by mail, but in this time of delays in delivery of government mail due to health and security concerns, we cannot assure your request would arrive in a timely manner. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. Your request must be received by EPA on or before March 20, 2002. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPPT-42212F, in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Electronically . You may submit your request electronically by e-mail to oppt-nicic@epa.gov. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Use WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Be sure to identify by docket control number OPPT-42212F. You may also file a request online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

2. In person or by courier . You may deliver a request to: OPPT Docket Control Office, North East Mall, Rm B-607, Waterside Mall, 401M St., SW., Washington, DC. The docket office is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Office is (202) 260-7099.

3. Fax. You may fax your request to: Jane Smith, Designated Federal Official, list under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

In 1996, through enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act, which amended the FFDCA, Congress directed EPA to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have hormonal effects in humans. In 1996, EPA chartered a scientific advisory committee, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA ) to advise it on establishing a program to carry out Congress' directive. EDSTAC recommended a multi-step approach including a series of screens (Tier 1 Screens) and tests (Tier 2 tests) for determining whether a chemical substance may have an effect similar to that produced by naturally occurring hormones. EPA adopted almost all of EDSTAC's recommendations in the Program that it developed, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), to carry out Congress' directive.

EDSTAC also recognized that there currently are no validated test systems for determining whether a chemical may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by naturally occurring hormones. Consequently, EPA is in the process of developing and validating the screens and tests that EDSTAC recommended for inclusion in the EDSP. In carrying out this validation exercise, EPA is working closely with, and adhering to the principles of the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternate Methods (ICCVAM). EPA also is working closely with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Endocine Testing and Assessment Task Force to validate and harmonize endocrine screening tests of international interest.

Finally, to ensure that EPA has the best and most up-to-date advice available regarding the validation of the screens and tests in the EDSP, EPA recently chartered the EDMVS of the NACEPT. The EDMVS provides independent advice and counsel to the Agency through NACEPT, on scientific and technical issues related to validation of the EDSP Tier I screens and Tier II tests, including advice on methods for reducing animal use, refining procedures involving animals to make them less stressful, and replacing animals where scientifically appropriate.

The EDMVS has met twice since its establishment in September 2001. The objectives of the October 2001 meeting (docket control number 42212D) were for EPA to provide:

• An overview of EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Program.

• Background information on test protocol validation and approaches.

• For the EDMVS to develop a clear understanding of their scope, purpose and operating procedures.

• For the EDMVS and the EDSP to determine the next steps.

The objectives of the December 2001 meeting (docket control number 42212E) were for the EDMVS to provide input and advice on:

• The EDMVS's mission statement and work plan.

• The in utero through lactation assay detailed review paper.

• The pubertal assay study design for the multi-dose and chemical array protocols.

• The mammalian one-generation study design.

A list of the EDMVS members and meeting materials are available on our web site, (http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/edmvs.htm), and in the public docket.

The objectives of the March meeting are for the EDMVS to provide input and advice on:

• EDSP's implementation process and practical aspects of validation.

• The in utero through lactation assay protocol.

• The fish reproduction assay detailed review paper.

• Special studies on fathead minnow assays, vitellogenin assay, and avian dosing protocol.

• The aromatase detailed review paper.

• A proposed standard suite of chemicals for testing in the Tier 1 screening assay.

Time for public comment has been reserved on March 25th and 26th just prior to meeting adjournment for the day.

You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Electronically . You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “ Federal Register —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

2. In person . The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP-30521. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-30521 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

1. By mail . Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

2. In person or by courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

3. Electronically . You may submit your comments electronically by e-mail to: opp-docket@epa.gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket control number OPP-30521. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity.

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

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

EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

File Symbol : 73417-R. Applicant : Greenville Farms, 6189 N. 1200 E., Logan, UT 84341. Product Name : Woad Warrior. Fungal Herbicide. Active ingredients : Puccinia thlaspeos “woad strain” on rust-infected pieces of dyer's woad at 100% and contains at least 7.6 x 10 9 teliospores/pound of Woad Warrior. Proposed Classification/Use : None. For control of Isatis tinctoria (dyer's woad).