This Organic Certification Cost-Share Program is part of the Agricultural Management Assistance Program authorized under Section 1524 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA), as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1501-1524). Under the applicable FCIA provisions, the Department is authorized to provide cost share assistance to producers in the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These 15 States have historically low participation rates in Federal crop insurance programs. This organic certification cost share program provides financial assistance to organic producers certified to the National Organic Program authorized under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq. ).

To participate in the program, eligible States must complete a Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and enter into a written cooperative agreement with AMS. The program will provide cost-share assistance, through participating States, to organic crop and livestock producers who have been certified by a USDA accredited certifying agent from November 1, 2002 until September 30, 2003. The Department has determined that payments will be limited to 75 percent of an individual producer's certification costs up to a maximum of $500.00.

Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. Section 6501 et seq. ) requires the establishment of the NOSB. The purpose of the NOSB is to make recommendations about whether a substance should be allowed or prohibited in organic production or handling, to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and to advise the Secretary on other aspects of the implementation of OFPA. The NOSB met for the first time in Washington, DC, in March 1992, and currently has six committees working on various aspects of the organic program. The committees are: Accreditation, Crops, Livestock, Materials, International, and Processing.

In August of 1994, the NOSB provided its initial recommendations for the National Organic Program (NOP) to the Secretary of Agriculture. Since that time, the NOSB has submitted 42 addenda to its recommendations and reviewed more than 220 substances for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The last meeting of the NOSB was held on May 6-8, 2002, in Austin, Texas.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its final National Organic Program regulation in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000 (65 FR 80548). The rule became effective April 21, 2001.

The principal purposes of the meeting are to provide an opportunity for the NOSB to: receive an update from the USDA/NOP, receive a recommendation from the Livestock Committee, and review materials to determine if they should be recommended for inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

The Livestock Committee will present for NOSB consideration its recommendations on “dairy animal replacement.” The Materials Committee will present 32 materials for consideration for possible inclusion on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances.

Materials to be reviewed at the meeting by the NOSB are as follows:

Crop Production: Potassium Sulfate, Ozone Gas (two petitions), Potassium Silicate, Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol, Phermones (amend annotation), Sodium (Chilean) Nitrate (Remove and Amend Annotation), 1,4 Dimethylnaphthalene.

Livestock Production: Propylene Glycol, Magnesium Hydroxide/Magnesium Oxide, Epinephrine aka Adrenaline, Kaolin Pectin, Bismuth Subsalicylate, Flunixin (Banamine), Xylazine/Tolazoline, Butorphanol, Potassium Sorbate, Cell Wall Carbohydrates, Yeast Derivatives, Proteinated Chelates, Atropine, Heparine, Furosemide, Calcium Propionate, Mineral Oil, Activated Charcoal.

Processing: Calcium Stearate, Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate, Hydroxypropyl Methylcellulose, Glucono Delta Lactone, Activated Charcoal, and Glycerol Monoleate.

For further information, see http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. Copies of the NOSB meeting agenda can be requested from Ms. Katherine Benham by telephone at (202) 205-7806; or obtained by accessing the NOP website at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

The meeting is open to the public. The NOSB has scheduled time for public input on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.; and Thursday, September 19, 2002, from 5 p.m. until 6 p.m., at the Radisson Barcelo Hotel, 2121 P Street, NW., Washington, DC. Individuals and organizations wishing to make an oral presentation at the meeting may make their requests via letter, telephone, E-mail or facsimile to Ms. Katherine Benham as set forth in the addresses section of this notice. While persons wishing to make a presentation, may also sign up at the door, advance registration will ensure that a person has the opportunity to speak during the allotted time period and will help the NOSB to better manage the meeting and to accomplish its agenda. Individuals or organizations will be given approximately 5 minutes to present their views. All persons making an oral presentation are requested to provide their comments in writing. Written submissions may contain information other than that presented at the oral presentation.

Written comments must be submitted to Ms. Benham, prior to or after the meeting, at USDA-AMS-TMD-NOP, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4008-So., Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC 20250-0200. Written comments may also be submitted at the meeting. Persons submitting written comments at the meeting are asked to provide 30 copies.

Interested persons may visit the NOSB portion of the NOP Web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop to view available documents prior to the meeting. Approximately 6 weeks following the meeting interested persons will be able to visit the NOSB portion of the NOP website to view documents from this meeting.

The Performance Database identifies minority business clients receiving Agency-sponsored business development services in the form of management and technical assistance, the kind of assistance each receives, and the impact of that assistance on the growth and profitability of the client firms. MBDA requires this information to monitor, evaluate, and plan Agency programs which effectively enhance the development of the minority business sector.

Electronic transfer of performance data.

OMB Number: 0640-0002.

Agency Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: State or local governments, individuals, and profit and non-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Responses: 240 (approximately 50 respondents with numerous responses).

Estimated Time Per Response: 3-15 minutes per function, as needed (5 functions).

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,818.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0 (software package is provided by MBDA).

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

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

A notice was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 29287) on May 30, 2001, announcing the proposed FIPS 180-2, Secure Hash Standard, for public review and comment. The Federal Register notice solicited comments from the public, academic and research communities, manufacturers, voluntary standards organizations, and Federal, state, and local government organizations. In addition to being published in the Federal Register , the notice was posted on the NIST web pages; information was provided about the submission of electronic comments. Comments and responses were received from three private sector organizations or individuals, and from one federal government organization.

The comments raised technical issues related to the standard, asked for clarification of technical issues, and recommended editorial changes. None of the comments opposed the adoption of the revised Federal Information Processing Standard. All of the editorial and related comments were carefully reviewed, and changes were made to the standard where appropriate. NIST recommended that the Secretary approve FIPS 180-2. Following is an analysis of the comments received.

Comment: NIST should provide a security evaluation of the algorithms added to FIPS 180-2, and give the rationale for the various design choices. Such an analysis would increase confidence in the algorithms and facilitate external evaluation.

Response: The standard provides four secure hash algorithms, which differ in the number of bits of security provided for the data being processed. Secure hash algorithms are designed for use in conjunction with another algorithm, which may have requirements that the hash algorithm have a certain number of bits of security. For example, a digital signature algorithm that provides 128 bits of security may require that the secure hash algorithm also provide 128 bits of security.

NIST believes that these algorithms are secure because it is computationally infeasible to find a message that corresponds to a given message digest, or to find two different messages that produce the same message digest. It is highly probable that a change to a message will result in a different message digest.

FIPS 180-2 includes the technical specifications for the four algorithms that have been selected to provide 160, 256, 384 and 512 bits of security. NIST anticipates and invites external examination and scrutiny concerning the security of the algorithms.

Comment: NIST should include a note in the standard indicating whether SHA-256 could be truncated to 160 bits for use as an alternative to SHA-1 (also 160 bits).

Response: The use of hash functions will be addressed in application standards ( e.g. , in the upcoming revision of Federal Information Processing Standard 186-2, the Digital Signature Standard).

Comment: NIST should mention in the standard that SHA-256 constants are easily extracted from the SHA-512 constants.

Response: NIST believes that the decisions concerning the use of constants and how to extract them should be made by those organizations that develop implementations of the standard.

Comment: One comment suggested that there may be weaknesses in the algorithms, and proposed a method to change the standard to address the perceived weaknesses.

Response: It would be more appropriate for the perceived weaknesses to be addressed in application standards such as the Federal Information Processing Standard for the Keyed-Hash Message Authentication Code (HMAC), which has been approved as FIPS 198, as opposed to addressing this in FIPS 180-2 itself. Furthermore, NIST expects to issue guidance on the implementation of secure hash functions.

Executive Order 12866 : This notice has been determined not to be significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1461, establishes the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). 16 U.S.C. 1461 (e)(1)(B) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants to any coastal state or public or private person for purposes of supporting research and monitoring within a National Estuarine Research Reserve that are consistent with the research guidelines developed under subsection (c). This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under “Coastal Zone Management Estuarine Research Reserves,” Number 11.420.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System consists of estuarine areas of the United States and its territories which are designated and managed for research and educational purposes. Each reserve within the system is chosen to reflect regional differences and to include a variety of ecosystem types in accordance with the classification scheme of the national program as presented in 15 CFR part 921.

Each reserve supports a wide range of beneficial uses of ecological, economic, recreational, and aesthetic values which are dependent upon the maintenance of a healthy ecosystem. The sites provide habitats for a wide range of ecologically and commercially important species of fish, shellfish, birds, and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Each reserve has been designed to ensure its effectiveness as a conservation unit and as a site for long-term research and monitoring. As part of a national system, the reserves collectively provide an excellent opportunity to address research questions and estuarine management issues of national significance. For detailed descriptions of the sites, refer to the NERR Web site at http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/nerr/fellow.html or contact the site staff.

Funds are expected to be available on a competitive basis to qualified graduate students for research within a reserve(s) leading to a graduate degree. Applicants must be admitted to or enrolled in a full-time Master's or Doctoral program at a U.S. accredited university in order to be eligible to apply. Institutions eligible to receive awards include institutions of higher education, other non-profits, commercial organizations, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Applicants should have completed a majority of their graduate course work at the beginning of their fellowship and have an approved thesis research program. Minority students are encouraged to apply.

Applicants may request funding for up to three years; funding for years two and three will be made available based on availability of funds and satisfactory progress of research as determined by the host reserve and the applicant's faculty advisor, in consultation with NOAA's Estuarine Reserves Division.

All reserve staff are ineligible to submit an application for a fellowship under this announcement. Requested federal funds must be matched by at least 30 percent of the TOTAL cost, not the federal share, of the project ( i.e. $7,500 match for $17,500 in federal funds for a total project cost of $25,000). Requested overhead costs under fellowship awards are limited to 10% of the federal amount. Waived overhead costs may be used as match. Students receiving fellowship funding under this announcement will begin June 1, 2003.

No more than two fellowships at any one site will be funded at any one time. Based upon fellowships awarded in the 2002 funding cycle, we anticipate 27 openings for fellowships in 2003. Fellowships are expected to be available at the following sites:

NERR research funds are provided to support management-related research projects that will enhance scientific understanding of the reserve ecosystem, provide information needed by reserve management and coastal management decision-makers, and improve public awareness and understanding of estuarine ecosystems and estuarine management issues (15 CFR 921.50).

The NERR Graduate Research Fellowship program is designed to fund high quality research focused on enhancing coastal zone management while providing students with an opportunity to contribute to the research and/or monitoring program at a particular reserve.

Research projects proposed in response to this announcement must: (1) Address coastal management issues identified as having local, regional, and/or national significance, described in the “Scientific Areas of Support” below; and (2) be conducted within one or more designated reserve site(s).

Funding, $17,500 per year, is intended to provide any combination of research support, salary, tuition, supplies, or other costs as needed, including overhead. All current and prospective fellows will be eligible to receive $17,500 in federal funds. Fellows will be expected to participate in the reserve's research and/or monitoring program for up to a maximum of 15 hours per week. The work plan should be devised cooperatively with the reserve's research coordinator. Fellows conducting multi-site projects may fulfill this requirement at one or a combination of sites but for no more than a total of 15 hours per week. This program may occur throughout the academic year or may be concentrated during a specific season.

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System has identified the following as areas of nationally significant research interest. Proposed research projects submitted in response to this announcement must address one of the following estuarine ecosystem topics (see #1 above):

• Eutrophication, effects of non-point source pollution and/or nutrient dynamics;

• Habitat conservation and/or restoration;

• Biodiversity and/or the effects of invasive species;

• Mechanisms for sustaining resources within estuarine ecosystems; or

• Economic, sociological, and/or anthropological research applicable to estuarine ecosystem management.

Fellowship applicants must follow the guidelines presented in this announcement. Applications not adhering to these guidelines may be returned to the applicant without further review. Minority students are encouraged to apply.

Applicants must submit an original and two (2) copies of all application materials, except letters of reference which must come directly from their source. All materials must be postmarked no later than November 1, 2002. Applications postmarked November 2, 2002 or later will be returned without review. Receipt of all applications will be acknowledged and a copy sent to the appropriate reserve staff for review.

Applicants who are selected for funding will be required to: (1) Work with the research coordinator or manager at the host reserve to develop a plan to participate in the reserve's research and/or monitoring program for up to 15 hours per week; (2) submit semi-annual progress reports to ERD and the host reserve before the end of each funding cycle on the research accomplishments to date; and (3) acknowledge NERRS support in all relevant scientific presentations and publications. In addition, fellows are strongly encouraged to publish their results in peer-reviewed literature and make presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings.

Applicants are required to submit:

1. Academic resume or a curriculum vitae that includes all graduate and undergraduate institutions (department or area of study, degree, and year of graduation), all publications (including undergraduate and graduate thesis), awards or fellowships, and work/research experience.

2. Cover letter indicating current academic status, research interests, career goals, and how the proposed research fits into their degree program. It is strongly suggested that the results of discussions with the host reserve regarding their contributions to the reserve's research and/or monitoring program be included in the letter.

3. Unofficial copy of all undergraduate and graduate transcripts.

4. Signed letter of support from the applicant's graduate advisor indicating the advisor's contribution (financial and otherwise) to the applicant's graduate studies, and an assurance that the student is in good academic standing.

5. Two signed letters of recommendation from other than the applicant's graduate advisor sent directly from their source. Electronically transmitted letters of support are not acceptable.

6. Research proposal must be double-spaced in a font no smaller than 12-point courier and must include the following:

a. Title page which must include:

• Name, address, telephone and fax number, e-mail address, date, and signature of applicant;

• Project title;

• Amount of funding requested;

• Name of graduate institution;

• Name of institution providing matching funds and amount of matching funds;

• Name, address, telephone number and fax number, e-mail address, date, and signature of graduate advisor;

• Reserve(s) where research is to be conducted;

• Number of years of requested support.

b. Abstract. The abstract must state the research objectives, scientific methods to be used, and the significance of the project to a particular reserve and the reserve program. The abstract must be limited to one double-spaced page.

c. Project Description. The project description must be limited to 6 double-spaced pages excluding figures. The main body of the proposal must include a detailed statement of the work to be undertaken and the following components:

(1) Introduction. This section should introduce the research setting and environment. It should include a brief review of pertinent literature and describe the research problem in relation to relevant coastal management issues and the reserve research priorities. This section should identify the primary hypotheses, as well as any additional or component hypotheses which will be addressed by the research project.

(2) Methods. This section should state the method(s) to be used to accomplish the specific research objectives, including a systematic discussion of what, when, where, and how the data are to be collected, analyzed, and reported. Field and laboratory methods should be scientifically valid and reliable and should be accompanied by a statistically sound sampling scheme. Methods chosen should be justified and compared with other methods employed for similar work.

Techniques should allow the testing of the hypotheses, but should also provide baseline data related to ecological and management questions concerning the reserve environment. Methods should be described concisely and techniques should be reliable enough to allow comparison with those made at different sites and times by different investigators.

Analytical methods and statistical tests applied to the data should be documented, thus providing a rationale for choosing one set of methods over alternatives. Quality control measures also should be documented ( e.g. , statistical confidence levels, standards of reference, performance requirements, internal evaluation criteria). The proposal should indicate by way of discussion how data are to be synthesized, interpreted and integrated into final work products.

Social science applicants should describe the sampling and or data collection methods including surveys, evaluation research, interviews (focus group and/or personal), participant observation, questionnaires, etc. Applicants should also describe the research design (experimental and quasi-experimental) and methods for data analysis.

A map clearly showing the study location and any other features of interest must be included; a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map, or an equivalent, is suggested for this purpose. Consultation with reserve personnel to identify existing maps is strongly recommended.

(3) Project Significance. This section should provide a clear discussion of how the proposed research addresses state and national estuarine and coastal resource management issues and how the proposed research effort will enhance or contribute to improving the state of knowledge of estuaries. This section must also discuss the relation of the proposed research to the research priorities stated in Section IV. Applicability of research findings to other reserve and coastal areas should also be mentioned. In addition, if the proposed research is part of a larger research project, the relationship between the two should be described.

d. Milestone schedule. This schedule should show, in table form, anticipated dates for completing field work, data collection, data analysis, reporting and other related activities. Use “Month 1, Month 2, etc.” rather than “June, July, etc.,” in preparing these charts.

e. Personnel and Project Management. The proposal must include a description of how the project will be managed, including the names and expertise of faculty advisors and other team members. Evidence of ability to successfully complete the proposed research should be supported by reference to similar efforts previously performed.

f. Literature Cited. This section should provide complete references for literature, research, and other appropriate published and unpublished documents cited in the text of the proposal.

7. Proposed budget. The amount of federal funds requested must be matched by the applicant by at least 30% of the total project cost ( i.e. , $7,500 match for $17,500 in federal funds for a total project cost of $25,000). Cash or in-kind contributions directly benefitting the research project may be used to satisfy the matching requirements. Overhead or indirect costs for these awards are limited to 10% of the federal share. Waived overhead costs may also be used as match. Funds from other federal agencies and reserve staff salaries supported by federal funds may not be used as match. Requirements for the non-federal share are contained in 15 CFR Part 14, Uniform administrative requirements for grants and agreements with institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit and commercial organizations. ERD strongly suggests that the applicant work with their institution's sponsored programs office to develop their budget.

The applicant may request funds under any of the following categories as long as the costs are reasonable and necessary to perform research: personnel, fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, contractual, construction, other, and indirect. The budget should contain itemized costs with appropriate narratives justifying proposed expenditures. Applicants must supply a table showing budget categories listing the federal and match portion side by side for each year of requested funding. Please see below for further details.

The justification must address each of these criteria. It must also describe the purpose of the equipment and provide a justification for its use. Additionally, it must include a list of equipment to be purchased, leased, or rented by model number and manufacturer, where known. At the termination of the fellowship, disposition of equipment will be determined by the NOAA Property Administrator.

8. Requests for reserve support services. On-site reserve personnel sometimes can provide limited logistical support for research projects in the form of manpower, equipment, supplies, etc. Any request for reserve support services, including any services provided as match, should be approved by the reserve manager or research coordinator prior to application submission and be included as part of the application package in the form of written correspondence. Reserve resources which are supported by federal funds are not eligible to be used as match.

9. Coordination with other research in progress or proposed. ERD encourages collaboration and cost-sharing with other investigators to enhance scientific capabilities and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Applications should include a description of how the research will be coordinated with other research projects that are in progress or proposed, if applicable.

10. Permits. The applicant must apply for any applicable local, state or federal permits. A copy of any permit applications and supporting documentation should be attached to the application as appendices. ERD must receive notification of the approval of the permit application before funding can be approved.

All applications will be evaluated for scientific merit by no less than three reviewers from the scientific community. The research coordinator and/or reserve manager will oversee the review process at the reserve. Criteria for evaluation are: (1) The quality of proposed research and its applicability to the NERRS Scientific Areas of Support listed in Section IV of this announcement (70%); (2) the research's applicability to specific reserve research and resource management goals as they relate to the Scientific Areas of Support in Section IV of this announcement (20%); and (3) academic excellence based on the applicant's transcripts and two letters of reference (10%). No more than two fellowships will be awarded at any one time for any one reserve. Final selections will be made by the Chief of the Estuarine Reserves Division based on the scores submitted by the reviewers during the evaluation process. The applicant(s) with the highest scores will receive fellowships commensurate with the number of openings at the host reserve. Funding recommendations should be announced by February 2003. Unsuccessful applications will be retained at ERD.

Semi-annual performance reports shall be submitted 30 days after the completion of every six month period after the project start date and a final performance report shall be submitted 90 days after the project period ending date. Applicants selected for funding will be provided with the guidelines for these reports upon receiving the award.

Awards are normally made to the fellow's graduate institution through the use of a grant. Awards can be made to institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, state, local and Indian tribal governments. Applicants whose projects are recommended for funding will be required to complete all necessary federal financial assistance forms (SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, and CD-511), which will be provided by ERD with the letter of fellowship notification. The Estuarine Reserves Division recommends that all applicants work with their graduate institution during the development of their budget to ensure concurrence on budgetary issues ( e.g. the use of salary and fringe benefits as match).

The Estuarine Reserves Division, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, reserves the right to immediately halt activity under the award if it becomes obvious that award activities are not fulfilling the mission of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Non-compliance with a federally approved project may result in immediate halting of the award. For applicants awarded more than one year of funding, ERD will review and approve each stage of work annually before the next begins to assure that studies will produce viable information on which to form valid coastal management decisions.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this solicitation. However, please note that the Department of Commerce will not implement the requirements of Executive Order 13202 (66 FR 49921), pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget, in light of a court opinion which found that the Executive Order was not legally authorized. See Building and Construction Trades Department v. Allbaugh , 172 F. Supp. 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2001). This decision is currently on appeal. When the case has been finally resolved, the Department will provide further information on implementation of Executive Order 13202.

Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

This notice has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of E.O. 12866. This action is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment by NOAA Administrative Order 216-6. This notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , is not required and has not been prepared for this notice.

This notice involves a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040 and 0348-0046.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This notice and a map of the areas in Alaska where seal groupings appear discrete may be found at www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources.

Section 3 of the MMPA defines a population stock (referred to as “stock” in this notice) as “...a group of marine mammals of the same species or smaller taxon in a common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.” Section 117 of the MMPA requires that NMFS publish stock assessments for each marine mammal stock under its jurisdiction. These stock assessment reports (SARs) provide a summary of information on each stock’s geographic range, abundance, and annual productivity. Additionally, SARs provide information about human-caused sources of mortality or serious injury for each marine mammal stock. An accurate characterization of stocks is necessary to meet the goals of the MMPA.

While the MMPA does not provide further guidance for identifying marine mammal stocks other than the definition above, NMFS describes its recommended approach to stock identification in its guidelines for preparing stock assessment reports. This approach is based on language in the purposes and policies sections of the MMPA that asserts that population stocks of marine mammals should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to be a functioning element of the ecosystem of which they are a part. The guidelines further note that a stock is a management unit that identifies a demographically isolated biological population. At the same time, the guidelines acknowledge the difficulties in obtaining comprehensive stock structure information due to resource constraints.

The guidelines state that careful consideration needs to be given to how stocks are defined, particularly where mortality may be greater than sustainable levels (above the calculated Potential Biological Removal level). An inappropriately defined stock could lead to localized depletions or extirpations.

Long-term movements and dispersal of marine mammals impact the genetic makeup of these animals. For instance, a small amount of breeding among individuals can be enough to prevent strong genetic differences from developing among adjacent groups of animals. When genetic differences are found among groups of seals, this indicates that gene flow, and movement or dispersal, among the groups is extremely low. Therefore, results of studies that show significant genetic differences provide a minimum estimate of the degree of population or stock structure. In other words, if a genetic analysis reveals some number of distinct, genetically differentiated units, a minimum of that number of demographically independent units is virtually certain.

Under Section 119 of the MMPA, NMFS signed a co-management agreement (Agreement) with the ANHSC, a representative body for native subsistence users of harbor seals in Alaska, in April 1999. The goals of this Agreement include promoting the sustained health of harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina ) in Alaska and the culture and way of life of Native Alaskans who rely on the harvest of harbor seals for subsistence purposes. In the Agreement, NMFS and the ANHSC agreed to identify and resolve, as early as possible, and through a consultative process, any conservation issues that may arise associated with harbor seals. Over the past two years, the Alaska Scientific Review Group (SRG), a regional scientific advisory group formed pursuant to the MMPA; the Marine Mammal Commission, a national scientific advisory group formed pursuant to the MMPA; and the Alaska Harbor Seal Co-management Committee, a group of NMFS and ANHSC advisors formed pursuant to the Co-management Agreement, have all raised the need to redefine harbor seal stock structure in Alaska.

Consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, the Co-management Committee met in June 2001, to determine how to proceed with reviewing and using the newly available results of the genetics studies in a management context. The Co-management Committee agreed upon the following 3-phase process: (1) to inform all constituents about the results and availability of the genetics data; (2) to solicit additional input and discuss relevant information such as harbor seal abundance, distribution, and movement, as well as traditional and local knowledge; and (3) to make recommendations to NMFS regarding the use of all appropriate information in revising harbor seal stock structure in Alaska.

The steps identified for this process included peer-review and publication of the genetics analysis by NMFS scientists; publication of a Federal Register notice to notify interested parties about the genetics results and to solicit additional information and viewpoints related to the stock structure for harbor seals; and discussion of all pertinent information in the co-management process to evaluate and revise harbor seal stock structure. The genetics analyses have been peer-reviewed at several scientific meetings and the results are in the process of being published in technical journals (for more information about these analyses, consult the contacts listed under For Further Information Contact). Since June 2001, the results of these studies, and the process for incorporating these results into the marine mammal stock assessment reports, have also been discussed at several SRG meetings and at a meeting convened by the Co-management Committee to review the harbor seal research plan. The ANHSC also discussed this issue at its meeting in Dillingham, Alaska April 29 through May 1, 2002. NMFS is now publishing this Federal Register notice to solicit comments from interested constituents on additional information and viewpoints regarding population stock structure of harbor seals in Alaska. Following receipt of these comments, NMFS and the ANHSC will incorporate all available information, scientific and non-scientific, into its discussions and recommendations for a proposed revision to the currently recognized harbor seal population stock structure.

Following is a summary of recent genetic analyses, telemetry and seal movement data, and population trend studies related to Alaska harbor seal stock structure.

Genetics Studies : Recent genetic analyses indicate a much finer level of genetic differentiation among Alaska harbor seals than the current Stock Assessment Reports indicate, (three harbor seal stocks throughout the state). These analyses identify twelve genetically and demographically independent groups of seals indicating that a minimum amount of movement by seals occurs between or among the following areas: the Pribilof Islands; Bristol Bay; Tugidak Island; the northeast side of Kodiak Island; the southwest corner of Cook Inlet; the south side of the Kenai Peninsula; Prince William Sound; Glacier Bay; the inside waters (shielded from the Gulf of Alaska by large islands) of northern Southeast Alaska; the outside waters (open to the Gulf of Alaska) of northern Southeast Alaska; the inside waters of southern Southeast Alaska; and the outside waters of southern Southeast Alaska (for a map of these areas see Electronic Access).

Due to data collection limitations, some areas of the harbor seal’s range cannot be included in any of the genetic groupings. Therefore, these genetic data do not represent all animals or areas in Alaska inhabited by harbor seals. However, other scientific data can be used to define distinct groups of animals in areas where genetic information is lacking. Available telemetry and seal movements data, as well as population trend data, for instance, may be used to supplement genetic analyses and infer differences among groups of harbor seals in different locations.

Results of Movement and Telemetry Studies : Satellite tagging provides useful information on the behavior and ranges of individual seals as well as insight into how stocks may be structured. Telemetry studies are important because they track movements that suggest the locations where harbor seals forage and provide information on geographic dispersal. The results of most telemetry studies on harbor seals in Alaska indicate that the animals move short distances (less than 50 kilometers). In fact, most studies indicate that the majority of adult harbor seals remain close to the location where they were tagged. For this reason, harbor seals in Alaska are generally characterized as non-migratory. The movements of adult seals support the conclusion that harbor seals exist in discrete groups among various locations.

The telemetry studies also provide information regarding geographic and habitat features that animals do not cross that may represent long-term barriers to gene flow among groups of seals. For instance, extensive tagging data from the Kodiak Archipelago indicate minimal movement of harbor seals across Shelikof Strait to the Alaska Peninsula, suggesting that this deep-water trench may be an effective barrier to harbor seal dispersal.

Other studies of harbor seal movement patterns suggest that at least two additional areas in Alaska may contain harbor seals that are discrete from seals in adjacent areas. These two areas include the Aleutian Islands west of Unimak Pass and the northeastern Gulf of Alaska coast between Cape Suckling and Icy Strait (see Electronic Access). Harbor seals in the Aleutian Islands may also be considered discrete from seals to the east (on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula) based primarily on distance between haulout sites and potential oceanographic barriers between this region and the remainder of Alaska.

The Cape Suckling to Icy Strait region of the eastern Gulf of Alaska consists of an extensive expanse of open-ocean coastline with few haulout sites. The sites that exist in this area are clustered in relatively isolated bays and inlets along the coastline that are separated from each other by long distances of relatively straight, open coastline. Inferences from the telemetry data suggest that seals in this region are geographically isolated from other adjacent groups of seals.

Results from Population Trend Analyses : The results of counts at population trend-sites throughout the Gulf of Alaska provide additional evidence that harbor seals have a finer scale stock structure than the current SAR indicates. These counts indicate stable or increasing harbor seal numbers in Southeast Alaska, except for Glacier Bay which shows a declining trend; several distinct trends in the central Gulf of Alaska; and possibly a declining trend in the Bering Sea.

Southeast Alaska: Trend-sites for the Southeast Alaska stock were established in Ketchikan (1983), in Sitka (1984), and in Glacier Bay (1992). Current trend data for the Ketchikan trend-sites show an increasing trend among harbor seals of 7.4 percent per year (1983-1998). The Sitka area exhibits a relatively stable trend of 1.1 percent per year (1984-1999). Glacier Bay experienced a decreasing trend of -7.5 percent per year between 1992-98. These trend data indicate that Southeast Alaska is likely occupied by more than one discrete harbor seal group.

Gulf of Alaska: The Kodiak Archipelago and Prince William Sound represent the principal trend-site areas for the current Gulf of Alaska stock of harbor seals. Tugidak Island, in the Kodiak Archipelago, is the main long-term trend index site. The Tugidak Island trend-site has demonstrated an historical decline of approximately 90 percent from the mid-1970s to the 1990s. However, counts at the Tugidak Island site have indicated a 6.7 percent per year increase from 1994-1999 during the pupping period, and 4.9 percent increase per year during the molting period. Recent trend data from the greater Kodiak area (1993-1999) suggest an increasing trend of 5.6 percent per year. Overall, however, seal abundance in this area remains substantially below abundance levels in the 1970s. In Prince William Sound, counts from surveys conducted during the harbor seal molt period have declined by 58 percent since the first trend count surveys were conducted in the early 1980s. Thus, the population trend data support genetic evidence that the Gulf of Alaska is likely to contain more than one stock of harbor seals.

Bering Sea: A trend route was recently established in the eastern Bering Sea area along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula in Bristol Bay. The Bristol Bay trend route (1998-2001) indicates a declining trend of -1.3 percent per year. Total counts of harbor seals in the Bering Sea were also obtained in the 1970s and are considerably higher than the more recent counts on the Bristol Bay trend-site route. Recent population trends (1990-2000) for the land-based trend-site at Nanvak Bay indicate an increasing rate of 9.2 percent per year during the pupping period and 2.1 percent per year during the molting period. Counts in the Bering Sea are complicated by the sympatric ranges of harbor seals and spotted seals (P. largha); the two species are indistinguishable from aerial surveys.

The purposes of this notice are: (1) to inform interested constituents that several lines of evidence indicate that harbor seals have a finer-scale stock structure in Alaska than current Stock Assessment Reports indicate; (2) to advise the public that NMFS and ANHSC are evaluating harbor seal stock structure through a co-management process; and (3) to solicit additional information and viewpoints that the public would like NMFS and ANHSC to consider throughout the evaluation of harbor seal stock structure.

On Friday, September 13, 2002, the Committee will meet between 9 a.m.-3 p.m. in Seattle at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. The Committee will review a report on newshell and skip-molt components of the Bering Sea opilio fishery, review status of stocks and guideline harvest levels, and receive a presentation on catchability of crabs in the surveys. The Committee may develop recommendations on these and other issues relating to crab fishery management.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Committee 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 Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’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 Gail Bendixen, 907-271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

1. SOPPs Committee Meeting: September 16, 2002, 10-11: a.m.

The SOPPs Committee will meet to review the status of the Council's Statement of Organizational Practices and Procedures and develop recommended revisions.

2. Information and Education Committee Meeting: September 16, 2002, 11-12 Noon

The Information and Education Committee will meet to review current materials, projects and activities. The Committee will also review and make revisions to a draft strategic plan and discuss upcoming meetings.

3. Protected Resources Committee Meeting: September 16, 2002, 1:30-3 p.m.

The Protected Resources Committee will meet to develop recommendations for a Protected Resources Advisory Panel, discuss the Committee's direction and scope of its work.

4. NEPA Committee Meeting: September 16, 2002, 3-4:30 p.m.

The NEPA Committee will meet to review and discuss Committee objectives, direction and scope of its work and receive a presentation regarding the Pacific Groundfish PEIS (Programatic Environmental Impact Statement).

5. Advisory Panel Selection Committee Meeting (CLOSED): September 16, 2002, 4:30-6 p.m.

The Advisory Panel Selection Committee will meet in to review current applications for advisory panel positions and develop recommendations.

6. Shrimp Committee Meeting: September 17, 2002, 8:30-10:30 a.m.

The Shrimp Committee will meet to review the draft options paper for Shrimp Amendment 6 and provide direction to staff regarding revisions. The Committee will also discuss the status of the new TED (Turtle Excluder Device) rule.

7. Spiny Lobster Committee Meeting: September 17, 2002, 10:30-12 Noon

The Spiny Lobster Committee will meet to review and develop recommendations on Florida's request for regulatory action. The Committee will also review and approve a Regulatory Amendment from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council if it is available at the meeting.

8. Snapper Grouper Committee Meeting: September 17, 2002, 1:30-3:30 p.m., and continued on September 18 from 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

The Snapper Grouper Committee will hear a status report on stock assessments for vermilion snapper and black sea bass and an additional report from NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) Southeast Regional Office regarding capacity work in the snapper grouper fishery. The Committee will review a draft of Amendment 13 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and provide additional direction to staff. The Committee will also review a draft of Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper FMP and provide direction to staff.

9. Highly Migratory Species Committee Meeting: September 17, 2002, 3:30-5:30 p.m.

The Highly Migratory Species Committee will meet to review the status of the listing of white marlin under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), discuss bluefin tuna allocations and issues related to the fall meeting of ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna).

10. Dolphin Wahoo Committee Meeting: September 19, 2002, 8:30-12: Noon

Note: A public hearing regarding the revised Atlantic Dolphin Wahoo FMP will be held September 19th beginning at 8:30 a.m. Immediately following the public hearing, the Dolphin Wahoo Committee will receive a briefing on the status of the ACCSP (Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program) including the bycatch monitoring component. The Committee will then review and develop recommendations on the revised Atlantic Dolphin Wahoo FMP.

11. Council Session: September 19, 2002, 1:30-6 p.m.

From 1:30-1:45 p.m., the Council will have a Call to Order, introductions and roll call, adoption of the agenda, and approval of the June 2002 meeting minutes.

From 1:45-2 p.m., the Council will conduct elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman positions and make presentations.

From 2-2:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Spiny Lobster Committee and address Committee recommendations regarding Florida's regulation request.

Beginning at 2 p.m., a public comment period will be held on the State of Florida's request for regulation changes involving the use of short lobsters. Immediately following the comment period, the Council will discuss the issue and make recommendations to staff.

From 2:45-3:30 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Dolphin Wahoo Committee and take action on the Atlantic Dolphin Wahoo FMP.

From 3:30-3:45 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Habitat and Environmental Protection Committee.

From 3:45-4:p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Shrimp Committee and approve options for Amendment 6 to the Shrimp FMP.

From 4-4:30 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Snapper Grouper Committee.

From 4:30-5 p.m., the Council will hear a report from the Advisory Panel Selection Committee and appoint new advisory panel members.

From 5-6 p.m., the Council will receive a legal briefing on litigation affecting the Council (CLOSED SESSION).

12. Council Session: September 20, 2002, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 Noon

From 8:30-8:45 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the SOPPs Committee and approve revised SOPPs for submission to the Secretary of Commerce.

From 8:45-9 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Information and Education Committee.

From 9-9:15 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the Protected Resources Committee.

From 9-9:30 a.m., the Council will hear a report from the NEPA Committee.

From 9:30-10 a.m., the Council will receive a report from the Highly Migratory Species Committee.

From 10-10:30 a.m., the Council will hear NMFS status reports on the Golden/Red Crab FMP management unit emergency request, Shrimp Amendment 5, the Sargassum FMP and the SAW/SARC (Stock Assessment Workshop/Stock Assessment Review Committee). NOAA Fisheries will also give status reports on landings for Atlantic king mackerel, Gulf king mackerel (eastern zone), Atlantic Spanish mackerel, snowy grouper & golden tilefish, wreckfish, greater amberjack and south Atlantic octocorals.

From 10:30-12 Noon, the Council will hear agency and liaison reports, discuss other business and upcoming meetings. Documents regarding these issues are available from the Council office (see ADDRESSES ).

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council 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 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. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) by September 6, 2002.

Tentative Agenda

Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat J. Halsey at the address or by telephone at 1-800-382-6938, #5. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments as the first item of the meeting agenda.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Monday thru Friday or by writing to Pat J. Halsey, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling her at 1-800-382-6938, #5.

The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275, 15 U.S.C. 761 et seq. ) and the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91, 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. ) require the EIA to carry out a centralized, comprehensive, and unified energy information program. This program collects, evaluates, assembles, analyzes, and disseminates information on energy resource reserves, production, demand, technology, and related economic and statistical information. This information is used to assess the adequacy of energy resources to meet near and longer term domestic demands.

The EIA, as part of its effort to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), provides the general public and other Federal agencies with opportunities to comment on collections of energy information conducted by or in conjunction with the EIA. Any comments received help the EIA to prepare data requests that maximize the utility of the information collected, and to assess the impact of collection requirements on the public. Also, the EIA will later seek approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) is a mail survey designed to collect energy consumption and expenditures data from establishments in the manufacturing sector; i.e. , North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 31-33. There are three MECS data collection forms and their use depends on an establishment's primary business activity classification under NAICS. Form EIA-846A collects information for all the manufacturing industries contained within NAICS 31-33 except for NAICS 321, 322, 324, 325, and 331111. Form EIA-846B is for establishments operating primarily in the petroleum refining industry (NAICS 324110). Form EIA-846C is for establishments in NAICS 321, 322, 324 (except 324110), 325 and 331111.

The 2002 MECS will collect information during 2003 for business activities in calendar year 2002. For the 2002 MECS, EIA proposes to collect the following data from each MECS establishment: (1) For each energy source consumed—consumption (total, fuel and nonfuel uses) and the expenditures for each energy source, energy storage (as applicable), and energy produced onsite; (2) energy end uses; (3) general energy-saving technologies; (4) energy management activities; (5) square footage and number of buildings in the establishment; (6) fuel-switching capabilities; and (7) use of equipment and behaviors associated with the adaption to the digital economy.

The MECS has been conducted five times previously, covering the years 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, and 1998. In all five survey years, the MECS has collected baseline data on manufacturers' energy consumption and expenditures. The MECS collected data on fuel-switching capabilities in all years except 1998. In the 1991,1994, and 1998 surveys, the MECS also collected data on end-uses, energy management technologies, building square footage, and energy-saving technologies.

The MECS information is the basis for data and analytic products that can be found in http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs. Also on this website are past publications, articles, and a special analytic series, “Industry Analysis Briefs.” The 2002 MECS will also be used to benchmark EIA's industry forecasting model and update changes in the energy intensity and greenhouse gases data series.

The proposed 2002 MECS uses experience gained from the administration and processing of the five previous surveys and past consultations with respondents, trade association representatives, and data users. EIA has completed a web-based survey of users to obtain their advice and needs for data. The results of that survey can be found at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/mecs/mecs2002/user_needs/results.html.

EIA proposes making several changes from the 1998 MECS for use in the 2002 MECS. The MECS will reinstate the fuel-switching capability data collection questions that last appeared in the 1994 survey. Volatility in energy prices during periods since the 1998 survey coupled with a need to reestablish baseline data have led to its reinstatement. To compensate for the added respondent burden and cost to the government of collecting fuel-switching data, EIA intends to delete the questions on industry-specific technologies. Those questions have proven difficult to keep up-to-date and by themselves cannot give information on the extent to which such technologies influence energy consumption at the manufacturing establishment. The number of additional data items required to do that would be prohibitive. EIA will reexamine the collection of the industry-specific technologies in the future.

EIA is also exploring ways in which the MECS can collect data which would cover energy issues in the area of the digital economy. “Check-off” type questions would be added that would ask about the use of manufacturing controls and real-time electricity price response. Additionally, the number of MECS sample cases would be increased to enable a more detailed breakout of NAICS 334, “Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing.” The additional questions and sample depend on upcoming funding levels.

EIA would like to address certain data quality and reconciliation issues. A question under consideration for addition would ask MECS respondents to identify by name their suppliers of residual fuel oil and possibly other types of energy source suppliers, most likely natural gas. This reporting would be used to identify frame differences with other EIA reporting systems. The same level of strict confidentiality would be maintained for these data items that is in place for the rest of the MECS.

A second small set of proposed new questions would involve the issue of onsite electricity generation. In order to understand the changing financial and operational relationship between manufacturing establishments and associated power generating equipment brought about by electricity restructuring, EIA wants to quantify more exactly the extent to which those generation facilities are being sold to other entities, in whole or in part, and how that change of ownership would affect MECS reporting. Further, there may be a related question about the types of ownership arrangements that could occur.

A third area of interest is the reporting by petroleum refineries. EIA is reexamining the issue of co-located petrochemical plants and whether the current MECS is addressing energy flows properly in order for an energy accounting to be complete and nonduplicative. This reexamination may necessitate some changes in the special refinery form EIA-846B . In all the proposed data quality additions, the expected respondent burden increases would be minimal.

The 1998 MECS made the transition from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to NAICS. To aid in that transition, the major energy consumption tables were presented in terms of both industry classification systems. EIA was able to do that for the 1998 MECS because each manufacturing establishment in the MECS sample carried both a NAICS code and an SIC code. For the 2002 MECS, only the NAICS classifications will be maintained and thus data presentations will be in terms of NAICS only.

Besides the changes already discussed, the content of the 2002 MECS will be largely unchanged from the 1998 survey. The questionnaire will again be primarily in a question-answer format as opposed to the matrix style presentation. The MECS information products will continue to present Census Region level data as well as national data.

Prospective respondents and other interested parties should comment on the actions discussed in item II. The following guidelines are provided to assist in the preparation of comments. Please indicate to which form(s) your comments apply.

A. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency and does the information have practical utility? Practical utility is defined as the actual usefulness of information to or for an agency, taking into account its accuracy, adequacy, reliability, timeliness, and the agency's ability to process the information it collects.

B. What enhancements can be made to the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information to be collected?

B. Are the instructions and definitions clear and sufficient? If not, which instructions need clarification?

C. Can the information be submitted by the due date?

D. Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average eight hours per response for Form EIA-846A, seven hours per response for Form EIA-846B, and nine hours per response for Form EIA-846C. The estimated burden includes the total time necessary to provide the requested information. In your opinion, how accurate is this estimate?

E. The agency estimates that the only cost to a respondent is for the time it will take to complete the collection. Will a respondent incur any start-up costs for reporting, or any recurring annual costs for operation, maintenance, and purchase of services associated with the information collection?

F. What additional actions could be taken to minimize the burden of this collection of information? Such actions may involve the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

G. Does any other Federal, State, or local agency collect similar information? If so, specify the agency, the data element(s), and the methods of collection.

A. What actions could be taken to help ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of the information disseminated?

B. Is the information useful at the levels of detail to be collected?

C. For what purpose(s) would the information be used? Be specific.

D. Are there alternate sources for the information and are they useful? If so, what are their weaknesses and/or strengths?

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

EPA ICR No. 1285.05; Nonconformance Penalties for Heavy-Duty Engines and Heavy-Duty Vehicles, Including Light-Duty Trucks Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements in 40 CFR 86.1105-86.1111; was approved 07/01/2002; OMB No. 2060-0132; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 2025.01; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Friction Materials Manufacturing NESHAP in 40 CFR 63.9535, 63.9540, 63.9545, 63.9550, 63.10 and 63.6; was approved 07/02/2002; OMB No. 2060-0481; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 2066.01; National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Engine Test Cells/Stands in 40 CFR part 63, subpart PPPPP; was approved 07/02/2002; OMB No. 2060-0483; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 2048.01; U.S. EPA Beach Act Grant Program; was approved 07/08/2002; OMB No. 2040-0244; expires 07/31/2005 EPA ICR No. 0783.42; Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance; Light Duty Vehicles, Light Duty Trucks and Motorcycle (Consolidated/Renewal) in 40 CFR parts 85, 86, and 600; was approved 07/16/2002; OMB No. 2060-0104; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 0160.07; Pesticide Registration Application, Notification and Report for Pesticide-Producing Establishments in 40 CFR part 167; was approved 07/23/2002; OMB No. 2070-0078; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 0318.09; Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS); was approved 07/24/2002; OMB No. 2040-0050; expires 07/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 1755.06; Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects Under Project XL1; was approved 08/01/2002; OMB No. 2010-0026; expires 08/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 1854.03; Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry (SOCMI): Consolidation of Information Collection Request (Revision) in 40 CFR parts 65, subparts A—G, part 60, subparts A, BB, Ka, Kb, VV, DDD, III, NNN, and RRR, part 61, subparts BB, Y, V, part 63, subparts F, G, H, and I; was approved 08/07/2002; OMB # 2060-0443; expires 08/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 1292.06; Aftermarket Catalytic Converter Policy; was approved 08/08/2002; OMB No. 2060-0135; expires 08/31/2005.

EPA ICR No. 1867.01 Reporting Requirements under EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership; OMB No. 2060-0411; on 07/02/2002 OMB extended the expiration date through 10/31/2002.

EPA ICR No. 1426.05; EPA Worker Protection Standard for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response in 40 CFR part 311; OMB No. 2050-0105; on 07/31/2002 OMB extended the expiration date through 10/31/2002.

EPA ICR No.1992.01; Implementation of Incentives Designed for EPA's National Environmental Performance Track; on 07/31/2002 OMB filed comment.

EPA ICR No. 1189.10; Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions Cathode Ray Tubes Proposed Rule in 40 CFR 261.4; OMB No. 2050-0053; on 07/02/2002 OMB filed comment.

EPA ICR No. 1597.05; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Universal Waste Handlers and Destination Facilities (Mercury Proposed Rule); in 40 CFR part 273; OMB No. 2050-0145; on 07/02/2002 OMB filed comment.

EPA ICR No. 2042.01; NESHAP for Semiconductor Manufacturing; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart BBBBB; on 07/17/2002; OMB filed comment.

EPA ICR No. 1995.01; Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for the Coke Oven NESHAP; Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks; in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC; on 07/08/2002 OMB filed comment.

EPA ICR No. 1813.03; Regional Haze Rule—Proposed Revisions to Incorporate Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes in 40 CFR 51.309; OMB No. 2060-0421; on 07/02/2002 OMB comment filed and continue.

EPA ICR No. 1993.01; Evaluations of Innovative Pilot Project Innovations; on 07/19/2002 this ICR was withdrawn from OMB review.

EPA promulgated a final rule amending the MACT General Provisions, 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and the requirements for case-by-case determinations under Clean Air Act section 112(j), 40 CFR 63.50-63.56, on April 5, 2002. 67 FR 16582. The Sierra Club filed a petition seeking judicial review of this final rule on April 25, 2002. Sierra Club v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , No. 02-1135 (D.C. Circuit). On June 4, 2002, Sierra Club also filed a petition seeking administrative reconsideration of certain provisions in the final rule, pursuant to Clean Air Act section 307(d)(7)(B).

Sierra Club and EPA have now reached initial agreement on a settlement of the case which could lead to the voluntary dismissal of the petition for review. The settlement requires the EPA Administrator to sign a proposed rule incorporating certain amendments no later than two months after the date the settlement was signed by counsel for the parties and lodged with the court. The settlement also requires the EPA Administrator to take final action concerning the proposed rule within seven months from the date of signature and lodging.

Under the settlement, EPA will propose to reduce the time period between submission of part 1 applications under Clean Air Act section 112(j), and submission of the more detailed part 2 application, from 24 months to 12 months. EPA originally proposed a time period of 6 months between the two parts. In view of the current schedule for promulgation of remaining MACT standards, EPA anticipates that the one year period will permit proposed MACT standards to be issued prior to the part 2 applications, thereby reducing the burden associated with preparation of the part 2 applications. EPA also anticipates that the one year period should be sufficient to prevent any need for actual issuance of case-by-case determinations under section 112(j) for all or virtually all affected source categories.

The settlement also requires that EPA propose certain amendments to the section in the MACT General Provisions which governs preparation of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM) plans, 40 CFR 63.6(e). EPA considers these changes to be modest in nature and consistent with the policies concerning these SSM plans described in the preamble of the original proposal.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement. Although the comment opportunity required by section 113(g) is only mandatory with respect to persons who are not named as parties or interveners in the case in question, EPA does not believe it would be appropriate in this instance to exclude comment by those parties who have requested and been granted intervention in the Sierra Club case, or by those parties who have submitted petitions concerning the same rulemaking in consolidated cases. Unlike a consent degree or court-ordered settlement, no action by the Court is required to execute the settlement agreement in this case. Therefore, EPA will exercise its discretion to accept comment on the settlement agreement from all interested persons.

EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determine, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

Regulated Entity. The entity regulated by this action is Lubrizol.

Pursuant to sections 211(b)(2) and 211(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) EPA promulgated regulations requiring manufacturers of designated fuels and fuel additives (F/FA) to conduct tests to determine the potential health effects of the F/FA emissions. The final rule, promulgated May 27, 1994, established new health-effects testing requirements for the registration of designated F/FAs (59 FR 33042).

The registration requirements are organized within a three-tier structure. Tier 1 requires F/FA manufacturers to supply to EPA (1) the identity and concentration of certain emission products, and (2) any available information regarding the health and welfare effects of the whole and speciated emissions. 40 CFR 79.52. Tier 2 requires that combustion emissions of each F/FA subject to the testing requirements be tested for subchronic systemic and organic toxicity, as well as the assessment of specific health-effect endpoints. 40 CFR 79.53. Tier 3 testing may be required, at EPA's discretion, when remaining uncertainties as to the significance of observed health or welfare effects, or emissions exposures, interfere with EPA's ability to reasonably assess the potential risks posed by the emissions from a F/FA. 40 CFR 79.54. EPA's regulations permit submission of adequate existing test data in lieu of conducting new, duplicative tests. 40 CFR 79.53(b).

At its discretion, EPA may modify the standard Tier 2 health-effects testing requirements for a F/FA (or group thereof) by substituting, adding, or deleting testing requirements, or changing the underlying vehicle/engine specifications. 40 CFR 79.58(c). EPA will not, however, delete a testing requirement for a specific end point in the absence of existing adequate information, or an alternative testing requirement for that endpoint. 40 CFR 79.58(c).

On May 3, 2002 EPA notified Lubrizol of proposed Alternative Tier 2 testing requirements under 40 CFR 79.58(c) for Lubrizol's Winter PuriNO X formulation. The proposed Alternative Tier 2 testing requirements were identical to the standard Tier 2 requirements with the exception that the test fuel would be the Winter PuriNO X formulation, consisting of 74% diesel fuel, 16.8% water, 5.7% methanol, and 3.5% PuriNO X Generation 2 Additive Package. Under the standard Tier 2 requirements the water and methanol would have been tested separately in diesel fuel. EPA believed that, since such separate formulations would never occur in the production of Winter PuriNO X , testing of the proposed test fuel, which corresponds with its commercial composition, would produce more meaningful health-effects testing results.

Lubrizol has already conducted standard Tier 2 testing on a warm-climate PuriNO X formulation, consisting of 77% diesel fuel, 20% water, and 3% PuriNO X 1121A Additive Package. EPA also proposed that this testing, in conjunction with the Alternative Tier 2 testing for Winter PuriNO X , would be sufficient to meet the Tier 2 requirements for intermediate PuriNO X combinations of diesel fuel, water, methanol, and additive package. 1 An associated Federal Register notice (67 FR 35808, May 21, 2002) initiated a 30-day public comment period. Only one comment was received, and it did not address either proposal. The EPA has concluded that both proposals will be finalized without change, and has notified Lubrizol by letter. A copy of the letter has been placed in the docket referenced above.

This action will result in no immediate environmental impact, but may provide a basis for further regulatory action, should the collected data indicate that there may be a risk to public health or welfare.

This action will reduce the testing expense for Lubrizol by reducing the number of test fuels. Since this applies only to Lubrizol, which is not a small entity, there is no economic impact on small entities.

In FY 1999 and 2000, EPA stated that $100 million additional grant dollars appropriated by Congress under Section 319 of the CWA (referred to as “incremental funds”) were to be focused on implementing watershed restoration action strategies (“WRASs”) in high-priority watersheds identified by States as being “in need of restoration.” In FY 2001, EPA recognized the need to increasingly focus Section 319 grant dollars on implementing approved total maximum daily loads (“TMDLs”) for waters that are impaired in whole or in part by nonpoint sources (hereinafter “NPS TMDLs”), under EPA's existing effective TMDL regulations and guidance. Based on this need, EPA stated that incremental funds may be used in FY 2001, in addition to the activities authorized in FY 1999 and 2000, to fund the development and implementation of approved NPS TMDLs for Section 303(d)-listed waterbodies, as well as to develop and implement WRASs.

On September 13, 2001, EPA published Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and Territories in FY 2002 and Subsequent Years (66 FR 47653-47657). These guidelines modified the approach of FY 1999-2001 by focusing the incremental funds entirely on NPS TMDLs rather than on WRASs. Specifically, EPA required that States use the incremental funds only within 303(d)-listed waters to develop NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans that describe the actions that are necessary to implement NPS TMDLs; and to implement NPS TMDLs for which watershed plans have been completed.

Since the publication of the FY 2002 NPS guidance on September 13, 2001, EPA has held numerous public meetings around the country with States and other interested parties regarding the most appropriate means to restore waters that are listed by States as impaired under Section 303(d) of the CWA. A significant amount of discussion at these meetings and in other fora has focused upon the FY 2002 NPS guidance and generated further thinking as to the most effective means to promote expeditious implementation of nonpoint source controls needed to achieve water quality standards. Based upon these discussions and upon further reflection by EPA, EPA has decided that, for FY 2003 and subsequent years, we will somewhat modify the approach taken in the FY 2002 guidelines. The modified approach is discussed below.

Several earlier guidance documents govern the Section 319 grants process, and they remain in effect for FY 2003 and subsequent years except to the extent that they are specifically modified in this memorandum. These are summarized in Appendix A to this memorandum and may all be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps.

The priority objective for the use of Section 319 grant funds is to implement the national policy, set forth in Section 101(a) of the CWA, that nonpoint source programs be implemented expeditiously to achieve the goals of the CWA, including the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. To achieve this objective, the guidance places top priority on implementing on-the-ground measures and practices that will reduce pollutant loads and contribute to the restoration of impaired waters. The process described below achieves this objective by directing the use of incremental Section 319 funds ($100 million) to the development and implementation of watershed-based plans that are designed to restore waters that have been listed by States as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.

This guidance also facilitates smooth and effective integration of Section 319 program objectives with those set forth in the new Farm Bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002). The new Farm Bill provides more conservation funding for agricultural producers than any previous Farm Bill. As discussed below, this FY 2003 guidance strongly promotes States' use of 20 percent of both the base funds and incremental funds to develop watershed-based plans that holistically identify watershed-based problems and their solutions. By working closely with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) State conservationists, local conservation districts, and agricultural producers to identify those areas and practices in greatest need of assistance to address water quality concerns, State nonpoint source agencies can help promote integrated approaches by all agencies and funding sources to address these needs. We strongly encourage State 319 agencies to coordinate with these critical partners to assess water quality needs, develop watershed-based plans, and to implement appropriate practices using Section 319, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and other funding sources.

Beginning in FY 2003, EPA will award Section 319 funds only in accordance with the following principles:

1. As in the past, States may use the “base funds” for the full range of activities addressed in their approved NPS management programs. EPA notes in particular that States have the opportunity to focus much of these funds upon activities that protect threatened waters. In any event, States have great flexibility as to how to focus these funds.

2. As in the past, States may use up to 20% of the “base” funds to develop NPS TMDLs and watershed-based plans to implement NPS TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans in the absence of or prior to completion of TMDLs; develop watershed-based plans that focus on the protection of threatened waters or other unimpaired waters; and conduct other NPS monitoring and program assessment/development activities. EPA expects States to prioritize their Section 319-supported NPS TMDL development activities in accordance with their TMDL schedules that they have developed pursuant to their Section 303(d) lists.

3. States may use up to 20% of the “incremental” $100 million funds to develop NPS TMDLs as well as to develop watershed-based plans that describe the actions that are necessary to implement NPS activities in watersheds of Section 303(d)-listed waters. Where a NPS TMDL for the affected waters has already been developed and approved or is being developed, the watershed-based plan must be designed to achieve the load reductions called for in the NPS TMDL. However, where a NPS TMDL has not yet been developed and approved or is not yet being developed for the waters, the State may use these funds to develop a watershed-based plan in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, the plan must be designed to reduce NPS pollutant loadings that are contributing to non-attainment of water quality standards. However, once the TMDL is completed and approved, the plan must be modified as appropriate to be consistent with the load allocation portion contained within the TMDL. For example, if the TMDL assigns a load allocation to nonpoint sources that requires greater than previously estimated load reductions, the watershed-based plan must be modified to reflect the increased nonpoint source load reduction needed to implement the TMDL.

EPA encourages States to develop NPS TMDLs or, where applicable, sets of NPS TMDLs on a watershed basis. We encourage States to implement watershed-based plans holistically, as this approach usually provides the most technically sound and economically efficient means of addressing water quality problems. Consistent with this approach, EPA encourages States to include in their watershed-based plans approaches that will address all of the sources and causes of impairments and threats to the watersheds in question. Thus, the watershed-based plans should address not only the sources of water quality impairment, but also any pollutants and sources of pollution that need to be addressed to assure the long-term health of the watershed. Finally, since watersheds with completed TMDLs have the best documentation of the load reductions needed to achieve water quality standards, EPA recommends that States assign the highest priority to implementing watershed-based plans for waters that have completed TMDLs.

We recognize that some States have not yet developed sufficiently detailed watershed-based plans to help the States and their partners determine which management measures or practices should be implemented in particular places in the watershed to assure the achievement of desired load reduction (whether identified in a NPS TMDL or prior to its development) and to ensure that all significant water quality problems in the watershed are successfully addressed. In such cases, a State may need to use more than 20% of its incremental funds to develop sound watershed-based plans that can then be implemented successfully. Where this is the case, the State and the Region should discuss the State's need to devote greater resources to completing watershed-based plans, recognizing at the same time the urgent need to focus most Section 319 funds on actual implementation efforts to achieve water quality improvements. Based on these discussions, the Region may authorize the State to use more than 20% of the incremental funds to develop these watershed-based plans in appropriate circumstances.

To ensure that Section 319 projects funded with incremental dollars make progress towards restoring waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution, watershed-based plans that are developed or implemented with Section 319 funds to address 303(d)-listed waters must include at least the elements listed below. Where the watershed-based plan is designed to implement a TMDL, these elements will help provide reasonable assurance that the nonpoint source load allocations identified in the NPS TMDL or anticipated in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the watershed will be achieved, as discussed in the Assistant Administrator's August 8, 1997 memorandum, “New Policies for Establishing and Implementing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).” However, even if a NPS TMDL has not yet been completed, EPA believes that these nine elements are critical to assure that public funds to address impaired waters are used effectively. (See also Appendix C of the May 1996 Nonpoint Source Guidance for more discussion of a “well-designed watershed implementation plan,” which specifically discusses most of the elements listed below.)

a. An identification of the causes and sources or groups of similar sources that will need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based plan (and to achieve any other watershed goals identified in the watershed-based plan), as discussed in item (b) immediately below. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X numbers of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation).

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected for the management measures described under paragraph (c) below (recognizing the natural variability and the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time). Estimates should be provided at the same level as in item (a) above (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots; row crops; or eroded streambanks).

c. A description of the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the load reductions estimated under paragraph (b) above (as well as to achieve other watershed goals identified in this watershed-based plan), and an identification (using a map or a description) of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

d. An estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this plan. As sources of funding, States should consider the use of their Section 319 programs, State Revolving Funds, USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve Program, and other relevant Federal, State, local and private funds that may be available to assist in implementing this plan.

e. An information/education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented.

f. A schedule for implementing the NPS management measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.

g. A description of interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management measures or other control actions are being implemented.

h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made towards attaining water quality standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether this watershed-based plan needs to be revised or, if a NPS TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised.

i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under item (h) immediately above.

In commenting on a draft of these guidelines, several States noted the difficulty of developing this information with precision and suggested that States should be authorized to begin implementing projects without having first developed some or all of this information. EPA believes, as this guidance reflects, that there must be a balanced approach to address this concern. On one hand, it is absolutely critical that States make, at the subcategory level, a reasonable effort to identify the significant sources; identify the management measures that will most effectively address those sources; and broadly estimate the expected load reductions that will result. Without such information to provide focus and direction to the project's implementation, it is much less likely that the project can efficiently and effectively address the nonpoint sources of water quality impairments. On the other hand, EPA recognizes that even with reasonable steps to obtain and analyze relevant data, the available information at the planning stage (within reasonable time and cost constraints) may be limited; preliminary information and estimates may need to be modified over time, accompanied by mid-course corrections in the watershed plan; and it often will require a number of years of effective implementation for a project to achieve its goals. EPA fully intends that the watershed planning process described above should be implemented in a dynamic and iterative manner to assure that projects whose plans address each of the nine elements above may proceed even though some of the information in the watershed plan is imperfect and may need to be modified over time as information improves.

4. States must use any incremental funds that remain after Step 3 above to implement watershed-based plans that have been completed. Regions should assure that the plans have been completed and address all of the nine elements prior to awarding the grant. To assure that the implementation of these watershed-based plans actually results in the restoration of watersheds, as well as to maximize efficiencies in the implementation of all watershed-based plans, we recommend that States use these incremental Section 319 funds on a watershed basis to develop and implement the watershed-based plans for all the waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution in a watershed. In addition, as in the plan development stage, we recommend that States' implementation activities also address other significant sources and pollutants in the watershed, including both those that are causing water quality impairments and others that are not currently causing water quality impairments but that nonetheless should be controlled to assure a successful long-term solution to the watershed's existing and threatened water quality problems.

The watershed-based plan must address a large enough geographic area so that its implementation will solve the water quality problems for the watershed. While there is no rigorous definition or delineation for this concept, the general intent is to avoid single segments or other narrowly defined areas that do not provide an opportunity for addressing a watershed's stressors in a rational and economic manner. However, once a watershed plan meeting the nine items listed above has been established, a State may choose to implement it in portions (e.g., based on particular segments, other geographic subdivisions, or NPS categories in the watershed), consistent with the schedule established pursuant to item (f) above.

We recognize that States already have in place or have been developing watershed plans and strategies of varying levels of scale, scope, and specificity that may contribute significantly to the process of developing and implementing watershed-based plans. We encourage States to use these plans and strategies, where appropriate, as building blocks for developing and implementing the watershed-based plans. (Where these plans and strategies have been developed at a basin-wide or other large geographic scale, they will generally need to be refined at a smaller watershed scale to provide the information needs for the nine items identified above as required for watershed-based plans.) In particular, we recommend that States use their continuing planning processes, water quality management plans (WQMPs), WRASs, comprehensive conservation and management plans (CCMPs), coastal nonpoint pollution control programs under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, and other similar holistic watershed documents, to help guide their watershed-based approaches to watershed-based plan development and implementation.

We further recommend that States give their highest funding priority to projects that are supported by additional funding from other Federal, State, and local agencies, Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRF), or private sector funding. Additionally, States should consult their SRF Program's Integrated Planning and Priority Setting System, if such system is in use, to address the highest priority water quality improvement projects (see http://www.epa.gov/owm/finan.html ). Given the significant expense of many watershed projects, such an approach will help expedite successful implementation of needed practices and thus speed the restoration of water quality. It will also help assure that watersheds are addressed in a holistic manner that accounts for the broad variety of stressors in the watersheds.

While States need to place very high priority on the need to restore waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution, as described above, EPA wishes to recognize and emphasize the continued need to protect waters that currently are not impaired by nonpoint source pollution to assure that they remain unimpaired. This particularly includes waters in which the good quality is threatened by such factors as changing land uses. EPA recommends that States place a high priority for the use of their base Section 319 funding on such protective activity. This includes both on-the-ground projects and broader educational and regulatory programs established by the State to promote broad awareness and implementation of activities that can help protect these waters from degradation by new and expanded land use activities which cause nonpoint source pollution.

EPA recognizes that in a few States, there is a uniquely high-priority need to focus significant funds on prevention activities in addition to the need for remediating impaired waters. While all States have significant pollution prevention and water quality protection needs, there are certain States with extensive aquatic resources that are especially valuable and at serious risk of irreparable harm, including especially good-quality aquatic habitat for salmon migration, spawning, and rearing. Therefore, EPA Regions may authorize States to use a portion of incremental funds to the extent necessary to address these unique situations. Such variation from the norm is intended to occur in only a handful of States at most, and may be provided only upon a finding by the Region that:

• The State has extensive unique aquatic resources that are especially valuable and at serious risk of irreparable harm and that therefore require a special focus on protection activities. These resources and threats to them should be documented in the State's 305(b) report.

• The State has established a schedule for TMDL development consistent with an even pace and completion of needed TMDLs within 8 to 13 years of listing.

• The State is completing TMDLs in reasonable accord with the established development schedules.

• The State has committed, upon completion and approval of any TMDL, to incorporate the TMDL's load allocations into any watershed plan that has been developed for the waterbody addressed by the TMDL, as discussed above in this guidance in the third principle in the section “Continued Focus On Restoring Waters Impaired By NPS Pollution.”

• The State is or commits to including loading reduction estimates in all Section 319 projects as required by EPA's September 27, 2001, memorandum from Robert H. Wayland III entitled, “Modification to Nonpoint Source Reporting Requirements for Section 319 Grants,” http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/grts.html , and as discussed further below in the section “Reporting NPS Results.”

Each Section 319 grant must contain a condition requiring that the State assure that its project sub-awards (e.g., sub-contracts and sub-grants) include a provision that any management practices implemented for the project be properly operated and maintained for an appropriate period of years. Following the approach used in many State and Federal funding programs, EPA recommends that State provisions generally ensure that practices are operated and maintained for a period of at least five to ten years.

For assistance in developing appropriate grant condition language, Regions should work with their Office of Regional Counsel. States may wish to consult with colleagues implementing similar programs, such as U.S. Department of Agriculture's conservation programs, for information on how to develop appropriate contract language and operation and maintenance periods that are tailored to the types of practices expected to be funded in a particular project.

Section 319(h)(8) of the CWA requires EPA to determine, prior to awarding a Section 319 grant, that the State has made “satisfactory progress” in meeting the schedule set forth in its NPS management program. When making this determination, the Region should include in the decision memo for the grant a concise summary of the basis for the determination. In addition, Section 319(h)(11) requires that States report annually to EPA concerning their progress in meeting their schedules of milestones contained in their nonpoint source management programs and, to the extent that appropriate information is available, reductions in nonpoint source pollutant loading and improvements in water quality. These annual reports in turn can assist the Region in making the satisfactory progress determination required by Section 319(h)(8).

To provide a mechanism for the State to meet the reporting requirement in Section 319(h)(11), as well as assist in the dissemination of information on States' progress in implementing their NPS programs, EPA is now upgrading the nonpoint source grants computer-based data system, the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS), which will include new and modified data elements to be reported by States. The most significant new mandated fields include the following: (1) Identify the location of the stream (or other waterbody) reach or reaches that are intended to be affected by each Section 319-funded project; (2) describe the project; (3) state whether the project consists of one or more of (a) the development of a NPS TMDL, (b) the development of a NPS TMDL implementation plan to achieve specific load-reduction goals, (c) the actual implementation of such a plan or (d) none of the above; and (4) annually provide (for nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or sediments) an estimate of load reductions achieved by the project and (for streambank and wetlands protection or restoration projects) the linear feet of streambank, or acres of wetlands, protected or restored. EPA intends to use these data as a means of tracking and reporting to Congress and the public the progress being made by States to successfully implement their NPS TMDLs and other projects to improve water quality.

To ensure that States meet the reporting requirement in section 319(h)(11) by entering information into GRTS, Regions must require States to enter all mandated data elements into GRTS as part of their negotiation of the evaluation process and reports under 40 CFR 35.115, and include it as a condition in grant awards of Section 319 funds. Information that is available at the time of grant award (e.g., project location and description) should generally be entered into GRTS within 3 months of the receipt of the grant or by a specific date agreed to by the Region and State. Other information should be entered at the appropriate time after project implementation has begun (e.g., estimated load reductions would be reported annually once project implementation has progressed to the point that practices have been installed or implemented).

The upgraded GRTS system, including text fields, will enable States to satisfy all of their annual reporting requirements through GRTS. However, many States are using their annual reports as a means to not only meet statutory reporting requirements but also to educate State legislatures, other agencies, and the public, of the progress that they are making through implementation of their nonpoint source programs. Therefore, States may find it most beneficial to publish a separate annual report, but to do so in a cost- and time-saving manner that borrows heavily from the project summaries and data reported in GRTS.

Circumstances may arise which a State believes require it to develop and submit a work plan in a particular year that fails to meet one or more requirements in these guidelines. If such a circumstance arises, and the State believes that the circumstance justifies a waiver from one or more requirements in these guidelines, the State may submit a request for a waiver to EPA's Regional Water Division Director. The request should identify the requirement from which a waiver is requested; the circumstances requiring the waiver; a description of the activities and projects that the State will be implementing in lieu of those required by these guidelines; and a commitment to adhere to the guidelines to the greatest extent possible. The Regional Division Director may approve the waiver for the year requested with the concurrence of the Director of the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.

Please note that this waiver process applies only to the requirements established in these and previous Section 319 guidelines; it does not apply to any statutory or regulatory requirements reiterated in these guidelines. In addition, this process is not required for any Regional authorization of the use of more than 20% of incremental funds to develop watershed-based plans in appropriate circumstances as discussed earlier in this memorandum.

Significant challenges remain in our efforts to abate NPS pollution, protect threatened waters, and restore impaired aquatic resources. EPA will work with States to make the most effective use of Federal resources to meet these challenges.

The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology was established by Executive Order 13226, on September 30, 2001. The purpose of PCAST is to advise the President on matters of science and technology policy, and to assist the President's National Science and Technology Council in securing private sector participation in its activities. The Council members are distinguished individuals appointed by the President from non-Federal sectors. The PCAST is co-chaired by Dr. John H. Marburger III, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and by E. Floyd Kvamme, a Partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

It is the policy of the Fish and Wildlife Service to have all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive conservation plan. The plan guides management decisions and identifies the goals, objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes. Public input into this planning process is encouraged. The plan will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the management strategies to be implemented.

The Service has initiated the planning process for Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge for the conservation and enhancement of its natural resources. Covering approximately 140,000 acres and including designations such as Essential Fish Habitat, Outstanding Florida Waters, Great Florida birding Trail Eastern Gateway, Candidate Marine Protected Area, and Brevard County Historic Landmark, the refuge spans Brevard and Volusia Counties and is generally located between the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon, near the city of Titusville, Florida.

The Service is especially interested in receiving public input during this planning process. What do you value most about the refuge? What problems or issues do you see affecting management or public use of the refuge? What improvements do you recommend for the refuge? What changes, if any, would you like to see in the management of the refuge? The Service has provided these questions for optional use and has no requirement that information be provided.

The Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

The Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is in southern Sacramento County, California, adjacent to the community of Elk Grove. The refuge is situated within the Morrison Creek, Cosumnes River, and Mokelumne River watersheds, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta).

The beginnings of the refuge started in the early 1970s with the recognition of the importance of the Stone Lakes Basin floodplain by the State of California and the County of Sacramento. There was strong support for a refuge because the unique lakes and waterways of the basin are entirely within the 100-year floodplain. The basin also occupies a strategic location for buffering urban encroachment into the Delta.

The refuge boundary was established in 1992 and with its first land acquisition in 1994 was officially designated the 505th unit in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The approved refuge boundary is 18,000 acres with the refuge currently owning or managing more than 4,000 acres.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, mandates that all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. The CCP will guide management decisions and identify refuge goals, long-range objectives and management strategies for achieving refuge purposes. The planning process will consider many elements, including habitat and wildlife management, habitat protection, cultural resources, and environmental effects. Public input into this planning process is very important and encouraged. The CCP will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the refuges and how the Service will implement management strategies.

The Service is soliciting information from the public via written comments. The Service will send out special mailings, newspaper articles, and announcements to people who are interested in the refuge. These mailings will provide information on how to participate in public involvement for the CCP. Comments received will be used to develop goals, key issues, and habitat management strategies. Additional opportunities for public participation will occur throughout the process. Data collection has been initiated to create computerized mapping, including vegetation, topography, habitat types and existing land uses.

Public open houses have been scheduled for the following dates and locations. All meeting times are from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

1. Monday, September 16, 2002, at the Elk Grove Community Services District Board Room, 8820 Elk Grove Blvd., Elk Grove, CA 95624.

2. Thursday, September 26, 2002, at the Clunie Community Center (Auditorium)—McKinnley Park, 601 Alhambra Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95816.

3. Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at the Jean Harvie Community Center, 14273 River Road, Walnut Grove, CA 95690.

4. Thursday, October 10, 2002, at the Veterans' Memorial Center—(Club Room), 203 East 14th Street—(corner of 14th & B Street), Davis, CA 95616.

The outcome of this planning process will be a CCP to guide the refuge management for the next 15 years. We have estimated that a draft CCP and NEPA document will be made available for public review in early 2004.

The permit application, HCP, and the Service's low-effect HCP screening form are available for public review. The HCP describes the proposed project and the measures that the Applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate take of Point Arena mountain beavers. The screening form describes the basis for the Service's preliminary determination that the HCP qualifies as a low effect plan eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Please contact the above office if you would like copies of the application, HCP and screening form. Documents will also be available for review, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. All comments we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act to include kill, harm, or harass. The Service may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize incidental take; i.e. , take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22, respectively.

The Applicant has applied to the Service for a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit for the point Arena mountain beaver, on the AT&T Point Arena Cable Station, in Mendocino County, California. The term of the permit would be 10 years. The AT&T Cable Station consists of 11.2 acres of privately-owned land located approximately 1 mile northwest of the town of Manchester. Prior to the listing of the Point Arena mountain beaver, three 5-inch-diameter steel bore pipes were installed below the surface of the ground from a point offshore of the cable station in the Pacific Ocean to a point about 88 feet from the north side of the cable station building. An occupied Point Arena mountain beaver burrow system is located 30 feet north from the end of the bore pipes. The Applicant proposes to install an access vault at this location, trench and bury cable conduit for 77 feet, and then install a manhole at the end of the cable conduit. The Applicant may then utilize this system by placing fiber optic cables in these pipes and conduits. The Service considers this project to entail take of Point Arena mountain beaver since noise and vibration disturbance and habitat loss will occur near occupied burrows.

The AT&T Cable Station is composed of structures, a parking lot, access roads, occupied Point Arena mountain beaver habitat and unoccupied potential habitat. The occupied, and some of the unoccupied, habitat consists of stabilized dunes dominated by bush lupine ( Lupinus arboreus ) and other coastal scrub and coastal strand species such as coyote brush ( Baccharis pilularis ), coast goldenrod ( Solidago spathulata ), ice-plant ( Carpobrotus sp.), and other mixed grasses and forbs. Much of the currently unoccupied habitat consists of non-native, invasive conifers including Monterey pine ( Pinus radiata ) and Monterey cypress ( Cypress macrocarpa ). Habitat in the surrounding areas are similar, although there are large areas of unsuitable agricultural pasture lands.

The proposed project will permanently remove approximately 15 square feet of suitable but currently unoccupied habitat, and cause about 7 days of non-breeding season disturbance of all mountain beavers on about 0.25 acre of occupied habitat. There may also be 1 day of breeding season disturbance on the same 0.25 acre while fiber optic cables are pulled through the pipes and conduits. Mitigation for the HCP involves rehabilitation and maintenance of 1 acre of unoccupied and currently unsuitable habitat presently covered by non-native conifers. This rehabilitation work will cause disturbance for an additional 3 to 5 days during the non-breeding season and will affect all Point Arena mountain beaver associated with approximately 3 acres of occupied habitat.

As described in the HCP, the Applicant proposes the following measures to minimize and mitigate the anticipated project impacts: (A) All construction (except cable pulling) and habitat rehabilitation work will occur outside of the Point Arena mountain beaver breeding season (December 15 to June 30) and during daylight hours; (B) an 8-foot-high, 3/4-inch-wide plywood sound barrier will be placed between the construction and the occupied habitat; (C) vibratory compactors will only be used at the proposed manhole location; (D) areas altered by trenching will be restored as much as possible to a prework condition; (E) all activities including entry of personnel into the occupied habitats will be closely supervised by a biological monitor; and (F) material from cut conifers will be disposed off site.

Monitoring of the mountain beaver population at the entire Cable Station site will consist of two surveys per year, every other year, for 10 years. The methods for this monitoring will closely follow a methodology and a layout which have been in place on this site since 1992, and will thereby contribute to the only long-term monitoring program for this subspecies. In addition, counts of burrow openings in areas rehabilitated by non-native conifer removal will also occur on the same schedule in order to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation.

The Service's Proposed Action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the HCP, which includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts of the project on Point Arena mountain beaver. One alternative to the taking of listed species under the Proposed Action is considered in the HCP. Under the No Action Alternative, no permit would be issued. However, this alternative would result in an economic burden to the Applicant and no Point Arena mountain beaver habitat rehabilitation would occur.

The Service has made a preliminary determination that the HCP qualifies as a “low effect” plan as defined by its Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). The Service determination that a habitat conservation plan qualifies as a low-effect plan is based on the following criteria: (1) Implementation of the plan would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the plan would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the plan, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. As more fully explained in the Screening Form for Low-Effect HCP Determinations, the Applicant's HCP for the Point Area Cable Station qualifies as a “low-effect” plan for the following reasons:

The Service therefore has made a preliminary determination that approval of the HCP qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Based on this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further National Environmental Policy Act documentation. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such additional documentation.

The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the HCP, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, the Service will issue a permit for the incidental take of the Point Arena mountain beaver from the proposed construction project. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.

Individuals wishing copies of the applications, Draft EIR/EIS, Plan, and Implementing Agreement should immediately contact the Service by telephone at (916) 414-6600 or by letter to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office ( see ADDRESSES ). Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS, Plan, and Implementing Agreement also are available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office; the City of Sacramento Planning and Building Department, 1231 I Street, Room 300, Sacramento, California; State Library, 914 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California; Central Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, California; South Natomas Library, 2901 Truxel Road, Sacramento, California; and Sutter County Library, 750 Forbes Avenue, Yuba City, California.

Written comments will be received at the public meetings. Written comments also may be received after the public meetings, until the close of the comment period [ see DATES ]. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation prohibit the “take” of animal species listed as endangered or threatened. Take is defined under the Act as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). However, under limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to authorize “incidental take” of listed animal species. “Incidental take” is defined by the Act as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for threatened species and endangered species, respectively, are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22.

The applicants are seeking permits for take of the following federally listed species: the threatened giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas ), threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle ( Desmocerus californicus dimorphus ), threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta lynchi ), endangered vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ), threatened Colusa grass ( Neostapfia colusana ), endangered Sacramento Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia viscida ), and threatened slender Orcutt grass ( Orcuttia tenuis ). The proposed permits would also authorize future incidental take of the currently unlisted Swainson's hawk ( Buteo swainsoni ), Aleutian Canada goose ( Branta canadensis leucopareia ), bank swallow ( Riparia riparia ), tricolored blackbird ( Agelaius tricolor ), northwestern pond turtle ( Clemmys marmorata marmorata ), white-faced ibis ( Plegadis chihi ), loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus ), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia ), California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ), western spadefoot toad ( Scaphiopus hammondii ), midvalley fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta mesovallensis ), Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop ( Gratiaola heterosepala ), legenere ( Legenere limosa ), delta tule pea ( Lathyrus jepsonii ssp. jepsonii ) and Sanford's arrowhead ( Sagittaria sanfordii ), should any of these species become listed under the Act during the life of the permit. Collectively, the 22 listed and unlisted species are referred to as the “covered species” in the Plan.

The applicants propose to minimize and mitigate the effects to covered species associated with the covered activities by participating in the Plan. The purpose of this basin-wide conservation program is to promote biological conservation in conjunction with economic and urban development within the Natomas Basin. Through the payment of development fees, one-half acre of mitigation land would be established for every acre of land developed within the various permit areas (a total of 7,759) acres of mitigation land to be acquired based on 15,517 acres of urban development). The mitigation land would be acquired and managed by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. In addition to the requirement to pay mitigation fees, the Plan also includes take avoidance and minimization measures.

The Draft EIR/EIS considers four alternatives in addition to the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no section 10(a)(1)(B) permits would be issued for take of listed species associated with the covered activities; the applicants would address the potential for take of listed species on a case-by-case basis. The Increased Mitigation Ratio Alternative would double the extent of required mitigation land relative to the Plan. The Habitat-Based Mitigation Alternative would prescribe mitigation based on the value of habitat to be disturbed, rather than on a general ratio applied to all lands to be disturbed. The Reserve Zone Alternative would prioritize specific areas within the Natomas Basin for acquisition, in contrast to the general acquisition strategy described in the Plan. The Reduced Potential for Incidental Take Alternative would result in reduced urban development covered by the permits, and would therefore reduce the potential for incidental take associated with urban development.

In August 2001, (66 FR 43267), two water agencies, Reclamation District No. 1000 (RD 1000), and Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual), decided to join the City of Sacramento and Sutter County as applicants for permits and participated in drafting the Plan. At this time, RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual have chosen not to submit an application for an incidental take permit. They may decide to apply at a later time and commit to the terms of the Plan, and through issuance of a permit by the Service, join as full permittees at a future date. It should be noted that because of RD 1000 and Natomas Mutual's previous participation as potential applicants, and the possibility that they may decide to apply for a permit at some future date, the description of and analysis of the two water agencies as permittees has remained in both the Plan and the EIR/EIS. Should the water agencies apply for a permit in the future, then additional notification and documentation may be needed pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Service invites the public to comment on the Plan and Draft EIR/EIS during a 60-day public comment period. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act and Service regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to prepare a Final EIR/EIS. A decision on the permit applications will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Final EIR/EIS.

The 12-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Northwest California. At this meeting, agenda topics include a proposal for development of a Weaverville Community Forest, an overview of fire and fuels projects, and review of a grant proposal for the Chappie-Shasta Off Highway Vehicle Area near Redding, California. Members will also hear reports from managers of the BLM's Arcata, Redding and Ukiah field offices.

All meetings are open to the public. Members of the public may present written comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have time allocated for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, and the time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation and other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided above.

Persons wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will prepare a service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Pursuant to § 206.47 of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make CBI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive CBI under the APO.

The Commission has scheduled a hearing in connection with this investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 1, 2002, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Subjects related to both market disruption or threat thereof and remedy may be addressed at the hearing. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before September 23, 2002. All persons desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on September 26, 2002 at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the hearing are governed by §§ 201.6(b)(2) and 201.13(f) of the Commission's rules.

Each party is encouraged to submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs is September 25, 2002. Parties may also file posthearing briefs. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 4, 2002. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the consideration of market disruption or threat thereof and/or remedy on or before October 4, 2002. Parties may submit final comments on remedy on October 21, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain CBI must also conform with the requirements of § 201.6 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.

In accordance with § 201.16(c) of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Parties are reminded that no separate hearing on the issue of remedy will be held. Those parties wishing to present arguments on the issue of remedy may do so orally at the hearing or in their prehearing brief, posthearing brief, or final comments on remedy.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. , was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The IGRA established the National Indian Gaming Commission (Commission). Section 2710 of the IGRA authorizes the Commission to approved class II and class III tribal gaming ordinances. Section 2710(d)(2)(B) of the IGRA as implemented by 25 CFR 522.8 (58 FR 5811 (January 22, 1993)) requires the Commission to publish, in the Federal Register , approved class III gaming ordinances.

The IGRA requires all tribal gaming ordinances to contain the same requirements concerning ownership of the gaming activity, use of net revenues, annual audits, health and safety, background investigation and licensing of key employees. The Commission, therefore, believes that publication of each ordinance in the Federal Register would be redundant and result in unnecessary cost to the Commission. The Commission believes that publishing a notice of approval of each class III gaming ordinance is sufficient to meet the requirements of 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(2)(B). Also, the Commission will make copies of approved class III ordinances available to the public upon request. Requests can be made in writing to the Office of General Counsel, National Indian Gaming Commission, (Attention: Legal Staff Assistant) 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005.

The following constitutes a consolidated list of all Tribes for which the Chairman has approved tribal gaming ordinances authorizing class III gaming.

1. Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma.

2. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

3. Ak Chin Indian Community.

4. Alturas Indian Rancheria.

5. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.

6. Augustine Band of Mission Indians.

7. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa .

8. Barona Band of Mission Indians.

9. Bay Mills Indian Community.

10. Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria.

11. Big Lagoon Rancheria.

12. Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley.

13. Big Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians.

14. Bishop Paiute Tribe .

15. Blue Lake Rancheria.

16. Boise Forte Band of Chippewas.

17. Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians.

18. Burns Paiute Tribe.

19. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.

20. Caddo Indians Tribe of Oklahoma.

21. Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria.

22. Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians.

23. Campo Band of Mission Indians.

24. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe.

25. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma.

26. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

27. Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.

28. Chicken Ranch Band of Me-Wuk Indians.

29. Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation.

30. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana.

31. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indians of Oklahoma.

32. Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California.

33. Coast Indian Community of the Resighini Rancheria.

34. Cocopah Indian Tribe.

35. Coeur d'Alene Tribe.

36. Colorado River Indian Tribes.

37. Colusa Band of Wintun Indians.

38. Comanche Indian Tribe.

39. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation.

40. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama.

41. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.

42. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.

43. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community.

44. Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians of Oregon.

45. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation.

46. Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation.

47. Coquille Indian Tribe.

48. Coushatta Indian Tribe of Louisiana.

49. Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians.

50. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians.

51. Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.

52. Crow Indian Tribe.

53. Delaware Tribe of Indians.

54. Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma.

55. Dry Creek Rancheria.

56. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

57. Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma.

58. Elem Indian Colony.

59. Elk Valley Rancheria.

60. Ewiiaapaayp Band of Mission Indians.

61. Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribes.

62. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.

63. Fond du Lac Reservation Business Committee.

64. Forest County Potawatomi Community.

65. Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Indian Tribe.

66. Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community.

67. Fort Mojave Tribal Council.

68. Gila River Indian Community.

69. Grand Portage Band of Chippewa Indians.

70. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa Indians.

71. Grindstone Indian Rancheria.

72. Hannahville Indian Community.

73. Ho-Chunk Nation.

74. Hoopa Valley Tribe.

75. Hopland Band of Pomo Indians.

76. Hualapai Tribe.

77. Iowa Tribe of Kansa and Nebraska.

78. Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

79. Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians.

80. Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

81. Jena Band of Choctaw Indians.

82. Jicarilla Apache Tribe.

83. Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians.

84. Kalispel Tribe of Indians.

85. Keweenaw Bay Indian Community.

86. Kickapoo Nation of Kansas.

87. Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas.

88. Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma.

89. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma.

90. Klamath Tribes.

91. Klawock Cooperative Association.

92. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho.

93. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

94. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

95. Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

96. LaJolla Band of Luiseno Indians.

97. Lake Miwok Indian Nation of the Middletown Rancheria.

98. Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.

99. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.

100. Little River Band of Ottawa Chippewa.

101. Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.

102. Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.

103. Lower Sioux Indian Community.

104. Lummi Nation.

105. Lytton Band of Pomo Indians.

106. Manzanita Band of Mission Indians.

107. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.

108. Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria.

109. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.

110. Mescalero Apache Tribe.

111. Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.

112. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians.

113. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

114. Moapa Band of Pauites.

115. Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma.

116. Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut.

117. Mooretown Rancheria.

118. Morongo Band of Mission Indians.

119. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

120. Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

121. Narragansett Indian Tribe.

122. Nez Perce Tribe.

123. Nisqually Indian Tribe.

124. Nooksack Indian Tribe.

125. Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Indians.

126. Northern Cheyenne Tribe.

127. Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi.

128. Oglala Sioux Tribe.

129. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.

130. Oneida Nation of New York.

131. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.

132. Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma.

133. Pala Band of Mission Indians.

134. Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona.

135. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians.

136. Pauma-Yuima Band of Mission Indians.

137. Pawnee Tribe of Oklahoma.

138. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians.

139. Pit River Tribe.

140. Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.

141. Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma.

142. Port Gamble S'Klallam.

143. Prairie Band Potawatomi.

144. Prairie Island Indian Community.

145. Pueblo of Acoma.

146. Pueblo of Isleta.

147. Pueblo of Laguna.

148. Pueblo of Pojoaque.

149. Pueblo of San Felipe.

150. Pueblo of San Juan.

151. Pueblo of Sandia.

152. Pueblo of Santa Ana.

153. Pueblo of Santa Clara.

154. Pueblo of Taos.

155. Pueblo of Tesuque.

156. Puyallup Tribe of Indians.

157. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe.

158. Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma.

159. Quechan Indian Tribe.

160. Quileute Indian Tribe.

161. Quinault Indian Nation.

162. Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

163. Red Cliff, Sokaogon Chippewa and Lac Courte Oreilles Band.

164. Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.

165. Redding Rancheria.

166. Redwood Valley Rancheria.

167. Reno-Sparks Indian Colony.

168. Rincon San Luiseno Band of Mission Indians.

169. Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians.

170. Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

171. Round Valley Indian Tribes.

172. Rumsey Indian Rancheria.

173. Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa.

174. Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri.

175. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.

176. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

177. San Carlos Apache Tribe.

178. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

179. San Pasqual Band of Indians.

180. Santa Rosa Band of Tachi Indians of the Santa Rosa.

181. Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians.

182. Santa Ysabel Band of Mission Indians.

183. Santo Domingo Tribe.

184. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe.

185. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

186. Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians.

187. Seminole Tribe.

188. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.

189. Sheep Ranch Tribe of We-Wuk Indians.

190. Sherwood Valley Rancheria.

191. Shingle Springs Band.

192. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.

193. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.

194. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe.

195. Skokomish Indian Tribe.

196. Smith River Rancheria.

197. Snoqualmie Tribe.

198. Soboba Band of Mission Indians.

199. Sokaogon Chippewa Community.

200. Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

201. Spirit Lake Sioux Nation.

202. Spokane Tribe of Indians.

203. Squaxin Island Tribe.

204. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

205. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.

206. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

207. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians.

208. Stockbridge-Munsee Community.

209. Suquamish Tribe.

210. Susanville Indian Rancheria.

211. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.

212. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians.

213. Table Mountain Rancheria.

214. Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians.

215. Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.

216. Tohono O'odham Nation.

217. Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma.

218. Tonto Apache Tribe.

219. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Tribe.

220. Trinidad Rancheria.

221. Tulalip Tribes of Washington.

222. Tule River Tribe of the Tule River Indian Reservation.

223. Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana.

224. Tuolumne Band of MeWuk Indians.

225. Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians.

226. Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.

227. Tyme Maidu Tribe of the Berry Creek Rancheria.

228. U-tu Utu Gwaitu Paiute Tribe of Benton Paiute Reservation.

229. United Auburn Indian Community of Auburn Rancheria.

230. Upper Sioux Community.

231. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.

232. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

233. Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California.

234. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians.

235. White Mountain Apache Tribe.

236. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.

237. Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma.

238. Yankton Sioux Tribe.

239. Yavapai Apache Tribe.

240. Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe.

241. Yurok Tribe.