This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires with State and local officials.

The environmental impacts of the program to be implemented by this notice have been considered in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ) Based on the nature and scope of this notice, FSA has concluded that the notice will not have any significant impacts upon the human environment as documented through the completion of an environmental evaluation. A copy of the environmental evaluation is available for inspection and review upon request. Therefore, the agency has determined that this program is a categorical exclusion and no further environmental review is required.

A request for emergency clearance of the information collections associated with this notice has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(iii), and been assigned clearance number 0560-0222.

Agency means the Farm Service Agency, or the Commodity Credit Corporation, their employees, and any successor agency.

Applicant means the individual or business entity applying for assistance.

Beef cattle means bovine livestock produced for the sole purpose of providing meat for human consumption.

Breeding bull means a male bovine of adequate age to be used for breeding purposes and is included in a foundation beef herd.

Brood cow means a female bovine that has delivered one or more offspring, and is part of a foundation beef herd.

Business entity means a corporation, partnership, joint operation, trust, limited liability company, or cooperative.

Deputy Administrator or DAFP means the Deputy Administrator of Farm Programs, Farm Service Agency (FSA), or a designee.

Eligible feed means manufactured feed that is suitable to be fed to beef cows, bulls, and replacement heifers, and made available from the eligible feed supplier to be exchanged for feed credit.

Eligible livestock means foundation beef livestock that have been owned, or cash leased by the applicant for 3 or more months prior to August 12, 2002. Foundation beef livestock subject to a contract for purchase by the applicant that was negotiated prior to May 12, 2002, are eligible livestock.

Eligible State means Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, or Wyoming.

Eligible Feed Supplier means a feed supplier or dealer who has signed a contract with FSA to participate in the 2002 Cattle Feed Program, and has been assigned a 4-digit numeric ID code by FSA.

Foundation livestock means a herd of beef cattle kept for the sole purpose of breeding and reproduction of beef cattle. A foundation herd consists of brood cows, replacement bred heifers (not to exceed 15 percent of the number of brood cows in the foundation beef herd), and breeding bulls (not to exceed one bull per 15 head of brood cows and replacement bred heifers).

Ineligible livestock means buffalo; beefalo; dairy cattle; cattle added to the foundation beef herd after May 12, 2002; neutered beef cattle; foundation livestock that died or were sold by the applicant before August 12, 2002. All other bovine livestock that are not foundation livestock or beef cattle are ineligible.

Replacement bred heifer means a pregnant female bovine that has not borne any offspring.

An applicant may request an appeal or review of an adverse decision made by the Agency in accordance with 7 CFR parts 11 and 780, or its successor regulation.

Applicants must meet all of the following requirements to be eligible for the 2002 Cattle Feed Program:

1. Timely application. The applicant must submit a signed Form FSA-551 completed to the best of the applicant's ability to the Agency, no earlier than August 28, 2002, and no later than December 2, 2002, or such earlier date as FSA may announce.

2. Foundation livestock owner or lessee. The applicant must own, be subject to a contract to purchase, or cash lease, eligible livestock.

3. Foundation livestock located in eligible state. The applicant's eligible livestock must have been physically located in an eligible State on August 12, 2002.

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and other USDA data indicate the following:

A total of $150 million in Section 32 funds is available to FSA. A reserve of $546,000 allows a total of $149,454,000 available for feed credit. Dividing that available funding by the 6,498,000 estimated eligible livestock in the four States results in $23.00. Thus, feed credit in the amount of $23.00 will be made available from FSA for each head of eligible livestock.

The quantity of eligible livestock must be specified by the owner or lessee on Form FSA-551. The applicant will report to FSA the number of eligible livestock that died or are sold, beginning with the date of application through December 12, 2002, only when the number of dead or sold eligible livestock exceeds 5 percent of the total number of eligible foundation livestock certified on the Form FSA-551.

In order to receive a payment the applicant must, as of May 12, 2002, be an owner, lessee, or under contract to purchase eligible foundation beef livestock in an eligible State; submit a Form FSA-551 to FSA; receive FSA approval on such form; and meet all other eligibility requirements.

The number of eligible foundation beef cattle multiplied by the rate of $23.00 equals the feed credit amount to be used to purchase feed for eligible livestock at participating FSA-approved feed processor/dealer.

For a beef cow, the feed requirement used for previous FSA-administered feed assistance programs, such as the Livestock Assistance Program found at 7 CFR 1439 is converted to a corn equivalent of 15.7 pounds of corn per day. Using an Olympic five-year average of 1995-2000 corn prices, the national average price for corn is calculated at $2.07 per bushel or $0.037 per pound. The support feeding rate of 15.7 pounds of corn multiplied by $0.037 per pound of corn required per day to support a beef cow is equivalent to $0.58 per day to feed a beef cow. The subsistence level of $0.58 per day divided into the $23.00 feed assistance results in an approximate 40 day period that the 2002 Cattle Feed Program will provide assistance to feed eligible beef cattle.

On the CFP application, the applicant who is an owner of eligible livestock in Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, or Wyoming will provide FSA with and certify to (1) The applicant's name; (2) taxpayer identification number; (3) address; (4) number of eligible livestock, and (5) pasture location and acreage. The applicant also will identify from an FSA supplied list of feed suppliers, the supplier where the applicant will receive feed credit from FSA for manufactured feed for eligible livestock. FSA will enter into a contract with participating feed processors/dealers to: (1) Provide feed to producers according to their eligibility and at no cost to the producer, and (2) purchase NDM at $0.01 per 25 kg/55.115 lb. bag, to be used to supplement the protein content of the manufactured feed for the eligible beef cattle under CFP. After FSA County Committee approval of the CFP application, the information on the application will be transmitted to FSA's Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO) from the county office. KCCO will transmit each eligible producer's name, taxpayer identification number, and eligibility amount, to feed processors under contract with FSA. Feed suppliers will establish a credit for use by the producer to obtain eligible feed from the feed supplier. Feed suppliers will invoice FSA periodically for payment of feed provided to the producers.

A person shall be ineligible to receive assistance under this part, and be subject to such other remedies as may be allowed by law, if, with respect to such program, it is determined by an official of FSA, that such person has:

(a) Adopted any scheme or other device that tends to defeat the purpose of the program operated under this Notice;

(b) Made any fraudulent representation with respect to this program; or

(c) Misrepresented any fact affecting a program determination.

Any benefit or portion thereof due any person under this program shall be allowed without regard to questions of title under State law, and without regard to any claim or lien in favor of any person, including agencies of the U.S. Government.

In those instances in which, prior to the issuance of this Notice, a producer has signed a power of attorney on an approved form FSA-211 for a person or entity indicating that such power shall extend to all programs listed on the form, without limitation, such power will be considered to extend to this program unless by September 6, 2000, the person granting the power notifies the local FSA office for the control county that the grantee of the power is not authorized to handle transactions for this program for the grantor.

Where circumstances preclude compliance due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control, the county or State FSA committee may request that relief be granted by the Deputy Administrator under this Notice. In such cases, except for statutory deadlines and other statutory requirements, the Deputy Administrator may, in order to more equitably accomplish the goals of this Notice, waive or modify deadlines and other program requirements if the failure to meet such deadlines or other requirements does not adversely affect operation of the program and are not prohibited by statute.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) has established the overall allotment quantity for sugar for the 2002 crop year as required by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. USDA earlier had announced that domestic marketing allotments would be in effect for the upcoming marketing year and this notice establishes the quantity involved.

On August 1, USDA made preliminary estimates of 2002-crop consumption, reasonable carryover stocks, carry-in stocks, production and imports in accordance with provisions of the new Farm Bill. These estimates were reevaluated following the release of more current market information in the August 12, 2002 USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report.

Based on the allotment formula guidelines in the farm bill, USDA has calculated the overall allotment quantity for sugar based on the estimated domestic deliveries for food use and beginning sugar stocks from the August 12 WASDE report.

The farm bill further requires that USDA establish the allotments so that no sugar is forfeited under the program and that the overall program can be operated at no-net cost to taxpayers. Market uncertainties such as changes in consumption and imports and 2001-crop sugar carryover not subject to allotments, also factored into the estimate of reasonable ending sugar stocks.

The overall allotment quantity determined in this manner is 7.700 million tons, short tons, raw value (STRV), for the 2002 crop year (Fiscal Year 2003). The resulting sector allocations are 4.185 million STRV for beet sugar and 3.515 million STRV for cane sugar.

USDA will closely monitor consumption, beginning stocks and reasonable ending stocks and all other program variables on an ongoing basis. Appropriate adjustments can be made at any time to the overall allotment quantity, as required, both to avoid forfeitures and to ensure an adequate sugar supply for the domestic market in FY 2003.

USDA will hold a public hearing as required by the new statute regarding the 2002-crop cane State sugar marketing allotments and the allocation of cane State sugar marketing allotments to processors, as requested by affected sugar processors and growers. CCC will also use this forum to entertain comments on the overall structure and implementation of the sugar allotment program. Attendance is open to sugarcane growers, sugarcane processors, cane sugar refiners, sugar beet growers, sugar beet processors, sugar users, and all other interested parties.

The hearing will be held on September 4, 2002 from 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) to 4 p.m., in the Jefferson Auditorium of USDA South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC.

Anyone wishing to make an oral statement may do so, time permitting. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes. Those wishing to make an oral statement should submit a request to Thomas Bickerton (address follows). A signup sheet for statements will also be available one hour before the hearing begins. Oral statements will be made in the order the request was received. Also, written statements may be submitted in lieu of an oral statement and must be received by the close of business on September 4, 2002. These should be sent to Thomas Bickerton, Economic Policy and Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., STOP 0516, Washington, DC 20250-0516; Telephone: (202) 720-3008; Fax: (202) 690-1480; e-mail: Thomas.Bickerton2@usda.gov.

Persons with disabilities who require special accommodations to attend or participate in the meetings should contact Thomas Bickerton.

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review presentation for the Madera County Board of Supervisor's meeting September 17, 2002, (2) update on RAC committee outreach, and, (3) view presentation “History and Future of Sierra Forest”—a 30 minute CD presentation—Oregon State University, by Thomas Bonickerson, Texas A&M. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the June 3, 2003, Federal Register (67 FR 38249), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the Springfield area to submit an application for designation. There were two applicants for the Springfield area: Springfield and Keokuk Grain Inspection Service (Keokuk). Springfield applied for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them. Keokuk, a designated official grain inspection agency operating in Iowa and Illinois, applied for designation to provide official services in Cass and Schuyler Counties, Illinois.

GIPSA is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments concerning the applicants. Commenters are encouraged to submit reasons and pertinent data for support or objection to the designation of the applicants. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address. Comments and other available information will be considered in making a final decision. GIPSA will publish notice of the final decision in the Federal Register , and GIPSA will send the applicants written notification of the decision.

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this action.

In the March 1, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 9434), GIPSA asked persons interested in providing official services in the geographic areas assigned to the official agencies named above to submit an application for designation. Applications were due by April 1, 2002.

Aberdeen, Decatur, Grand Forks, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina were the sole applicants for designation to provide official services in the entire area currently assigned to them, so GIPSA did not ask for additional comments on them.

GIPSA evaluated all available information regarding the designation criteria in section 7(f)(l)(A) of the Act and, according to section 7(f)(l)(B), determined that Aberdeen, Decatur, Grand Forks, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina are able to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the March 1, 2002, Federal Register , for which they applied. Effective October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2005, Aberdeen, Decatur, Hastings, McCrea, Missouri, and South Carolina are designated to provide official services in the geographic areas for which they applied. Effective October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003, Grand Forks is designated for one year only to provide official services in the geographic area for which they applied. Interested persons may obtain official services by calling the telephone numbers listed below.

This Action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1; therefore, the Executive Order and Departmental Regulation do not apply to this Action.

Section 7(f)(1) of the United States Grain Standards Act, as amended (Act), authorizes GIPSA's Administrator to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services.

Section 7(g)(1) of the Act provides that designations of official agencies shall end not later than triennially and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 7(f) of the Act.

a. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of North Dakota, is assigned to Jamestown.

Bounded on the North by Interstate 94 east to U.S. Route 85; U.S. Route 85 north to State Route 200; State Route 200 east to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 southeast to State Route 41; State Route 41 north to State Route 200; State Route 200 east to State Route 3; State Route 3 north to U.S. Route 52; U.S. Route 52 southeast to State Route 15; State Route 15 east to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 south to Foster County; the northern Foster County line; the northern Griggs County line east to State Route 32;

Bounded on the East by State Route 32 south to State Route 45; State Route 45 south to State Route 200; State Route 200 west to State Route 1; State Route 1 south to the Soo Railroad line; the Soo Railroad line southeast to Interstate 94; Interstate 94 west to State Route 1; State Route 1 south to the Dickey County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Dickey County line west to U.S. Route 281; U.S. Route 281 north to the Lamoure County line; the southern Lamoure County line; the southern Logan County line west to State Route 13; State Route 13 west to U.S. Route 83; U.S. Route 83 south to the Emmons County line; the southern Emmons County line; the southern Sioux County line west to State Route 49; State Route 49 north to State Route 21; State Route 21 west to the Burlington-Northern line; the Burlington-Northern line northwest to State Route 22; State Route 22 south to U.S. Route 12; U.S. Route 12 west-northwest to the North Dakota State line; and

Bounded on the West by the western North Dakota State line north to Interstate 94.

The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Fessenden Coop Association, Fessenden, and Fessenden Coop Association, Manfred, both in Wells County (located inside Grand Forks Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s, area).

Jamestown's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Jamestown's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Minot Grain Inspection, Inc.: Benson Quinn Company, Underwood; and Falkirk Farmers Elevator, Washburn, both in McLean County.

b. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Iowa and Nebraska, is assigned to Lincoln.

Bounded on the North (in Nebraska) by the northern York, Seward, and Lancaster County lines; the northern Cass County line east to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south to U.S. Route 34; (in Iowa) U.S. Route 34 east to Interstate 29;

Bounded on the East by Interstate 29 south to the Fremont County line; the northern Fremont and Page County lines; the eastern Page County line south to the Iowa-Missouri State line; the Iowa-Missouri State line west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River south-southeast to the Nebraska-Kansas State line;

Bounded on the South by the Nebraska-Kansas State line west to County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81; and

Bounded on the West (in Nebraska) by County Road 1 mile west of U.S. Route 81 north to State Highway 8; State Highway 8 east to U.S. Route 81; U.S. Route 81 north to the Thayer County line; the northern Thayer County line east; the western Saline County line; the southern and western York County lines.

Lincoln's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Lincoln's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Omaha Grain Inspection Service, Inc.: Goode Seed & Grain, McPaul, Fremont County, Iowa; and Haveman Grain, Murray, Cass County, Nebraska.

c. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas, is assigned to Memphis.

The entire State of Arkansas.

Carroll, Chester, Crockett, Dyer, Fayette, Gibson, Hardeman, Haywood, Henderson, Lauderdale, Madison, McNairy, Shelby, and Tipton Counties, Tennessee.

Bowie and Cass Counties, Texas.

The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Cargill, Inc., Tiptonville, Lake County, Tennessee (located inside Cairo Grain Inspection Agency, Inc.'s, area).

d. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Iowa and Nebraska, is assigned to Omaha.

Bounded on the North by Nebraska State Route 91 from the western Washington County line east to U.S. Route 30; U.S. Route 30 east to the Missouri River; the Missouri River north to Iowa State Route 175; Iowa State Route 175 east to Iowa State Route 37; Iowa State Route 37 southeast to the eastern Monona County line;

Bounded on the East by the eastern Monona County line; the southern Monona County line west to Iowa State Route 183; Iowa State Route 183 south to the Pottawattamie County line; the northern and eastern Pottawattamie County lines; the southern Pottawattamie County line west to M47; M47 south to Iowa State Route 48; Iowa State Route 48 south to the Montgomery County line;

Bounded on the South by the southern Montgomery County line; the southern Mills County line west to Interstate 29; Interstate 29 north to U.S. Route 34; U.S. Route 34 west to the Missouri River; the Missouri River north to the Sarpy County line (in Nebraska); the southern Sarpy County line; the southern Saunders County line west to U.S. Route 77; and

Bounded on the West by U.S. Route 77 north to the Platte River; the Platte River southeast to the Douglas County line; the northern Douglas County line east; the western Washington County line northwest to Nebraska State Route 91.

The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: Hancock Elevator, Elliot, Montgomery County, Iowa; Hancock Elevator (2 elevators), Griswold, Cass County, Iowa (located inside Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area); United Farmers Coop, Rising City, Butler County, Nebraska; United Farmers Coop (2 elevators), Shelby, Polk County, Nebraska (located inside Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.'s, area); and Goode Seed & Grain, McPaul, Fremont County, Iowa; Haveman Grain, Murray, Cass County, Nebraska (located inside Lincoln Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area).

Omaha's assigned geographic area does not include the following grain elevators inside Omaha's area which have been and will continue to be serviced by the following official agency: Fremont Grain Inspection Department, Inc.: Farmers Cooperative, and Krumel Grain and Storage, both in Wahoo, Saunders County, Nebraska.

e. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the States of Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota, is assigned to Sioux City.

In Iowa:

Bounded on the North by the northern Iowa State line from the Big Sioux River east to U.S. Route 59;

Bounded on the East by U.S. Route 59 south to B24; B24 east to the eastern O'Brien County line; the O'Brien County line south; the northern Buena Vista County line east to U.S. Route 71; U.S. Route 71 south to the southern Sac County line;

Bounded on the South by the Sac and Ida County lines; the eastern Monona County line south to State Route 37; State Route 37 west to State Route 175; State Route 175 west to the Missouri River; and

Bounded on the West by the Missouri River north to the Big Sioux River; the Big Sioux River north to the northern Iowa State line.

In Nebraska:

Cedar, Dakota, Dixon, Pierce (north of U.S. Route 20), and Thurston Counties.

In South Dakota:

Bounded on the North by State Route 44 (U.S. 18) east to State Route 11; State Route 11 south to A54B; A54B east to the Big Sioux River;

Bounded on the East by the Big Sioux River; and

Bounded on the South and West by the Missouri River.

f. Pursuant to section 7(f)(2) of the Act, the following geographic area, in the State of Iowa, is assigned to Tischer.

Bounded on the North by Iowa-Minnesota State line from U.S. Route 71 east to U.S. Route 169;

Bounded on the East by U.S. Route 169 south to State Route 9; State Route 9 west to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 south to the northern Humboldt County line; the Humboldt County line east to State Route 17; State Route 17 south to C54; C54 east to U.S. Route 69; U.S. Route 69 south to the northern Hamilton County line; the Hamilton County line west to R38; R38 south to U.S. Route 20; U.S. Route 20 west to the eastern and southern Webster County lines to U.S. Route 169; U.S. Route 169 south to E18; E18 west to the eastern Greene County line; the Greene County line south to U.S. Route 30;

Bounded on the South by U.S. Route 30 west to E53; E53 west to N44; N44 north to U.S. Route 30; U.S. Route 30 west to U.S. Route 71; and

Bounded on the West by U.S. Route 71 north to the Iowa-Minnesota State line.

The following grain elevators, located outside of the above contiguous geographic area, are part of this geographic area assignment: West Central Coop, Boxholm, Boone County (located inside Central Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.'s, area); and West Bend Elevator Co., Algona, Kossuth County; Stateline Coop., Burt, Kossuth County; Gold-Eagle, Goldfield, Wright County; and North Central Coop, Holmes, Wright County (located inside D. R. Schaal Agency's area).

Interested persons, including Jamestown, Lincoln, Memphis, Omaha, Sioux City, and Tischer, are hereby given the opportunity to apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 7(f) of the Act and section 800.196(d) of the regulations issued thereunder. Designation in the specified geographic areas is for the period beginning April 1, 2003, and ending March 31, 2006. Persons wishing to apply for designation should contact the Compliance Division at the address listed above for forms and information.

GIPSA also is publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to present comments on Jamestown, Lincoln, Memphis, Omaha, Sioux City and Tischer official agencies. Commenters are encouraged to submit pertinent data concerning these official agencies including information on the timeliness, cost, quality, and scope of services provided. All comments must be submitted to the Compliance Division at the above address.

Applications, comments, and other available information will be considered in determining which applicant will be designated.

The CACs on the African American Population, the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Populations are comprised of nine members each. The Committees provide an organized and continuing channel of communication between the representative race and ethnic populations and the U.S. Census Bureau. The Committee provides an outside user perspective about how research and design plans for the 2010 reengineered decennial census, the American Community Survey and other related programs realize goals and satisfy needs associated with these communities. They also assist the Census Bureau on ways that census data can best be disseminated to diverse race and ethnic populations and other users.

All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to the Committee Liaison Officer, named above, at least three days before the meeting. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001). Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, an antidumping (“AD”) or countervailing duty (“CVD”) order will be revoked, or the suspended investigation will be terminated, unless revocation or termination would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of (1) dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and (2) material injury to the domestic industry.

The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in 19 CFR 351.218. Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3— Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin , 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“ Sunset Policy Bulletin ”).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(c) we are initiating sunset reviews of the following suspended investigations:

As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the Sunset Regulations (19 CFR 351.218) and Sunset Policy Bulletin , the Department's schedule of sunset reviews, case history information ( i.e. , previous margins, duty absorption determinations, scope language, import volumes), and service lists, available to the public on the Department's sunset Internet website at the following address: “ http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/ ”.

All submissions in these sunset reviews must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. Also, we suggest that parties check the Department's sunset website for any updates to the service lists before filing any submissions. The Department will make additions to and/or deletions from the service lists provided on the sunset website based on notifications from parties and participation in these reviews. Specifically, the Department will delete from the service lists all parties that do not submit a substantive response to the notice of initiation.

Because deadlines in a sunset review are, in many instances, very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews. The Department's regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.

Domestic interested parties (defined in 19 CFR 351.102) wishing to participate in these sunset reviews must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation by filing a notice of intent to participate. The required contents of the notice of intent to participate are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance with the Department's regulations, if we do not receive a notice of intent to participate from at least one domestic interested party by the 15-day deadline, the Department will automatically terminate the suspended investigations without further review.

If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Department's regulations provide that all parties wishing to participate in the sunset review must file substantive responses not later than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of initiation. The required contents of a substantive response, on an order-specific basis, are set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note that certain information requirements differ for respondent and domestic interested parties. Also, note that the Department's information requirements are distinct from the International Trade Commission's information requirements. Please consult the Department's regulations for information regarding the Department's conduct of sunset reviews. 1 Please consult the Department's regulations at 19 CFR part 351 for definitions of terms and for other general information concerning antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings at the Department.

This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).

On October 5, 2001 TAMSA claimed that “it did not directly or indirectly, enter for consumption, or sell, export or ship for entry for consumption in the United States subject merchandise during the period of review.” On December 20, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to TAMSA and requested that TAMSA resubmit its no consumption/entry/sales certification. On January 8, 2002, TAMSA submitted its no consumption/entry/sales certifications. Petitioner subsequently claimed on January 18, 2002, that publicly available import data from the Department's IM-145 database showed that 3,355 metric tons of seamless OCTG from Mexico entered the United States during the period of review. Petitioner asserted that TAMSA was the only producer of seamless OCTG in Mexico. Petitioner requested that the Department investigate these transactions to determine whether this merchandise is subject to review. After TAMSA submitted information on certain transactions, on February 8, 2002, petitioners pointed out that the transactions did not account for the total amount of seamless OCTG shown in the IM-145 database.

The Department has thoroughly investigated U.S. Customs Service (Customs) proprietary information for all HTSUS numbers covered by the scope of this review. As part of this investigation, the Department requested additional information from TAMSA for two entries. See Memo to the File dated February 12, 2002 and February 26, 2002. TAMSA submitted the requested information. One of the entries was misclassified and the other entry was for testing purposes. On May 2, 2002, Customs confirmed that for one of the entries, TAMSA was the manufacturer. This was the entry for testing purposes that the Department had previously investigated. On April 3, 2002, the Department sent a no shipment inquiry to Customs. On April 19, 2002, in response to the no shipment inquiry, Customs sent a list of entries that had not been liquidated. The Department reviewed the data which did not show any additional shipments from TAMSA other than entries that had already been investigated. The Department has not been able to identify any other entries for consumption from TAMSA during the POR. See Memo to the File dated July 24, 2002. Since there were no entries for consumption during the POR of OCTG from TAMSA, and because Hylsa timely withdrew its request for review, we are rescinding this review in accordance with the Department's practice. The cash deposit rates for these firms will continue to be the rates established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

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

Permission for incidental takings may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

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

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

On April 9, 2002, NMFS received an application from the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake (NAWS) requesting an authorization for the harassment of small numbers of three species of marine mammals incidental to target missile launch operations conducted by NAWCWD on SNI, one of the Channel Islands in the Southern California Bight. These operations may occur at any time during the year depending on test and training requirements and meteorological and logistical limitations. On occasion, two or three launches may occur in quick succession on a single day. In 2001, NAWCWD conducted 9 launches of Vandal and similar sized targets and 3 launches of subsonic targets from SNI. NAWS' request for an authorization to incidentally harass small numbers of marine mammals on SNI in 2002 and 2003 anticipates 15 launches of Vandal (or similar sized) vehicles from the Alpha Launch Complex on SNI and 5 launches of smaller subsonic missiles and targets for one year from either the Alpha Launch Complex or Building 807 commencing in August 2002. A detailed description of the operations is contained in the application (NAWS, 2002) which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

The types of sounds discussed in NAWS' IHA application are airborne and impulsive. For this reason, the applicant has referenced both pressure and energy measurements for sound levels. For pressure, the sound pressure level (SPL) is described in terms of decibels (dB) re micro-Pascal (micro-Pa), and for energy, the sound exposure level (SEL) is described in terms of dB re micro-Pa2 -second. In other words, SEL is the squared instantaneous sound pressure over a specified time interval, where the sound pressure is averaged over 5 percent to 95 percent of the duration of the sound (in this case, one second).

Airborne noise measurements are usually expressed relative to a reference pressure of 20 micro-Pa, which is 26 dB above the underwater sound pressure reference of 1 micro-Pa. However, the conversion from air to water intensities is more involved than this (Buck, 1995) and beyond the scope of this document. Also, airborne sounds are often expressed as broadband A-weighted sound levels (dBA). A-weighting refers to frequency-dependent weighting factors applied to sound in accordance with the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies. While it is unknown whether the pinniped ear responds similarly to the human ear, a study by C. Malme (pers. commun. to NMFS, March 5, 1998) found that for predicting noise effects, A-weighting is better than unweighted pressure levels because the pinniped's highest hearing sensitivity is at higher frequencies than that of humans. As a result, whenever possible, NMFS provides both A-weighted and unweighted sound pressure levels; where not specified for in-air sounds, A-weighting is implied (ANSI, 1994). In this document, all sound levels have been provided with A-weighting.

Target missile launches from SNI are used to support test and training activities associated with operations on the Sea Range off Point Mugu, CA. SNI is under the land management responsibility of NAWS; however, planned missile and other target launches are conducted by NAWCWD. In general, two types of launch vehicles are used, the Vandal and the smaller subsonic missiles and targets. Other vehicles used would be similar in size and weight or slightly smaller and would have characteristics generally similar to the Vandal.

The Vandal target missile is a relatively large, air-breathing (ramjet) vehicle with no explosive warhead that is designed to provide a realistic simulation of the mid-course and terminal phase of a supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. These missiles are 7.7 meters (m) (25.2 feet (ft)) in length with a mass at launch of 3,674 kilograms (kg) (8,100 lbs) including the solid propellant booster. There are variants of the Vandal; they all have the same dimensions, but differ in their operational range. The Vandals are remotely controlled, non-recoverable missiles. These and most other targets are launched from a land-based launch site (hereafter referred to as Alpha Launch Complex) on the west-central part of SNI. The Alpha Launch Complex is 192 m (630 ft) above sea level and is approximately 2 kilometers (km)(1.25 miles (mi)) from the nearest pinniped haul-out site. Launch trajectories from Alpha Launch Complex vary from a near-vertical liftoff, crossing the west end of SNI at an altitude of approximately 3,962 m (13,000 ft) to a nearly horizontal liftoff, crossing the west end of SNI at an altitude of approximately 305 m (1,000 ft).

Vandal launches produce the strongest noise source originating from aircraft or missiles in flight over SNI beaches. Sound measurements were collected during two Vandal launches in 1997 and 1999 and are reported in Burgess and Greene (1998) and Greene (1999). Greene (1999) reported that received A-weighted SPL were found to range from 123 dB (re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 126 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) at 945 m (3,100 ft) to 136 dB (re 20 μPa) (SEL of 131 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) at 370 m (1,215 ft). The most intense sound exposure occurred during the first 0.3 to 1.9 seconds after launch.

The subsonic targets and other missiles are small unmanned aircraft that are launched using jet-assisted take-off (JATO) rocket bottles. Once launched, they continue offshore where they are used in training exercises to simulate various types of subsonic threat missiles and aircraft. The larger target, BQM-34, is 7 m (23 ft) long and has a mass of approximately 1,134 kg (2,500 lbs) plus the JATO bottle. The smaller BQM-74, is 420 centimeters (cm) (165.5 inches (in)) long and has a mass of approximately 250 kg (550 lbs) plus the JATO bottle. Other types of small missiles that may be launched include the Exocet, Tomahawk, and Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM). All of these smaller targets are launched from either the Alpha Launch Complex or from Building 807, a second launch site on the west end of SNI. Building 807 is approximately 10 m (30 ft) above sea level and accommodates several fixed and mobile launchers that range from 30 m (98 ft) to 150 m (492 ft) from the nearest shoreline. For these smaller missiles, launch trajectories from Building 807 range from 6 to 45 degrees and cross over the nearest beach at altitudes from 9 to 183 m (30 to 600 ft).

Sound measurements were collected from the launch of a BQM-34S at Naval Air Station, Point Mugu (NAS) in 1997. Burgess and Greene (1998) found that for this launch, the A-weighted SPL ranged from 92 dB (re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 102.2 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) at 370 m (1,200 ft) to 145 dB (re 20 micro-Pa) (SEL of 142.2 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) at 15 m (50 ft). These estimates are approximately 20 dB lower than that of a Vandal launch at similar distances (Greene, 1999).

Aircraft and helicopter flights between NAS on the mainland, the airfield on SNI and the target sites in the Sea Range will be a routine part of any planned launch operation. These operational flights do not pass at low level over the beaches where pinnipeds are expected to be hauled out. In addition, movements of personnel are restricted near the launch sites 2 hours prior to a launch, no personnel are allowed on the western end of SNI during Vandal launches, and various environmental protection restrictions exist near the island's beaches during other times of the y ear.

On July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44180), NMFS published a notice of receipt and a 30-day public comment period was provided on the application and proposed authorization. Comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC).

Comment 1: The MMC believes that NMFS' efforts to redefine Level B harassment administratively to include only “biologically significant” disturbance is ill-advised and contrary to the statutory definition of the term. In this regard, the MMC refers NMFS to letters from the MMC dated December 7, 2000, January 26, 2001, and February 7, 2001, for a more complete discussion of this issue.

Response: A definition of Level B harassment is provided in 50 CFR 216.3 and stated previously in this document. The current interpretation of this regulatory definition by NMFS, as applied to incidental takings, is that one or more pinnipeds blinking its eyes, lifting or turning its head, or moving a few feet along the beach as a result of a human activity should not be considered a “take” under the MMPA definition of harassment. As stated by NMFS previously (see 66 FR 9291, February 7, 2001), if the only reaction to the activity on the part of the marine mammal is within the normal repertoire of actions that are required to carry out the “behavioral pattern”, NMFS considers the activity not to have caused an incidental disruption of the “behavioral pattern”, provided the animal's reaction is not otherwise significant due to length or severity, and therefore the reaction is not considered a take by Level B harassment. As stated by NMFS previously (see 66 FR 41834, August 9, 2001), in 50 CFR 17.3, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) defines harassment as: ”... actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, and sheltering.” NMFS supports such a definition when marine mammals are taken incidental to the conduct of missile launches. NMFS believes that interpretation of the definition of Level B harassment to include every potential or possible reaction is inappropriate for the issuance of IHAs since the reaction does not have important biological context and would needlessly increase the affected universe of individuals and activities in potential violation of the MMPA unless holding an IHA or a Letter of Authorization issued under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.

In addition, NMFS' decision to issue or deny an IHA request is based on the best scientific evidence available showing that the total taking by the specified activity during the specified time period will have a negligible impact on species or stocks of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks of marine mammals intended for subsistence uses. In the Determinations section of this document, NMFS states that it has determined that the short-term impact of the activities will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species and that this behavioral modification, or change, is expected to have a negligible impact on the animals. Where negligible impact is defined in regulation (50 CFR 216.103) as: “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival”.

Comment 2: The MMC recommends that NMFS, if it has not already done so, consult with the Navy to determine whether it would be appropriate to seek a more comprehensive, 5-year authorization for harassment, and other possible types of taking, under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA, rather than separate, 1-year authorizations, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Act.

Response: The Navy applied for the IHA, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, in order to be in compliance with the law during implementation of its 2002-2003 SNI launch schedule. NAWCWD is planning to submit an application for a 5-year authorization, under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA in the near future.

Comment 3: The MMC recommends that NMFS, if it has not already done so, advise the applicant to consult with the USFWS concerning the need for an authorization to take small numbers of sea otters incidental to the proposed activities.

Response: Under the authority of Public Law 99-625, the USFWS established an experimental population of California sea otters at SNI. In 1985, the ESA was amended to allow for the establishment of this experimental population of California sea otters on SNI (H.R. 1027 Committee Report, May 15, 1985). As part of these 1985 amendments, section 5(c) describes the status of the experimental sea otter population under the ESA. This section includes a limited exception to section 7 consultations for agency actions proposed to be carried out directly by a military department and occurring within the California sea otter translocation zone. This limited exception means that for purposes of defense-related actions within the SNI translocation zone, sea otters in the experimental population shall be treated as if it was proposed for listing under the ESA and therefore subject to the informal consultation process under section 7(a)(4) of the ESA. The Navy has consulted with USFWS regarding the take of sea otters incidental to missile launch operations on SNI. However, no takes of sea otters are expected as a result of launch activities.

Comment 4: The MMC recommends that any authorization issued to the applicant specify that, if a mortality or serious injury of a seal or sea lion occurs which appears to be related to target launch activities, operations be suspended while the Service determines whether steps can be taken to avoid further injuries or mortalities or whether an incidental take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA to cover such taking is needed.

Response: NMFS has no authority to suspend missile launch operations. Such authority is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy and is not within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Commerce. The IHA authorizes the unintentional incidental take of marine mammals in connection with specified activities and prescribes methods of taking and other means of reducing potential adverse impacts on the species or stocks and their habitats. Therefore, NMFS does have the authority to suspend the incidental harassment authorization if: (1) the conditions and requirements prescribed in the authorization are not being substantially complied with; or (2) the authorized taking, either individually or in combination with other authorizations, is having, or may have, more than a negligible impact on the species or stock. Because taking a marine mammal by mortality or serious injury incidental to missile launch activities from SNI is not authorized by this incidental harassment authorization, the authorization for incidental harassment may be suspended if a mortality or serious injury of a seal or sea lion is determined to be related to missile launch activities. Prior to suspension of an incidental harassment authorization NMFS must satisfy the statutory requirement of notice and public comment, under section 101(a)(5)(C) of the MMPA, unless NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stock(s) concerned. The level of risk would depend on the level of taking, the status of the affected stock(s), and the likelihood of additional mortality or serious injury takings. The IHA issued to NAWCWD contains the following mitigation measure related to morality and serious injury: If injurious or lethal take is discovered during monitoring, launch procedure and monitoring methods must be reviewed (in cooperation with NMFS) and appropriate changes made prior to the next launch.

Comment 5: The MMC recommends that prior to issuing the requested authorization, NMFS should be satisfied that the applicant's monitoring program is sufficient to detect the effects of the proposed target launches, including any mortality and/or serious injury that results from startle responses or stampedes, on entire haul-out aggregations.

Response: The Navy's proposed video monitoring program provides the best compromise between the desire to conduct detailed surveys of the haul-out areas for mortality and/or serious injury, and the logistical limitations and further risks in conducting such surveys. Due to the physical characteristics of many of the haul-out areas, only observers looking directly down at the rear of the areas, or from close offshore, would be able to detect injured or dead animals in these groups. After much discussion with biologists with many years of experience observing the pinnipeds on SNI, the Navy concluded that such attempts to survey the haul-out groups at close range prior to and following launches was undesirable on the basis that such searches would result in significant disturbance to the pinnipeds, and greater risk of the types of injury the Navy is attempting to minimize. In addition, safety considerations limit access to the area before launches. Also, there are sensitive biological and cultural resources in the haul-out areas that cannot be disturbed (special restrictions are in place to limit personnel movements near the beaches). SNI has been owned and operated by the Navy for more than 50 years and the island has been used previously for missile and target launches. Despite this history of use, the Navy is not aware of any data to suggest that there has been an increase in the mortality rates for those pinniped species hauling out on SNI. In addition, surveys suggest that by far the greatest source of mortality for pinnipeds on the island are El Ni~no events. The Navy will be using three hi-resolution video cameras (one of which has full remote tilt, pan, and zoom capabilities), and two portable cameras, to monitor the haul-out groups. The Navy believes these cameras will provide the least invasive means of assessing the pinnipeds' responses to target missile launches, and the most practicable means to detect the (unlikely) occurrence of injured or dead pinnipeds following a launch.

A detailed description of the Channel Islands/southern California Bight ecosystem and its associated marine mammals can be found in several documents (Le Boeuf and Brownell, 1980; Bonnell et al., 1981; Lawson et al., 1980; Stewart, 1985; Stewart and Yochem, 2000; Sydeman and Allen, 1999) and is not repeated here.

Many of the beaches in the Channel Islands provide resting, molting or breeding places for species of pinnipeds including: northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seals (Phoca vitulina), California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), and Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus). On SNI, three of these species, northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and California sea lions, can be expected to occur on land in the area of the proposed activity either regularly or in large numbers during certain times of the year. Descriptions of the biology and distribution of these three species and others in the region can be found in Stewart and Yochem (2000, 1994), Sydeman and Allen (1999), Barlow et al. (1993), Lowry et al. (1996), Schwartz (1994), Lowry (1999) and several other documents (Barlow et al., 1997; NMFS, 2000; NMFS, 1992; Koski et al., 1998; Gallo-Reynoso, 1994; Stewart et al., 1987). Please refer to those documents and the application for further information on these species.

Sounds generated by the launches of Vandal target missiles and smaller subsonic targets and missiles (BQM-34 or BQM-74 type) as they depart sites on SNI towards operational areas in the Point Mugu Sea Range have the potential to take marine mammals by harassment. Taking by harassment will potentially result from these launches when pinnipeds on the beaches near the launch sites are exposed to the sounds produced by the rocket boosters and the high-speed passage of the missiles as they depart the island on their routes to the Sea Range. Extremely rapid departure of the Vandal and smaller targets means that pinnipeds would be exposed to increased sound levels for very short time intervals (i.e., a few seconds). Noise generated from aircraft and helicopter activities associated with the launches may provide a potential secondary source of marine mammal harassment. The physical presence of aircraft could also lead to non-acoustic effects on marine mammals involving visual or other cues. There are no anticipated effects from human presence on the beaches, since movements of personnel are restricted near the launch sites two hours prior to launches for safety reasons.

Reactions of pinnipeds on the western end of SNI to Vandal target launches have not been well-studied, but based on studies of other rocket launch activities and their effects on pinnipeds in the Channel Islands (Stewart et al., 1993), anticipated impacts can be predicted. In general, other studies have shown that responses of pinnipeds on beaches to acoustic disturbance arising from rocket and target missile launches are highly variable. This variability may be due to many factors, including species, age class, and time of year. Among species, northern elephant seals seem very tolerant of acoustic disturbances (Stewart, 1981), whereas harbor seals (particularly outside the breeding season) seem more easily disturbed. Research and monitoring at Vandenberg Air Force Base found that prolonged or repeated sonic booms, very strong sonic booms or sonic booms accompanying a visual stimulus, such as a passing aircraft, are most likely to stimulate seals to leave the haul-out area and move into the water. During three launches of Vandal missiles from SNI, California sea lions near the launch track line were observed from video recordings to be disturbed and to flee (both up and down the beach) from their former resting positions. Launches of the smaller BQM-34 targets from NAS have not normally resulted in harbor seals leaving their haul-out area at the mouth of Mugu Lagoon, which is approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) from the launch site. An Exocet missile launched from the west end of SNI appeared to cause far less disturbance to hauled out California sea lions than Vandal launches. Given the variability in pinniped response to acoustic disturbance, the Navy conservatively assumes that biologically significant disturbance (i.e. takes by harassment) will sometimes occur upon exposure to launch sounds with SEL's of 100 dBA (re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) or higher.

From Lawson et al. (1998), the Navy determined a conservative estimate of the SEL at which temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Level B harassment) may be elicited in harbor seals and California sea lions (SEL of 145 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec) and northern elephant seals (SEL of 165 dB re 20 micro-Pa2 -sec). The sound levels necessary to elicit mild TTS in captive California sea lions and harbor seals exposed to impulse noises, such as sonic booms, were tens of decibels higher (Bowles et al., 1999) than sound levels measured during Vandal launches (Burgess and Greene, 1998; Greene, 1999). This evidence, in combination with the known sound levels produced by missiles launched from SNI (described later in this document), suggests that no pinnipeds will be exposed to TTS-inducing SELs during planned launches.

Based on modeling of sound propagation in a free field situation, Burgess and Greene (1998) data were used by the Navy to predict that Vandal target launches from SNI could produce a 100-dBA acoustic contour that extends an estimated 4,263 m (13,986 ft) perpendicular to its launch track. In other words, Vandal target launch sounds are predicted to exceed the SEL (100 dBA) disturbance criteria out to a distance of 4,263 m (13,986 ft) from the Alpha Launch Complex. Northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and California sea lions haul out in areas within the perimeter of this 100-dBA contour for Vandal launches. For BQM-34 launches from Alpha Launch Complex, the Navy assumes that the 100 dBA contour extends an estimated 1,372 m (4,500 ft), perpendicular to its launch track (C. Malme, Engineering and Scientific Services, Hingham, MA, unpublished data). Along the launch track and ahead of the BQM-34, the 100 dBA contour extends a shorter distance (549 m or 1,800 ft). For the smaller BQM-74 and Exocet missiles, the Navy predicts that the 100 dBA contours will be smaller still. The free field modeling scenario used to predict these acoustic contours does not account for transmission losses caused by wind, intervening topography, and variations in launch trajectory or azimuth. Therefore, the predicted 100 dBA contours may be smaller at certain beach locations and for different launch trajectories.

In general, the extremely rapid departure of the Vandal and smaller targets means that pinnipeds could be exposed to increased sound levels for very short time intervals (a few seconds) potentially leading to alert and startle responses from individuals on haul out sites in the vicinity of launches. Since preliminary observations of the responses of pinnipeds to Vandal launches at SNI have not shown injury, mortality, or extended biological disturbance, the Navy anticipates that the effects of the planned target launches will have no more than a negligible impact on pinniped populations.

Given that this activity will happen infrequently, and will produce only brief, rapid-onset sounds, it is unlikely that pinnipeds hauled out on beaches at the western end of SNI will exhibit much, if any, habituation to target missile launch activities. In addition, the infrequent and brief nature of these sounds will cause masking for not more than a very small fraction of the time (usually less than 2 seconds per launch) during any single day. Therefore, the Navy assumes that these occasional and brief episodes of masking will have no significant effects on the abilities of pinnipeds to hear one another or to detect natural environmental sounds that may be relevant to the animals.

NAWS estimates that the following numbers of marine mammals may be subject to Level B harassment, as defined in 50 CFR 216.3:

There are no subsistence uses for these pinniped species in California waters, and, thus, there are no anticipated effects on subsistence needs.

Effects of Target Missile Launches and Associated Activities on Marine Mammal Habitat on SNI

During the effectiveness period of this IHA, harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern elephant seals will use various beaches around SNI as places to rest, molt, and breed. These beaches consist of sand (e.g., Red Eye Beach), rock ledges (e.g., Phoca Beach) and rocky cobble (e.g., Vizcaino Beach). The pinnipeds do not feed when hauled out on these beaches, and the airborne launch sounds will not persist in the water near the island for more than a few seconds. Therefore, the Navy does not expect that launch activities will have any impact on the food or feeding success of these animals. The solid rocket booster from the Vandal target and the JATO bottles from the BMQs are jettisoned shortly after launch and fall into the sea west of SNI. While it is theoretically possible that one of these boosters might instead land on a beach, the probability of this occurring is very low. Fuel contained in the boosters and JATO bottles is consumed rapidly and completely, so there would be no risk of contamination even if a booster or bottle did land on the beach. Overall, the proposed target missile launches and associated activities are not expected to cause significant impacts on habitats or on food sources used by pinnipeds on SNI.

To avoid additional harassment to the pinnipeds on beach haul out sites and to avoid any possible sensitizing or predisposing of pinnipeds to greater responsiveness towards the sights and sounds of a launch, NAWCWD Point Mugu will limit its activities near the beaches in advance of launches. Existing safety protocols for Vandal launches provide a built-in mitigation measure. That is, personnel are normally not allowed near any of the pinniped beaches close to the flight track on the western end of SNI within two hours prior to a launch. Where practicable, NAWCWD Point Mugu will adopt the following additional mitigation measures when doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements or mission goals: (1) The Navy will limit launch activities during pinniped pupping seasons, particularly harbor seal pupping season; (2) the Navy will not launch target missiles at low elevation (under 305 m (1,000 ft)) on launch azimuths that pass close to beach haul-out site(s); (3) the Navy will avoid multiple target launches in quick succession over haul-out sites, especially when young pups are present; and, (4) the Navy will limit launch activities during the night.

As part of its application, NAWS provided a proposed monitoring plan, similar to that adopted for the 2001-2002 IHA (see 66 FR 41834, August 9, 2001), for assessing impacts to marine mammals from Vandal and smaller subsonic target and missile launch activities on SNI. This monitoring plan is described in their application (NAWS, 2002).

The Navy will conduct the following monitoring during 2002-2003:

In conjunction with a biological contractor, the Navy will continue its land-based monitoring program to assess effects on the three common pinniped species on SNI: northern elephant seals, harbor seals, and California sea lions. This monitoring would occur at three different sites of varying distance from the launch site before, during, and after each launch. The monitoring would be via digital video cameras.

During the day of each missile launch, the observer would place three digital video cameras overlooking chosen haul out sites. Each camera would be set to record a focal subgroup within the haul out aggregation for a maximum of 4 hours or as permitted by the videotape capacity.

Following each launch, all digital recordings will be transferred to DVDs for analysis. A DVD player/computer with high-resolution freeze-frame and jog shuttle will be used to facilitate distance estimation, event timing, and characterization of behavior. Details of analysis methods can be found in LGL Ltd. Environmental Research Associates et al. (LGL, 2002).

During each launch, the Navy would obtain calibrated recordings of the levels and characteristics of the received launch sounds. Acoustic data would be acquired using three Autonomous Terrestrial Acoustic Recorders (ATAR) at three different sites of varying distances from the target's flight path. ATARs can record sounds for extended periods (dependent on sampling rate) without intervention by a technician, giving them the advantage over traditional digital audio tape (DAT) recorders should there be prolonged launch delays of as long as 10 hours. Insofar as possible, acoustic recording locations would correspond with the sites where video monitoring is taking place. The collection of acoustic data would provide information on the magnitude, characteristics, and duration of sounds that pinnipeds may be exposed to during a launch. In addition, the acoustic data can be combined with the behavioral data collected via the land-based monitoring program to determine if there is a dose-response relationship between received sound levels and pinniped behavioral reactions. Once collected, sound files will be transferred onto compact discs (CDs) and sent to the acoustical contractor for sound analysis.

For further details regarding the installation and calibration of the acoustic instruments and analysis methods refer to LGL (2002).

Under the IHA, NAWS will provide an initial report on activities to NMFS after the first 90 days of the authorization period. This report will summarize the timing and nature of the launch operation(s), summarize pinniped behavioral observations, and estimate the amount and nature of all takes by harassment or in other ways. In the event that any cases of pinniped mortality are determined by trained biologists to result from launch activities, this information will be reported to NMFS immediately.

A draft final technical report will be submitted to NMFS 120 days prior to the expiration of the IHA. This technical report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation of all monitoring tasks for launches during the first 6 months of the IHA period, plus preliminary information for launches during months 7 and 8.

The revised final technical report, including all monitoring results during the authorization, will be due 90 days after the end of the 1-year IHA period.

NAWS has not requested the take of any listed species nor is any listed species under NMFS jurisdiction expected to be impacted by these activities. Therefore, NMFS has determined that a section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required at this time.

In accordance with section 6.01 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act , May 20, 1999), NMFS has analyzed both the context and intensity of this action and determined, based on a programmatic NEPA assessment conducted on the impact of NMFS' rulemaking for the issuance of IHAs (61 FR 15884; April 10, 1996); an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Adverse Impact conducted by NMFS on this action in 2001; the NAWCWD's March, 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement to assess the effects of its ongoing and proposed operations in the Sea Range of Point Mugu; and the content and analysis of NAWS's 2002 request for an IHA that the proposed issuance of this IHA to NAWS by NMFS will not individually or cumulatively result in a significant impact on the quality of the human environment as defined in 40 CFR 1508.27. Therefore, based on this analysis, the action of issuing an IHA for these activities meets the definition of a “Categorical Exclusion” as defined under NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 and is exempted from further environmental review.

On February 14, 2001, by a unanimous vote, the State of California Coastal Commission concluded that, with the monitoring and mitigation commitments the Navy has incorporated into their various testing and training activities on the Point Mugu Sea Range, including activities on SNI, and including the commitment to enable continuing Commission staff review of finalized monitoring plans and ongoing monitoring results, the activities are consistent with the marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and water quality policies (Sections 30230, 30240, and 30231) of the California Coastal Act.

Based on the evidence provided in the application, the several NEPA documents, and this document, and taking into consideration the comments submitted on the application and proposed authorization notice, NMFS has determined that there will be no more than a negligible impact on marine mammals from the issuance of the harassment authorization to NAWCWD Point Mugu. NMFS is assured that the short-term impact of conducting missile launch operations from SNI in the Channel Islands off southern California will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of pinnipeds. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of launch activities, this behavioral change is expected to have no more than a negligible impact on the pinniped species and stocks.

Since the number of potential harassment takings of northern elephant seals, harbor seals, California sea lions, and northern fur seals is estimated to be small, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required under the IHA, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

NMFS has issued an IHA to NAWCWD Point Mugu for 15 launches of Vandal (or similar) missiles and 5 launches of smaller subsonic targets from San Nicolas Island, CA for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this document and the IHA are undertaken.

The RFSAP will convene to review stock assessments on the status of the red grouper and yellowedge grouper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. These stock assessments were prepared by the NMFS and will be presented to the RFSAP. The last red grouper assessment was made in 1999. In October 2000, NMFS declared red grouper to be overfished based on the 1999 assessment plus additional analyses requested by the RFSAP. In July 2002, the Council approved a red grouper rebuilding plan, which is being submitted to NMFS for review, approval and implementation. There have been no previous assessments of yellowedge grouper, and the status of the stock is unknown.

The RFSAP is composed of biologists who are trained in the specialized field of population dynamics. They advise the Council on the status of stocks and, when necessary, recommend a level of acceptable biological catch (ABC) needed to prevent overfishing or to effect a recovery of an overfished stock. They may also recommend catch restrictions needed to attain management goals.

Based on its review of the red grouper and yellowedge grouper stock assessments, the RFSAP may recommend whether to declare the stocks overfished and/or undergoing overfishing, and may recommend a range of acceptable biological catch (ABC) for 2003. The RFSAP may also recommend management measures to achieve the ABC.

The conclusions of the RFSAP will be reviewed by the Council's Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Socioeconomic Panel (SEP), and Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP) at meetings to be held in October, 2002. Red grouper is a component of the shallow-water grouper complex (which consists of red grouper, gag, yellowfin grouper, black grouper, scamp, yellowmouth grouper, rock hind, and red hind). Yellowedge grouper is a component of the deep-water grouper complex (which consists of misty grouper, snowy grouper, yellowedge grouper, warsaw grouper, speckled hind, and, after the shallow-water grouper quota is filled, scamp). The Council may set year 2003 total allowable catches (TAC) as well as other management measures for the red grouper component of the shallow-water grouper complex and the yellowedge grouper component of the deep-water grouper complex at its meeting in Key Largo, FL on November 12-15, 2002.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the RFSAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the RFSAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas 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 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 Anne Alford at the above address by September 10, 2002.

Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub. L. No. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000), to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate and foreign commerce and to remove uncertainty about the validity of contracts entered into electronically. Section 101 requires, among other things, that electronic signatures, contracts, and records be given legal effect, validity, and enforceability. Sections 103(a) and (b) of the Act provide that the requirements of section 101 shall not apply to contracts and records governed by statutes and regulations regarding: court documents and records; probate and domestic law matters; state commercial law; consumer law covering utility services, real property defaults and foreclosures, and insurance benefits; product recall notices; and hazardous materials documents.

The statutory language providing for an exception to section 101 of ESIGN for court documents and notices is found in section 103(b) of the Act:

* * * *

(b) Additional Exceptions.— The provisions of section 101 shall not apply to—

(1) court orders or notices, or official court documents (including briefs,pleadings, and other writings) required to be executed in connection with court proceedings;

* * * *

The statutory language requiring the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation of the section 103 exceptions to the ESIGN Act is found in section 103(c)(1) of the Act as set forth below.

(1) Evaluation required.— The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, shall review the operation of the exceptions in subsections (a) and (b) to evaluate, over a period of 3 years, whether such exceptions continue to be necessary for the protection of consumers. Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of such evaluation.

Over the last few years, federal and state courts have established a substantial number of electronic systems for filing and public access to court documents. The federal courts have been a leader in this area, with the establishment of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. Through this system, attorneys can file court documents from their offices; judges, court staff, attorneys and the public have immediate access to most of those documents. Currently, nine district courts and twenty-five bankruptcy courts accept electronic filings. Over the next several years, additional courts are expected to do so. As of July 2002, more than 15,000 attorneys and others have filed court documents over the Internet. The federal courts have over 3 million cases, containing many millions of documents, available to the public over the Internet. See Administrative Office of the Courts, Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/cmecf/cmecf_faqs.html.

State courts have also followed the trend set by the federal courts by allowing public access to court documents, and some states also have developed online filing and court document management systems. A report of the Maryland Judiciary's Committee on Access to Court Records, released July 5, 2002, states that 17 percent (or 9 states) of all states employ some type of computer access to court records, while 31 percent offer “limited-to-substantial” free or inexpensive web access to court records. See “State and Federal Policy on Electronic Access to Court Records,” Subcommittee on Access to Court Records, at 2, available at http://www.courts.state.md.us/access/finalreport2-05.pdf.

The ESIGN Act directs the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information to conduct an evaluation of the exceptions set out in section 103 of the Act to determine whether the exceptions continue to be necessary for the protection of consumers, and to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation no later than June 30, 2003. The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information is the chief administrator of NTIA. As the President's principal advisor on telecommunications policies pertaining to the Nation's economic and technological advancement, NTIA is the executive branch agency responsible for developing and articulating domestic and international telecommunications policy.

The ESIGN Section 103 evaluation of the court documents exception is intended to evaluate the current state of federal and state court electronic filing systems and electronic access for public access in preparation to report to Congress regarding whether the exception remains necessary for the protection of consumers. The purpose of this evaluation is not to review or analyze federal and state court regulations and rules for the purpose of recommending changes to the regulations, but rather to advise Congress of the state of law, practice, and procedure regarding this issue. Comments filed in response to this Notice should not be considered to have a connection with or impact on federal and state court procedures or rulemaking proceedings.

NTIA requests that interested parties, including members of the bar, courts and consumer representatives, submit written comment on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may assist in the evaluation of the court documents and records exception required by section 103(c). We invite comment on ESIGN generally to assist in evaluating the narrower issues associated with the substantive law governing the exception. The following questions are intended to provide guidance as to the specific subject areas expected to be examined as a part of the evaluation. Commenters are invited to discuss any relevant issue, regardless of whether it is identified below.

1. Describe the current developments with respect to electronic filing and electronic access procedures for court documents, if any, in federal, state or local rules and regulations.

2. Discuss whether all types of federal or state court documents (pleadings, briefs, motions, orders, etc.) are available in an electronic format. If not, describe court documents that have been excluded from court filing or access systems and explain the basis for their exclusion.

3. Discuss whether documents may be filed electronically in all types of cases (i.e., civil, criminal, bankruptcy) and are available for public access in electronic formats?

4. If access to documents is limited based on case type, for what kinds of cases is access restricted (e.g., juvenile or adoption cases)? Please discuss what interests may be served by these access restrictions and whether it is necessary to retain the court documents exception to preserve and protect the interest(s).

5. Discuss whether the current Uniform Electronic Transactions contain exceptions for court orders, notices, and documents.

6. Describe any state or federal regulations, other than ESIGN and UETA, that preclude electronic filing or access to court documents.

7. Given the current developments in federal court regulations with respect to electronic transactions in this area, is it necessary to retain the court documents exception to the ESIGN requirements? If so, what is the interest that this exception continues to serve or protect?

8. Given the current development in state court regulations with respect to electronic transactions in this area, is it necessary to retain the court documents exception to the ESIGN requirements? If so, what is the interest that this exception continues to serve or protect?

9. Discuss any unique issues surrounding the electronic filing, delivery, or service of court documents (such as authentication, privacy, and security) that should be considered in determining whether to eliminate the court documents exception from ESIGN.

10. Are there technological issues that either enable or impair electronic filing and electronic access to court documents? Please describe in detail the available technology that enables electronic filing and electronic access to court documents and records.

Please provide copies of studies, reports, opinions, research or other empirical data referenced in the responses.

Congress enacted the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Pub. L. No. 106-229, 114 Stat. 464 (2000), to facilitate the use of electronic records and signatures in interstate and foreign commerce and to remove uncertainty about the validity of contracts entered into electronically. Section 101 requires, among other things, that electronic signatures, contracts, and records be given legal effect, validity, and enforceability. Sections 103(a) and (b) of the Act provides that the requirements of section 101 shall not apply to contracts and records governed by statutes and regulations regarding: court records, probate and domestic law matters; state commercial law; consumer law covering utility services, real property defaults and foreclosures, and insurance benefits; product recall notices; and hazardous materials documents.

The statutory language providing for an exception to section 101 of ESIGN for the transportation and handling of hazardous materials, pesticides, or other toxic or dangerous materials is found in section 103(b) of the Act:

* * * *

(b) Additional Exceptions.— The provisions of section 101 shall not apply to—

* * * *

(3) any document required to accompany any transportation or handling of hazardous materials, pesticides, or other toxic or dangerous materials.

* * * *

The statutory language requiring the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation of the section 103 exceptions to the ESIGN Act is found in section 103(c)(1) of the Act as set forth below.

(1) Evaluation required.— The Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, shall review the operation of the exceptions in subsections (a) and (b) to evaluate, over a period of 3 years, whether such exceptions continue to be necessary for the protection of consumers. Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to Congress on the results of such evaluation.

As authorized by the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101-51270, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. RSPA has subsequently developed a comprehensive set of regulations that govern the safe transportation of hazardous materials (Hazardous Materials Regulations; 49 CFR Parts 171-180). The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) address a comprehensive approach to hazardous materials transportation, including: documentation that must accompany shipments (shipping papers and emergency response information); other hazardous communication requirements, including hazard warning labels and placards; packaging marking; and packaging manufacture and use requirements.

Every state has adopted, and currently enforces, regulations that are consistent with the HMR for the transportation of hazardous materials. These requirements, including those addressing hazard communication, are generally consistent with the international recommendations and requirements for the shipment of hazardous materials issued by the United Nations Committee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Civil Aviation Organization.

RSPA requires physical, hard copy shipping papers and emergency response information to accompany each shipment of hazardous materials. The shipping paper must remain on the transport vehicle or with the shipment while in transportation to serve as part of the hazard communication system. In addition to providing information to the transporter, the shipping paper and other aspects of the hazard communication system allows emergency responders ( e.g., firefighters and police officers) to quickly and safely identify the hazardous materials being transported in case of an emergency. The shipping paper allows emergency responders to make critical decisions concerning evacuation radii, personal protection equipment, fire dispersants, and response strategy.

RSPA recently published a final rule which requires shippers and carriers of hazardous materials to retain a copy of each hazardous material shipping paper or an electronic image thereof, for a period of 375 days after the date the hazardous material is accepted by a carrier. See 67 FR 46123, July 12, 2002; 49 CFR 172.201(e). This requirement is consistent with section 5110(e) of Federal hazmat law which requires that a copy of each shipping paper be retained for a period of one year after shipment of the hazardous materials ends. Electronic images of shipping papers are authorized. An electronic image includes an image transmitted by facsimile (FAX) machine, an image on the screen of a computer, or an image generated by an optical imaging machine.

In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the transportation of hazardous wastes, which are also regulated by DOT as hazardous materials. See 42 U.S.C. § 6923(a), (b)(1976). Since the enactment of the ESIGN Act in 2000, both DOT and EPA have initiated rulemaking proceedings to revise their regulations regarding the transportation and handling of hazardous wastes to allow specific hazardous waste information to be transmitted electronically between generators, treatment and disposal facilities, and state governments. On May 22, 2001, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register requesting comment on its proposal. See 66 FR 28239. The Notice proposed to change EPA's hazardous waste regulations, which establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous waste from a generator's site to the site where the hazardous waste is to be managed. See 40 CFR parts 262 through 265; 45 FR 12724, February 26, 1980.

The central purpose of the uniform hazardous waste manifest (UHWM) system is to provide documentation showing chain of custody of the hazardous waste at all times, where the waste is destined for disposition, and when the waste arrives at the disposal facility. The UHWM system allows generators, shippers, and waste handlers to use a single form to satisfy both EPA's manifest requirements and DOT's shipping paper requirements. See 49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984. Thus, the UHWM can also serve as a DOT-required shipping paper conveying essential emergency information during transportation, such as the proper shipping name and hazard class of a material, and the telephone number where more information about the material can be obtained.

EPA's NPRM proposes to modify the UHWM regulations to allow waste handlers (generators, transporters, and treatment, storage or disposal facilities) the option of preparing, transmitting, signing, and storing their manifests electronically. See 66 FR 28240, 28266. This proposal includes a standard for signing the manifest with electronic signatures, electronic data interchange (EDI) and Internet file standards, and computer security standards. The EPA proposal, however, also contains a requirement that a paper copy of the electronic manifest accompany the shipment in order to satisfy the HMR requirement that a shipping paper accompany each hazardous materials shipment for emergency response purposes.

In connection with EPA's notice, RSPA, issued an NPRM proposing to revise its regulations on the use of the UHWM for hazardous waste shipments. RSPA's proposed regulatory changes parallel EPA's proposal. See 66 FR 41490, August 8, 2001. Specifically, RSPA proposes to modify title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 172.505 to provide that a printout of the electronic manifest or a separate shipping paper must accompany the shipment of hazardous waste when an electronic manifest is used. Id. at 41491.

Both EPA's and DOT's proposed and current regulations regarding hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be impacted by elimination of the ESIGN Act's hazardous and dangerous materials documents exception. Thus, the section 103 evaluation initiated by this Notice has implications for companies that engage in the manufacture, sale, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials. It also has implications for emergency responders who rely on the immediate availability of critical information in the event of a release of hazardous materials in transportation. 2

The ESIGN Act directs the Assistant Secretary of Communications and Information to conduct an evaluation of the exceptions set out in section 103 of the Act to determine whether the exceptions continue to be necessary for the protection of consumers, and to submit a report to Congress on the results of the evaluation no later than June 30, 2003. The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information is the chief administrator of NTIA. As the President's principal advisor on telecommunications policies pertaining to the Nation's economic and technological advancement, NTIA is the executive branch agency responsible for developing and articulating domestic and international telecommunications policy.

The ESIGN section 103 evaluation of the hazardous materials documents exception is intended to evaluate the current status of federal and state regulations and practices, and the course of dealing among companies that handle and transport hazardous wastes, in preparation for a report to Congress on whether the exception of documents related to the transportation and handling of hazardous materials remains necessary to protect consumers. The purpose of this evaluation is not to review or analyze federal and state regulations and rules relating to hazardous materials documents for the purpose of recommending changes to those regulations, but rather to advise Congress of the current state of law, practice, and procedure regarding this issue. Comments filed in response to this Notice should not be considered to have a connection with or impact on federal and state procedures or rulemaking proceedings concerning hazardous materials documents.

Due to the comprehensive nature of EPA and DOT's rulemaking proceedings and the scope of the issues raised therein, NTIA may consider comments submitted in those proceedings in the preparation of the report to Congress. 3

NTIA requests that all interested parties submit written comment on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may assist in the evaluation required by section 103(c). We invite comment on ESIGN generally to assist in evaluating the narrower issues associated with the substantive law governing the hazardous materials and dangerous substances documents exception. The following questions are intended to provide guidance as to the specific subject areas to be examined as a part of the evaluation. Commenters are invited to discuss any relevant issue, regardless of whether it is identified below.

1. Describe federal, state and local regulations, laws, and ordinances that require documentation for handling of hazardous materials and dangerous substances.

2. Describe the current developments with respect to electronic documentation and recordkeeping, if any, in federal, state or local regulation of hazardous materials or dangerous substance handling.

3. Discuss what effect, if any, the removal of the hazardous and dangerous materials documents exception in section 103(b)(3) from ESIGN Act would have on the ability of state and federal agencies to perform their missions.

4. What effective means of hazard communication would be available if a paper copy of the hazardous materials shipping paper is eliminated or made optional?

5. Given the current developments in Federal regulations with respect to electronic transactions in this area, is it necessary to retain the hazardous materials exception to the ESIGN requirements? If so, what is the interest that this exception continues to serve or protect?

6. Given the current developments in State regulations with respect to electronic transactions in this area, is it necessary to retain the hazardous materials exception to the ESIGN requirements? If so, what is the interest that this exception continues to serve or protect?

7. If the ESIGN Act continues to except hazardous materials, pesticides, and other toxic or dangerous materials shipping documents from the ESIGN Act requirements, how will that impact EPA's electronic hazardous waste manifest proposed rule?

Please provide copies of studies, reports, opinions, research or other empirical data referenced in the responses.

The U.S. Customs Service has conducted on-site verification of textile and textile product production in a number of foreign countries. Based on information obtained through on-site verifications and from other sources, U.S. Customs has informed CITA that certain companies were illegally transshipping, were closed, or were unable to produce records to verify production. The Chairman of CITA has directed the U.S. Customs Service to issue regulations regarding the denial of entry of shipments from such companies. (See Federal Register notice 64 FR 41395, published on July 30, 1999). In order to secure compliance with U.S. law, including Section 204 and U.S. customs law, to carry out textile and textile product agreements, and to avoid circumvention of textile agreements, the Chairman of CITA is directing the U.S. Customs Service to deny entry to textile and textile products allegedly manufactured by Cheerful Garment Factory, Sai Land Garment Factory, and Tung Land Garment Factory for five years; and by Mei Lai and Vai Iat Lda. for six months. Customs has informed CITA that these companies were found to have been illegally transhipping, closed, or unable to produce records to verify production.

Should CITA determine that this decision should be amended, such amendment will be published in the Federal Register.

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

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. , new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) title; (3) summary of the collection; (4) description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) reporting and/or recordkeeping burden. ED invites public comment.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: State-Flex Application.

Abstract: Application for State-Flexibility Authority (“State-Flex”). By statute, the Department can grant State-Flex to up to 7 SEAs through a competitive process. State-Flex SEAs receive (1) the flexibility to consolidate certain Federal formula funds reserved for State administration and State-level activities for any educational purpose authorized under the ESEA to assist the SEAs, and the local educational agencies (LEAs) with which it enters into performance agreements, in making adequate yearly progress and narrowing achievement gaps; (2) the authority to specify how LEAs in the State use Innovative Program funds under Part A of Title V; and (3) the authority to, in turn, enter into performance agreements with four to ten LEAs in the State (half of which must be high poverty LEAs), permitting those LEAs to consolidate certain Federal funds and to use those funds for any ESEA purpose consistent with the SEA's State-Flex plan. The purpose of State-Flex is to assist SEAs and LEAs in those states to meet the State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and narrowing achievement gaps.

Additional Information: Flexibility provisions are one of the hallmarks of the No Child Left Behind Act, and early implementation of these flexibility provisions is a high priority for the Department; the State Flexibility Authority is arguably the most prominent of these provisions. An emergency clearance is necessary to enable prospective applicants sufficient time to prepare a competitive application; otherwise, harm to the public would thus occur if this clearance is not approved.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 21.

  Burden Hours: 13,440.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2136. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements, contact Kathy Axt via her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

The Clean Air Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object to, as appropriate, operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this 45-day review period to object to state operating permits if EPA has not done so. LEAN filed two administrative petitions to object to state operating permits issued by LDEQ. The first petition, submitted by letter dated January 2, 2001, challenges the issuance of a Title V operating permit to Borden Chemical, Inc., for the construction of a formaldehyde plant in Geismar, Louisiana (the “Borden Petition”). The second petition, submitted by letter dated June 18, 2001, challenges the issuance of a Title V operating permit to Dow Chemicals, Inc., for construction of a facility in Plaquemine, Louisiana (the “Dow Petition”). The lawsuit alleges that EPA has a nondiscretionary duty to grant or deny such petitions within 60 days, and seeks to compel EPA to respond to the petitions.

The settlement agreement provides that, within ten days after execution by the parties, the parties will file a joint motion with the court requesting the lawsuit be stayed. LEAN may request the court to lift the stay of the lawsuit, and establish a schedule for further proceedings, if EPA fails to sign a response to the Borden Petition by September 30, 2002, or fails to sign a response to the Dow Petition by October 31, 2002.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. 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.

The Clean Air Act (Act) affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and, as appropriate, object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorized any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to state operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On October 4, 2000, the EPA received a petition from the Sierra Club requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to Doe Run Buick Mine and Mill. The petition alleged that the final title V permit contains a number of inadequate or unclear monitoring conditions, lacks an appropriate Statement of Basis, and does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 40 CFR 70.6(a)(1) because many individual permit conditions are not practically enforceable and lack adequate periodic monitoring. EPA agrees with the petitioner that the permit must be revised to incorporate additional monitoring and other necessary procedures to assure compliance. The other issues raised by the petitioner are found to be without merit.

On July 31, 2002, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the MDNR must reopen the permit to incorporate additional monitoring and other necessary procedures to assure compliance with the PM 10 emission limitation. The order also explains the reasons for denying the Sierra Club's remaining claims.

In accordance with section 505(b)(2) of the Act, denial of a petition is subject to judicial review under section 307 of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1), any petition for review shall be filed by November 4, 2002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit.

Under Section 130 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to review, and to revise as necessary, the emission factors used to estimate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) from area and mobile sources. In the case of highway vehicles, emission factors for these pollutants are estimated using the highway vehicle emission factor model, commonly referred to as MOBILE. This model, first developed in the late 1970s, has been revised, updated, and improved periodically since that time to account for improved data and analyses concerning in-use emissions performance of highway vehicles, changes in vehicle and emission control technology, changes in fuel composition, strengthening of applicable emission standards, refinements to applicable test procedures, and other items that affect in-use emission levels.

Section 130 of the Act requires that this emission factor review, and revision as needed, be performed at least every three years. As noted above, the current official version of the model, MOBILE6, was released January 2002. Since that time, two draft extensions to the model have been developed, MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2. While not involving revision and update to the entire model, these versions were developed to address specific needs on the part of emission factor users. MOBILE6.1 added the calculation of particulate matter (PM) to the emissions calculated by MOBILE6. MOBILE6.2 added the calculation of toxic compounds to the emissions calculated by MOBILE6 or MOBILE6.1.

The diesel engine has been a vital workhorse in the United States, powering many of its large trucks, buses, farm, railroad, marine and construction equipment. Expectations are that the use of diesel engines will increase due to the superior performance characteristics of the engine. Diesel engine exhaust, however, contains large quantities of harmful pollutants in a complex mixture of gases and particulates. Human exposure to this exhaust comes from both highway uses (on-road) as well as from the nonroad uses of the diesel engine.

EPA started regulating the gaseous emissions from the heavy duty highway uses of diesel engines in the 1970s and particles in the 1980s. The reduction of harmful exhaust emissions has taken a large step forward because of standards issued in 2000 which will bring about very large reductions in exhaust emissions for model year 2007 heavy duty engines used in trucks, buses and other on-road uses. EPA anticipates developing similarly stringent regulations for other diesel engine uses, including those used in nonroad applications.

Until these regulations take effect, EPA is partnering with state and local agencies to retrofit older, dirtier, engines to make them run cleaner and to develop model programs to reduce emissions from idling engines. In addition, EPA and local authorities are working to ensure early introduction of effective technologies for particulate matter control and low sulfur fuel where possible in advance of the 2007 requirements. Today, at least one engine manufacturer is producing new engines with particulate traps that when coupled with low-sulfur fuel meet 2007 particulate emission levels. The Agency expects significant environmental and public health benefits as the environmental performance of diesel engines and diesel fuels improve.

A draft of this assessment, along with the peer review comments of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, was part of the scientific basis for EPA's regulation of heavy-duty highway engines completed in December 2000. The information provided by this assessment was useful in developing EPA's understanding of the public health implications of exposure to diesel engine exhaust and the public health benefits of taking regulatory action to control diesel emissions.

The health assessment concludes that long-term ( i.e. , chronic) exposure to diesel exhaust is likely to pose a lung cancer hazard, as well as damage the lung in other ways depending on exposure. The health assessment's conclusions are based on exposure to exhaust from diesel engines built prior to the mid-1990s. Short-term ( i.e. , acute) exposures can cause transient irritation and inflammatory symptoms, although the nature and extent of these symptoms are highly variable across the population. The assessment also states that evidence is emerging that diesel exhaust exacerbates existing allergies and asthma symptoms. The assessment recognizes that diesel engine exhaust emissions, as a mixture of many constituents, also contribute to ambient concentrations of several criteria air pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, fine particles, as well as other hazardous air pollutants.

The particulate fraction of diesel exhaust and its composition is a key element in EPA's present understanding of the health issues and formulation of the conclusions in the health assessment. The amount of exhaust particulate from on-road engines has been decreasing in recent years and is expected to decrease 90% from today's levels with the engines designed to meet the 2007 regulations. The composition of the exhaust particulate matter and the gases also will change. While EPA believes that the assessment's conclusions apply to the general use of diesels today, as cleaner diesel engines replace a substantial number of existing engines, the general applicability of the conclusions in this Health Assessment Document will need to be reevaluated.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0370.

Title: Part 32—Uniform Systems of Accounts for Telecommunications Companies.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 239.

Estimated Time Per Response: 6,123.41 hours (average).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,463,496 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: On March 6, 2002, the Commission adopted an Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 00-199, FCC 02-68, which reinstated Account 2400, Accumulated Amortization—tangible, a Class B account, as the request of the United States Telecom Association (USTA). The information contained in the various reports submitted to this Commission by the carriers provides the necessary detail to enable the Commission to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

Continuously accelerating technological changes in telecommunications design, manufacturing, and deployment require that the Commission be promptly informed of those changes to fulfill its statutory mandate effectively. The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a means by which a diverse array of recognized technical experts from different areas such as manufacturing, academia, communications services providers, the research community, etc., can provide advice to the FCC on innovation in the communications industry. The purpose of, and agenda for, the sixth meeting under the Council's new charter will be to review the progress that has been made and further direct the Council's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities under its charter. The Council will also consider such questions as the Commission may put before it. Members of the public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. Unless so requested by the Council's Chair, there will be no public oral participation, but the public may submit written comments to Jeffery Goldthorp, the Federal Communications Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Technological Advisory Council, before the meeting. Mr. Goldthorp's e-mail address is jgoldtho@fcc.gov . His United States mail delivery address is Jeffery Goldthorp, Chief, Network Technology Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

The Draft Guideline for Prevention of Healthcare-associated Pneumonia, 2003, addresses the prevention and control of healthcare-associated bacterial pneumonia, especially ventilator-associated pneumonia; Legionnaire's disease; pertussis; invasive pulmonary aspergillosis; viral pneumonia; respiratory syncytial virus infection; parainfluenza; adenovirus infection; and influenza. Part I discusses the epidemiology, diagnosis, pathogenesis, modes of transmission, and prevention and control of the diseases listed above. Part II contains the consensus recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) and addresses such issues as education of healthcare personnel regarding the prevention and control of healthcare-associated pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract diseases and measures to prevent person-to-person transmission of each disease.

HICPAC was established in 1991 to provide advice and guidance to the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Health, DHHS; the Director, CDC; and the Director, National Center for Infectious Diseases, regarding the practice of infection control and strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of healthcare-associated infections in U.S. healthcare facilities. The committee advises CDC on guidelines and other policy statements regarding prevention of healthcare-associated infections and related adverse events.

The PCMR acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and support for persons with mental retardation. The Committee is responsible for evaluating the adequacy of current practices in programs and support for person with mental retardation, and for reviewing legislative proposals that impact the quality of life that is experienced by citizens with mental retardation and their families. The Committee submits an annual report to the President.

Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing were developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. Subpart C of the Guidelines, “Certification of Laboratories Engaged in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies,” sets strict standards which laboratories must meet in order to conduct urine drug testing for Federal agencies. To become certified an applicant laboratory must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection.

To maintain that certification a laboratory must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus periodic, on-site inspections.

Laboratories which claim to be in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements expressed in the HHS Guidelines. A laboratory must have its letter of certification from SAMHSA, HHS (formerly: HHS/NIDA) which attests that it has met minimum standards.

In accordance with Subpart C of the Guidelines, the following laboratories meet the minimum standards set forth in the Guidelines:

This Notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, an information collection package to obtain current data from owners of multifamily housing projects regarding preferences for occupancy by the elderly persons and persons with disabilities, unit distribution, and units with accessible features. This information is necessary for Departmental compliance with the 2000 House Committee on Appropriations Report #106-286. The information obtained through this inventory will be published on HUD's Web site for public access and will assist prospective applicants with locating units for which they are eligible.

This Notice is soliciting comments form members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Inventory of Housing Units Designated for Elderly/Disabled Persons.

Description of Proposed Information Collection: The information obtained through this survey will be published on HUD's Web site for public access and will assist prospective elderly/disabled applicants to locate housing units for which they are eligible.

OMB Control Number: To be assigned.

Agency Form Numbers: HUD-90059.

Members of Affected Public: Individuals or households/owners of multifamily housing projects.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of responses, and hours of response. The estimated number of annual hours required for this information collection is 1,500; the estimated number of respondents is 3,000; the frequency of responses is 1; and the estimated time to gather the necessary documents and complete the form is about 30 minutes per submission.

Permit No.: TE-058629.

Applicant: Peggy Cheatham, Roseburg, Oregon.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass, hold, and release) the Columbian white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus leucurus ) in conjunction with rehabilitation efforts in Douglas County, Oregon for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No.: TE-042064.

Applicant: Cecilia Meyer, San Diego, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, collect, and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ) in conjunction with surveys in southern California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-778195.

Applicant: Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., La Mesa, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (collect, translocate, and retain) the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ) and the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ) in conjunction with habitat restoration activities throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-060175.

Applicant: Teresa Newkirk, La Quinta, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), and ( monitor nests ) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with surveys in San Diego, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-056222.

Applicant: Paul Severns, Springfield, Oregon.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Fender's blue butterfly ( Icaricia icarioides fenderi ) in conjunction with removing/reducing to possession the Lupinus sulphureus kincaidii (Kincaid's lupine) in Polk and Lane Counties, Oregon for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-045994.

Applicant: Geological Survey, Biological Research Division, Western Ecological Research Center, San Diego, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, tag, mark, and collect) the mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa ), and take (harass by survey and collect) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with research throughout the range of each species for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-009018.

Applicant: Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to remove/reduce to possession the Ambrosia pumila (San Diego Ambrosia), Arabis hoffmannii (Hoffman's rockcress), Arctostaphylos confertiflora (Santa Rosa island manzanita), Astragalus jaegerianus (Lane mountain milk-vetch), Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus (Ventura Marsh milk-vetch), Berberis pinnata ssp. insularis (Island barberry), Castilleja mollis (Soft-leaved paintbrush), Caulanthus californicus (California jewelflower), Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana (Ben Lomond spineflower), Chorizanthe robusta vars. robusta and hartwegii (Robust spineflower), Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense (Chorro Creek bog thistle), Cirsium loncholepis (La Graciosa thistle), Clarkia speciosa spp. immaculata (Pismo clarkia), Cupressus abramsiana (Santa Cruz cypress), Eriastrum hooveri (Hoover's woolly-star), Eriodictyon altissimum (Indian Knob mountain balm), Eriodictyon capitatum (Lompoc yerba santa), Erysimum menziesii vars. menziesii and yadoni (Menzies' wallflower), Erysimum teretifolium (Ben Lomond wallflower), Galium buxifolium (Island bedstraw), Gilia tenuiflora spp. arenaria (Monterey gilia), Gilia tenuiflora spp. hoffmannii (Hoffmann's slender-flowered gilia), Hemizonia incresens spp. villosa (Gaviota tarplant), Lasthenia conjugens (Contra Costa goldfields), Layia carnosa (Beach layia), Lembertia congdonii (San Joaquin wooly-threads), Lupinus nipomensis (Nipomo Mesa lupine), Lupinus tidestromii (Clover lupine), Malacothamnus fasciculatus var. nesioticus (Santa Cruz Island bushmallow), Malacothrix indecora (Santa Cruz Island malocothrix), Malacothrix squalida (Island malocothrix), Nitrophila mohavensis (Amargosa niterwort), Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis (Eureka Valley evening-primrose), Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis (Island phacelia), Piperia yadonii (Yadon's piperia), Potentilla hickmanii (Hickman's potentilla), Rorippa gambellii (Gambel's watercress), Suaeda californica (California seablite), Thysanocarpus conchuliferus (Santa Cruz Island fringepod), and Trifolium trichocalyx (Monterey clover) in conjunction with restoration efforts throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-816187.

Applicant: David Cook, Santa Rosa, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, mark, collect tissue samples, release, and recapture) the Sonoma distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with ecology, distribution, and genetics research in Sonoma County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No.: TE-768251.

Applicant: Biosearch Wildlife Surveys, Santa Cruz, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, collect tissue samples or small individuals, release, and collect voucher specimens) the Sonoma distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with ecology, distribution, and genetics research in Sonoma County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No.: TE-795938.

Applicant: EIP Associates, Sacramento, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, collect tissue samples or small individuals, release, and collect voucher specimens) the Sonoma distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with ecology, distribution, and genetics research in Sonoma County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Permit No.: TE-702631.

Applicant: Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

The permittee requests an amendment to take the southern California distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa ) and the Sonoma County distinct population segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ), and remove/reduce to possession Ambrosia pumila (San Diego ambrosia) in conjunction with recovery efforts throughout the range of each species for the purpose of enhancing their propagation and survival.

Permit No.: TE-060179.

Applicant: The Zoological Society of San Diego, San Diego, California.

The applicant request a permit to take (collect eggs, chicks, and adults; and band and radio-tag) the alala ( Corvus hawaiiensis ), Oahu elepaio ( Chasiempis sandwichensis gayi ), small Kauai thrush ( Myadestes palmeri ), ou ( Psittirostra psittacea ), palila ( Loxoioides bailleui ), Hawaii akepa ( Loxops coccineus ), nukupuu ( Hemignathus lucidus ), akiapolaau ( Hemignathus munroi ), Hawaii creeper ( Oreomystis mana ), Maui parrotbill ( Pseudonestor xanthophrys ), poouli ( Melamprosops phaesosoma ), akohekohe ( Palmeria dolei ), Kauai oo ( Moho braccatus ), and the nene ( Nesochen sandvicensis ) in conjunction with captive propagation and release in the State of Hawaii for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-793644.

Applicant: Camm C. Swift, Arcadia, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, and collect voucher specimens) the Owens pupfish (Cyprinodon radiosus) and the Owens tui chub (Giula bicolor mohavensis) in conjunction with surveys in Inyo County, California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Permit No.: TE-023496.

Applicant: Endangered Species Recovery Program, Fresno, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (capture, mark, and collect biological samples) the Buena Vista Lake shrew ( Sorex ornatus relictus ) in conjunction with scientific research throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Under the Secretary of the Interior's authority contained in Sec. 21(a) of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1566, 1572; 30 U.S.C. 1020) we are expanding the boundaries of the Salt Wells Known Geothermal Resources Area by 1,280 acres to include:

The description of the entire Salt Wells Known Geothermal Area is now as shown below:

The above area aggregates 3,840.00 acres, more or less.

The one mile road closure and horse corrals are located in section 6, T. 13N., R. 20E., Boise Meridian, Idaho. A map depicting the closure area and road is available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land Management, Challis Field Office, located on Highway 93, Challis, Idaho.

The authority for establishing this restriction is contained in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 8364, Section 1 (43 CFR 8364.1). This restriction does not apply to:

(1) Any federal, state or local government officer or member of an organized rescue or fire fighting force while in the performance of an official duty.

(2) Any Bureau of Land Management employee, agent, contractor, or cooperator while in the performance of an official duty.

This temporary road restriction and closure is necessary to protect members of the public, the wild horses and burros, and the facility. Wild horses are, by definition, not yet gentled and may pose a danger to members of the public.

Violation of this order is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed one year.

This notice of invitation to participate in Coal Exploration program Canyon Fuel Company LLC, Flat Canyon Tract, Boulger Canyon Area. Canyon Fuel Company is inviting all qualified parties to participate in its proposed exploration of certain Federal Coal deposits in Sanpete County, Utah:

Any party electing to participate in this exploration program must send written notice of such election to the Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, P.O. Box 45155, Salt Lake City, Utah 84145, and to Mark Bunnell, Mine Geologist, Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, Skyline Mine, HC 35 Box 380, Helper, Utah 84526. Such written notice must be received within thirty days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

Any party wishing to participate in this exploration program must be qualified to hold a lease under the provisions of 43 CFR 3472.1 and must share all cost on a pro rata basis. An exploration plan submitted by Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, detailing the scope and timing of this exploration program is available for public review during normal business hours in the public room of the BLM State Office, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, under the serial number UTU-80041.

The coal lease application was filed by Southfork Coal Company to supplement their existing private and other federal reserves currently under lease. The reserves would be mined by underground methods from a portal area on private surface and mineral estates. A permit has been issued by the State of Kentucky for this 14.47-acre portal area located 0.8 miles from the intersection of County Highway 92 and the Whitley/McCreary County line.

The BLM has responsibility to address coal lease applications on federal mineral estate. The Forest Service has the responsibility to consider consenting to lease Federal coal underlying Forest Service managed surface lands. The Office of Surface Mining provides recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior regarding approval of mining plans. An interdisciplinary team from these three agencies will be used in the preparation of the LUA/EA. Preliminary issues, subject to change as a result of public input, are (1) potential impacts of coal exploration and development on the surface and subsurface resources and (2) consideration of restrictions on lease rights to protect surface resources and uses by the Forest Service.

Due to the limited scope of this LUA/EA process, a public meeting is not scheduled during this scoping stage; however, a public hearing will be conducted, in accordance with 43 CFR 3420 and 1600, upon the completion of the LUA/EA.

The following described public land in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, will be examined for possible disposal under sections 209 and 212 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C 1713 and 1719 and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended by the Recreation and Public Purpose Amendment Act of 1988.

The land described above contains 640 acres, more or less.

An amendment to the RMP and associated environmental documentation (EA or EIS) will be completed for this action. If the land is found suitable for disposal, the United States would offer it to the North Central Solid Waste Authority (NCSWA) at $10.00 per acre, and a right-of-way grant for the associated access. This action would provide the member organizations within the NCSWA with a site for solid waste disposal. The public is invited to provide scoping comments on the issues that should be addressed in the plan amendment and EA or EIS. The following resources will be considered in the preparation of the plan amendment: lands, wildlife, range, minerals, cultural resources, watershed/soils, threatened/endangered species, visual, and hazardous materials. Staff specialists representing these resources will make up the planning team. Several public meetings are planned. Public meetings will be announced in the Rio Grande Sun newspaper and at the Taos BLM web page ( www.nm.blm.gov/www/tafo/tafo_home.html ). At least 15 days prior notice will be given before a meeting is held. Written comments will be accepted for at least 15 days after the last scoping meeting is held. Comments on the scope of the proposed plan amendment and environmental document should be sent to Lora Yonemoto at the address above no later than 45 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register .Current land use planning information is available at the Taos Field Office. Office hours are 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.

On August 9, 2001, Core Mountain Enterprises, LLC (Silverton Outdoor Learning and Recreation Center) submitted a proposal for a ski area and recreation/learning facility, titled the “Silverton Outdoor Learning and Recreation Center” (SOLRC) on public lands north of Silverton, Colorado. The scope of the proposal includes lift-accessed skiing, snow boarding, and winter related educational courses; and hiking, mountain biking and lift-accessed scenic chairlift rides during the summer months. Seasonal foot bridges would be installed across Cement Creek for skier access. In addition, a toilet facility and two summer use trails (one would be a mountaineering trail, the other a hiking/biking trail) would be constructed. The proposed project area encompasses about 400 acres of private land, owned by Core Mountain Enterprises, LLC, and about 1,300 acres of Federal lands managed by the BLM, located within sections 20-21, 27-34 of protracted Township 42 N., R.7 W., and, also within sections 3-9 of protracted Township 41 N., R. 7 W., New Mexico Principal Meridian.

During the fall of 2001, while this proposal was being evaluated through the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, potentially significant impacts were identified that necessitate preparation of an EIS. Potential issues to be addressed in the EIS include, but are not limited to, avalanche safety, Canada lynx habitat, impacts on the local winter economy, impacts to neighboring private lands, and the need for temporary public access closures due to safety reasons related to avalanche control. As part of the earlier EA process, public meetings were held in Durango and Silverton to discuss the proposal and obtain public input. Written comments received during the previous public meetings held in Durango and Silverton,Colorado, in August of 2001, are being carried forward as part of the scoping for this EIS. It is not necessary to comment again if comments are the same as during the original EA scoping process. This notice initiates an additional formal 30-day public scoping period during which public comments related to the issues to be addressed, viable alternatives that should be considered, and potential impacts that may occur are requested. The San Juan County Commissioners and the Silverton City Council have been consulted concerning this proposal and are supportive. Consultation will continue as new issues or alternatives develop through the EIS process.

Detailed and supplementary information is available for review at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Field Office, 15 Burnett Court, Durango, Colorado 81301.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Arizona. At this meeting, topics to be discuss include: review of the August 1, 2002 meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on Statewide Issues; Presentations on Land Tenure Strategy and Land & Water Conservation Fund Acquisitions, and Noxious Weeds, Planning Updates; Update Proposed Field Office Rangeland Resource Teams; RAC Questions on Written Reports from BLM Field Office Managers; Reports by the Standards and Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations, Wild Horse and Burro, and Planning Working Groups; Reports from RAC members; and Discussion of future meetings.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.

The objective for closure of the Silver Creek Ridge area is to improve the elk management objectives in the area and reduce depredation of stored agricultural crops on adjoining ranches. The WYG&F have been working with adjoining land owners to allow controlled access onto private lands. The adjoining land owners have agreed to allow access onto their private land to hunters only if the seasonal closure is placed on the BLM lands. The seasonal closure will close most of the Silver Creek Ridge area to all motorized use, including over-the-snow vehicles from November 15th through January 31st each year. The WYG&F feels that motorized vehicle use can disrupt the daily activity patterns of the elk thus limiting the harvest. By restricting motorized vehicle use, the elk will move more freely in the Silver Creek Ridge area, and remain undisturbed by motorized vehicles. This closure will also help by reducing resource damage that is caused by motorized vehicle use off-road.

This seasonal use closure applies to public lands in Sublette County, Wyoming, located approximately 8 miles east of Boulder, Wyoming. The designation affects all public lands starting at T. 32 N., R. 107 W., Section 24, E 1/2 , Sixth Principle Meridian on the Silver Creek Ridge area. Motorized vehicle use designations apply to all motorized vehicles with the exceptions of: (1) Any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle when used for emergency purposes or any combat support vehicle when used for national defense purposes; (2) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the BLM under permit, lease, license, or contract; and (3) any government vehicle on official business.

Authority for closure orders is provided under 43 CFR subpart 8364.1. Violations of this closure are punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.

Pursuant to the regulations contained in 43 CFR 2091.3-2(b), at 9 a.m. on September 3, 2002, the following described lands will be relieved of the temporary segregative effect of exchange in applications WYW 149160 and WYW 155131.

At 9 a.m. on September 3, 2002, the lands shall be opened to such forms of disposition as may by law be made of National Forest System lands, including location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of lands described in this order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession, under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1994), shall vest no rights against the United States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The BLM will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determination in local courts.

Publication of this Notice in the Federal Register segregates the public land to the extent that it will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including locations under the mining laws, except for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and leasing under the mineral leasing laws.

The original R&PP lease was issued on February 7, 1997 for a term of 25 years to Las Cruces Public Schools. The lease was terminated on October 10, 2001. The NORA was published in the Federal Register on December 2, 1996 (61 FR 63857-63858) announcing the suitability of the land for classification for lease or conveyance to the Las Cruces Public School District under the R&PP Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq. ). The Las Cruces Public School District proposed to use the land for a Regional Park and Sports Complex. The land is described as follows:

These supplementary rules will apply to all the public lands within the State of Colorado. In keeping with the BLM's performance goal to reduce threats to public health, safety, and property, these supplementary rules are necessary to protect the natural resources and to provide for safe public recreation and public health; to reduce the potential for damage to the environment; and to enhance the safety of visitors and neighboring residents. Alcohol-related offenses are a growing problem on the public lands. Unlawful consumption of alcohol and drugs, and abuses of alcohol and drugs, such as driving while under the influence, pose a significant health and safety hazard to all users and uses of the public lands and can result in the destruction of natural resources and property, and/or cause physical injury/death. In addition, drug-related offenses, including the possession of drug paraphernalia, result in the legitimization and encouragement of the illegal use of controlled substances by making the drug culture more visible and enticing. Further, the ready availability of drug paraphernalia tends to promote, suggest, or increase the public acceptability of the illegal use of controlled substances. In keeping with BLM's policy regarding the reduction of illegal use of controlled substances on public lands, and due to undesirable impacts on the public lands, the greatest of which is the threat to visitor safety and the safety of BLM employees, the BLM Colorado Law Enforcement Program will continue aggressive pursuit of ways to eliminate the possession, use, manufacturing, and trafficking of controlled substances, as well as the use and availability of drug paraphernalia on public lands, and will seek prosecution of those persons responsible for such activity. These supplementary rules will allow BLM Law Enforcement Officers to enforce on public lands regulations pertaining to Alcohol and Drug laws in a manner patterning current State of Colorado State laws as contained in the Colorado Revised Statutes in an effort to further the working relationship and partnerships formed with numerous Sheriff's Departments throughout Colorado and the Colorado State Patrol.

These supplementary rules are not a significant regulatory action and are not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. These supplementary rules will not have an effect of $100 million or more on the economy. They are directed at preventing unlawful personal behavior on public lands, for purposes of protecting public health and safety. They will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities. These interim final supplementary rules will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. The supplementary rules do not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the right or obligations of their recipients; nor do they raise novel legal or policy issues. The supplementary rules merely enable BLM law enforcement personnel to enforce regulations pertaining to unlawful possession/use of alcohol and drugs in a manner patterning current State of Colorado laws, as contained in the Colorado Revised Statutes, where appropriate on public lands.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make these interim final supplementary rules easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:

(1) Are the requirements in the proposed supplementary rules clearly stated?

(2) Do the proposed supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?

(3) Does the format of the proposed supplementary rules (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?

(4) Would the proposed supplementary rules be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) sections?

(5) Is the description of the interim final supplementary rules in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble helpful in understanding the interim final supplementary rules? How could this description be more helpful in making the supplementary rules easier to understand?

Please send any comments you have on the clarity of the supplementary rules to the address specified in the ADDRESSES section.

BLM has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and has found that the interim final supplementary rules would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under section 102(2)(C) of the Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C). The proposed supplementary rules will enable BLM law enforcement personnel to cite persons for unlawful possession/use of alcohol or drugs on public lands for the purpose of protecting public health and safety. BLM has placed the EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on file in the BLM Administrative Record at the address specified in the ADDRESSES section. BLM invites the public to review these documents and suggests that anyone wishing to submit comments in response to the EA and FONSI do so in accordance with the Written Comments section, above.

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, (RFA) to ensure that Government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed supplementary rules do not pertain specifically to commercial or governmental entities of any size, but contain rules to protect the health and safety of individuals, property, and resources on the public lands. Therefore, BLM has determined under the RFA that these proposed supplementary rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

These supplementary rules do not constitute a “major rule” as defined at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Again, the supplementary rules pertain only to individuals who may wish to use alcohol or drugs on the public lands. In this respect, the regulation of such use is necessary to protect the public lands and facilities and those, including small business concessioners and outfitters, who use them. The supplementary rules have no effect on business, commercial or industrial use of the public lands.

These proposed supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor do these interim final supplementary rules have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The supplementary rules do not require anything of state, local, or tribal governments. Therefore, BLM is not required to prepare a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. )

The proposed supplementary rules do not represent a government action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. The supplementary rules do not address property rights in any form, and do not cause the impairment of anyone's property rights. Therefore, the Department of the Interior has determined that the supplementary rules would not cause a taking of private property or require further discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order.

The proposed supplementary rules will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The supplementary rules apply in only one state, Colorado, and do not address jurisdictional issues involving the Colorado State government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Under Executive Order 12988, Colorado State Office of BLM has determined that these proposed supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.

These proposed supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The principal author of this supplementary rules is Special Agent David Moore of the Colorado State Office, BLM, assisted by Ted Hudson of the Regulatory Affairs Group, Washington Office, BLM.

For the reasons stated in the Preamble, and under the authority of 43 CFR 8365.1-6, the Colorado State Director, Bureau of Land Management, issues supplementary rules for public lands in Colorado, to read as follows:

The Colorado State Office issues these supplementary rules under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 43 U.S.C. 1740 and 43 CFR 8365.1-6. Enforcement authority for these supplementary rules is found in FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1733.

a. As defined in Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18, Article 13, Section 122 (1)(b); “Etyhl alcohol” means any substance which is or contains ethyl alcohol.

b. “Possession of ethyl alcohol” means that a person has or holds any amount of ethyl alcohol anywhere on his person, or that a person owns or has custody of ethyl alcohol, or has ethyl alcohol within his immediate presence or control.

a. If you are under 21 years of age, you must not purchase, possess, or consume any ethyl alcohol beverages or products on public lands.

b. You must not misrepresent your age or the age of any other person for the purpose of purchasing or otherwise obtaining any ethyl alcohol beverages or products on public lands.

c. You must not sell, offer to sell, or otherwise furnish or supply any ethyl alcohol beverages or products to any person under the age of 21 years on public lands.

a. As defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, Article 4, Section 1301 (1)(f); “Driving under the influence” means driving a vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of alcohol and one or more drugs, which alcohol alone, or one or more drugs alone, or alcohol combined with one or more drugs affects the person to a degree that the person is substantially incapable, either mentally or physically, or both mentally and physically, to exercise clear judgement, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.

b. As defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, Article 4, Section 1301 (5)(c): If there was at such time 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood as shown by analysis of such person's blood or if there was at such time 0.10 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath as shown by analysis of such person's breath, it shall be presumed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

c. As defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, Article 4, Section 1301 (1)(g): “Driving while ability impaired” means driving a vehicle when a person has consumed alcohol or one or more drugs, or a combination of both alcohol and one or more drugs, which alcohol alone, or one or more drugs alone, or alcohol combined with one or more drugs, affects the person to the slightest degree so that the person is less able than the person ordinarily would have been, either mentally or physically, or both mentally and physically, to exercise clear judgment, sufficient physical control, or due care in the safe operation of a vehicle.

d. As defined in the Colorado Revised Statutes Title 42, Article 4, Section 1301 (5)(b): If there was at such time in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.10 grams of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of blood as shown by analysis of such person's blood or if there was at such time in excess of 0.05 but less than 0.10 grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath as shown by analysis of such person's breath, such fact shall give rise to the presumption that the defendant's ability to operate a vehicle was impaired by the consumption of alcohol, and such fact may also be considered with other competent evidence in determining whether or not the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

You must not operate a motor vehicle on public lands while under the influence, or while your abilities are impaired as described and defined above in items B.1.a-d.

You must not possess any drug paraphernalia, as described by Colorado Revised Statutes Title 18, Article 18, Section 426, on public lands.

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1733(a)), if you violate or fail to comply with any of the provisions in sections A., B., and C. of these supplementary rules, you may be subject to a fine under 18 U.S.C. 3571 or other penalties under 43 U.S.C. 1733.

On May 13, 2002, a petition was approved allowing the Bureau of Land Management to file an application to withdraw the following described public land from location under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights:

A certain tract of land south of Ranchos de Taos, Taos County, New Mexico; within the Gijosa Grant; located within projected Sections 2, 11, 12, and 13, T. 24 N., R. 11 E., NMPM; described as part of Blocks 14, 24, 25, and 29 as shown on a survey for the Ranchos Orchard and Land Company; also described as part of Tract 1, Map 73, part of Tract 1, Map 78, part of Tract 1, Map 74, part of Tract 1, Map 77, and part of Tract 2, Map 75, all within Survey 2 of the 1941 Taos County Reassessment Survey; and more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:

Beginning at the East corner of this tract, a 1/2 in. rebar set on the northwesterly right-of-way of State Road 68, from whence triangulation station “Gijosa 2”, a 1958 USC & GS brass cap monument found, bears N 67°14′35″ E, 8721.55 ft. distant, thence along said right-of-way; S 65°21′58″ W, 1293.07 ft. to the South corner, a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence leaving said right-of-way; N 34°07′38″ W, 8245.79 ft. to the West corner, a 1/2 in. rebar set on the easterly bank of the Rio Grande (the true boundary of the Gijosa Grant and of this tract is the medial line of the Rio Grande), thence along said bank the following meander courses; S 71°24′03″ E, 35.79 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; S 78°45′26′″ E, 83.38 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 79°45′29″ E, 77.51 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; S 85°06′12″ E, 53.09 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; S 69°16′53″ E, 126.66 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 87°33′01″ E, 134.99 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 77°12′38″ E, 52.24 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 82°31′49″ E, 96.48 ft. to an “x” scribed on a rock, thence; N 65°57′15″ E, 233.82 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 75°10′58″ E, 128.43 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 63°17′33″ E, 73.53 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 42°29′02″ E, 25.43 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 60°32′08″ E, 62.12 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 12°35′07″ E, 26.88 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 12°59′35″ W, 31.27 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 10°37′22″ E, 47.87 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 28°47′19″ E, 119.72 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 41°18′35″ E, 54.39 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 23°32′06″ E, 226.52 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 15°46′43″ E, 74.89 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 27°38′37″ E, 106.43 ft. to a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence; N 40°34′12″ E, 49.19 ft. to the North corner, a 1/2 in. rebar set, thence leaving said bank; S 31°37′54″ E, 8368.06 ft. to the point and place of beginning.

This tract contains 268.75 acres, more or less; all as shown on a survey plat entitled “Klauer Manufacturing Co. to the Trust for Public Land”, RGSS survey no. L4510-1, by Scott B. Crowl, NMLS no.12441, dated 06/09/2001.

A certain tract of land south of Ranchos de Taos, Taos County, New Mexico; within the Gijosa Grant; located within projected Sections 1 and 12, T. 24 N., R. 11 E, NMPM and within projected Section 7, T. 24 N., R. 12 E., NMPM; described as part of Blocks 15, 23, and 24 as shown on a survey for the Ranchos Orchard and Land Company; also described as part of Tract 2, Map 68 part of Tract 2, Map 69, part of Tracts 1 and 2, Map 70, all within Survey 2 of the 1941 Taos County Reassessment Survey; and more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:

Beginning at the East corner of this tract, a 1/2 in. rebar set on the northwesterly right-of-way of State Road 68, from whence triangulation station “Gijosa 2,” a 1958 USC & GS brass cap monument found, bears N 68°52′41″ E, 4654.06 ft. distant, thence along said right-of-way; S 65°22′44″ W, 676.40 ft. to the South corner, an NMSHC steel rail right-of-way monument found, thence leaving said right-of-way; N 28°20′18″ W, 9094.22 ft. to the West corner, a point at the centerline of the Rio Pueblo de Taos, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set previously as a reference monument, bears; S 79°03′11″ E, 17.84 ft. distant, thence along said Rio centerline the following meander courses; N 28°32′04″ E, 208.72 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears S 85°00′00″ E, 70.00 ft. distant, thence; N 37°31′16″ E, 217.35 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears; N 80°00′00″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence; N 22°23′03″ E, 119.34 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears S 65°00′00″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence; N 04°20′57″ E, 122.90 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears; S 55°00′00″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence; N 39°54′36″ E, 93.22 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears S 55°00′00″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence; N 15°47′12″ E, 145.98 ft. to a point, from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a reference monument, bears; N 70°00′00″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence; N 36°32′02″ E, 116.77 ft. to the North corner, a point from whence a 1/2 in. rebar set as a witness corner, bears; S 27°26′53″ E, 20.00 ft. distant, thence leaving said centerline; S 27°26′53″ E, 9710.11 ft. to the point and place of beginning.

This tract contains 161.270 acres, more or less; all as shown on a survey plat entitled “Klauer Manufacturing Co. to the Trust for Public Land”, RGSS survey no. L4510-4, by Scott B. Crowl, NMLS no. 12441, dated 2/25/2002.

The area described contains 430.015 acres in Taos County.

The purpose of the proposed withdrawal is to protect the riparian, scenic, and recreational integrity, maintain open space, and prevent rural residential development of the lands adjacent to the Rio Grande National Wild and Scenic River.

For a period of 90 days from the date of publication of the notice, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal may present their views in writing to the Taos Field Office Manager of the BLM at the above address.

Notice is hereby given that an opportunity for a public meeting is afforded in connection with the proposed withdrawal. All interested persons who desire a public meeting for the purpose of being heard on the proposed withdrawal must submit a written request to the Taos Field Office Manager within 90 days from the date of publication of this notice. Upon determination by the authorized officer that a public meeting will be held, a notice of the time and place will be published in the Federal Register at least 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The application will be processed in accordance with the regulations set forth in 43 CFR 2300.

For a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register , the public land will be segregated as specified above unless the application is denied or cancelled or the withdrawal is approved prior to that date. The temporary uses which may be permitted during this segregative period are licenses, permits, cooperative agreements, and discretionary land use authorizations of a temporary nature with the approval of the authorized officer.

The Final EIS is now available for public review. CD copies are available at park headquarters. Paper copies will be made available at Ventura's Foster Library, and Santa Barbara's Central Library. A digital version will also be available on-line at the Park's Web site ( http://www.nps.gov/chis/restoringsci/island.html ). Distribution of the Final EIS to interested publics will be on digital compact disk (CD) in Adobe Acrobat pdf format. Inquiries regarding the Final EIS should be directed to: Superintendent, Channel Islands National Park, 1901 Spinnaker Dr, Ventura, California 93001. The telephone number for the park is (805) 658-5700.

If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent's identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered.

No sooner than 30 (thirty) days after the Environmental Protection Agency has published its notice of filing of Final EIS in the Federal Register , a Record of Decision (ROD) will be executed. As a delegated EIS, the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, is responsible for the final decision; subsequently the Superintendent, Channel Islands National Park, would be responsible for plan implementation and monitoring activities.

A limited number of individual copies of the Record of Decision may be obtained from the Superintendent listed above.

The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting comments from agencies and the public concerning new policy and internal procedural requirements for implementing the National Park System Resources Protection Act (PSRPA), and the civil natural resource damage provisions of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the National Pollution Control Act or Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended. There are no previous policies or procedures in place governing the NPS activities under the PSRPA. Once final, these policies and procedures would apply to the activities of the National Park Service in administering units of the National Park System. The policies available for review consist of a draft Director's Order which broadly describes the authorizations, delegations, and responsibilities for the development of the policies and conducting actions under these statutes, and a draft procedures manual or handbook that describes how the NPS will carry out its responsibilities under PSRPA and related laws.

Background. —On October 24, 1997, the Department of Commerce suspended antidumping duty investigations on imports of carbon steel plate from China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine (62 FR 61751, 61766, 61773, and 61780, November 19, 1997). The Commission is conducting reviews to determine whether termination of the suspended investigations would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission's determinations in any expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.

Definitions. —The following definitions apply to these reviews:

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce.

(2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are China, Russia, South Africa, and Ukraine.

(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all CTL carbon steel plate, whether produced in a mill by an integrated producer or in a service center.

(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major preparation of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as all producers of CTL carbon steel plate, whether toll producers, integrated producers, or processors.

(5) The Order Date is the date that the investigations were suspended. In these reviews, the Order Date is October 24, 1997.

(6) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.

Participation in the reviews and public service list. —Persons, including industrial users of the Subject Merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in the reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.

Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee's participation was “personal and substantial.” However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy Agency Ethics Official, at 202-205-3088.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and APO service list. —Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI submitted in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Certification. —Pursuant to section 207.3 of the Commission's rules, any person submitting information to the Commission in connection with these reviews must certify that the information is accurate and complete to the best of the submitter's knowledge. In making the certification, the submitter will be deemed to consent, unless otherwise specified, for the Commission, its employees, and contract personnel to use the information provided in any other reviews or investigations of the same or comparable products which the Commission conducts under Title VII of the Act, or in internal audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Commission pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3.

Written submissions. —Pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules, each interested party response to this notice must provide the information specified below. The deadline for filing such responses in October 23, 2002. Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the Commission's rules, eligible parties (as specified in Commission rule 207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments concerning the adequacy of responses to the notice of institution and whether the Commission should conduct expedited or full reviews. The deadline for filing such comments is November 18, 2002. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission's rules and any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means. Also, in accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or APO service list as appropriate), and a certificate of service must accompany the document (if you are not a party to the reviews you do not need to serve your response).

Inability to provide requested information. —Pursuant to section 207.61(c) of the Commission's rules, any interested party that cannot furnish the information requested by this notice in the requested form and manner shall notify the Commission at the earliest possible time, provide a full explanation of why it cannot provide the requested information, and indicate alternative forms in which it can provide equivalent information. If an interested party does not provide this notification (or the Commission finds the explanation provided in the notification inadequate) and fails to provide a complete response to this notice, the Commission may take an adverse inference against the party pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act in making its determinations in the reviews.

Information to Be Provided in Response to This Notice of Institution: If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.

(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of the certifying official.

(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.

(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.

(4) A statement of the likely effects of the termination of the suspended investigations on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.

(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677)(4)(B)).

(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries since 1996.

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operation on that product during calendar year 2001 (request quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms in which your workers are employed/which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s') production;

(b) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and

(c) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') imports;

(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country; and

(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from each Subject Country.

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm's(s') operations on that product during calendar year 2001 (report quantity data in short tons and value data in U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping or countervailing duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.

(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in each Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') production; and

(b) the quantity and value of your firm's(s') exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from each Subject Country accounted for by your firm's(s') exports.

(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Countries, and such merchandise from other countries.

(11) (Optional) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.

On May 10, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 31835) of the pendency before the Department of a proposed amendment to PTE 92-6 (57 FR 5189, February 12, 1992), which amended Prohibited Transaction Exemption 77-8 (PTE 77-8)(42 FR 31574, June 21, 1977). PTE 92-6 provides an exemption from the restrictions of section 406(a) and 406(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and from the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code), by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code.

The amendment to PTE 92-6 adopted by this notice was requested in an exemption application filed by the Chicago, Illinois law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal on behalf of the General American Life Group (the Applicant). The Department is adopting the amendment pursuant to section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). 1

For the sake of convenience, the entire text of PTE 92-6, as amended, has been reprinted with this notice.

Section I of PTE 92-6 permits the sale of an individual life insurance or annuity contract by an employee benefit plan to: (1) A plan participant; (2) a relative of such insured participant who is the beneficiary under the contract; (3) an employer any of whose employees are covered by the plan; or (4) another employee benefit plan, if: (a) such participant is the insured under the contract; (b) such relative is a “relative” as defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or a “member of the family” as defined in section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or is a brother or sister of the insured (or a spouse of such brother or sister), and the beneficiary under the contract; (c) the contract would, but for the sale, be surrendered by the plan; (d) with respect to sales of the policy to the employer, a relative of the insured or another plan, the participant insured under the policy is first informed of the proposed sale and is given the opportunity to purchase such contract from the plan, and delivers a written document to the plan stating that he or she elects not to purchase the policy and consents to the sale by the plan of such policy to such employer, relative or other plan; (e) the amount received by the plan as consideration for the sale is at least equal to the amount necessary to put the plan in the same cash position as it would have been had it retained the contract, surrendered it, and made any distribution owing to the participant on his vested interest under the plan; and (f) with regard to any plan which is an employee welfare benefit plan, such plan must not, with respect to such sale, discriminate in form or in operation in favor of plan participants who are officers, shareholders or highly compensated employees. Section II of PTE 92-6 amended PTE 77-8 to provide that the relief for transactions described in part I would be available, effective October 22, 1986, for plan participants who are owner-employees (as defined in section 401(c)(3) of the Code) or shareholder-employees (as defined in section 1379 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982), if the conditions set forth in part I are met.

The Department, at the request of the Applicant, has amended PTE 92-6 in order to expand the coverage of the exemption to include the sale by an employee benefit plan (the Plan) of an individual life insurance or annuity contract to a personal or private trust (the Trust) established by or for the benefit of an individual who is a participant in the Plan and the insured under the policy, or by or for the benefit of one or more relatives (as defined in Section I(2) of PTE 92-6) of the participant. 2 The amendment is effective February 12, 1992.

The notice of pendency gave interested persons an opportunity to comment or to request a hearing on the proposed amendment. No requests for a hearing were received.

The Department received one comment letter with respect to the notice of proposed amendment. The comment letter strongly supported the Department's amendment to PTE 92-6, but also requested that the Department clarify two points with respect to PTE 92-6.

The comment letter first requested that the Department confirm the commentator's interpretation that, in a participant directed defined contribution plan, when a life insurance policy is sold at the participant's direction, the requirement of condition I(3) has been satisfied that “the contract would, but for the sale, be surrendered by the plan.” The Department agrees that, in the case of a participant in a defined contribution plan that provides for participant direction, if the participant has discretion and control of his/her account in the plan, and has exercised that authority, without being subject to any undue influence, in accordance with plan provisions for individually-directed investment of participant accounts, to sell a life insurance contract in compliance with the conditions of PTE 92-6, the requirement of condition I(3) of the exemption would be satisfied.

The comment letter also requested that the Department confirm its interpretation set out in Advisory Opinion 98-07A (issued September 24, 1998) to the effect that PTE 92-6 applies to a policy that insures both the participant's life and the life of another individual in whom the participant has an insurable interest. In Advisory Opinion 98-07A, the Department concluded that, to the extent state law and pertinent plan provisions permit the acquisition and holding of an individual life insurance contract covering the life of the participant and the participant's spouse, that such a contract would constitute “an individual life insurance contract” for purposes of PTE 92-6. The Department confirms that PTE 92-6 applies to life insurance contracts that cover the life of the participant and the participant's spouse. However, since the Department does not have sufficient information concerning contracts covering the life of the participant and the life of another individual in whom the participant has an insurable interest, other than the participant's spouse, it is unable to conclude that PTE 92-6 would apply to such contracts.

The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:

(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary, or other party in interest or disqualified person with respect to a plan, from certain other provisions of ERISA and the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of ERISA which require, among other things, that a fiduciary discharge his or her duties respecting the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;

(2) This exemption does not extend to transactions prohibited under section 406(b)(3) of the Act or section 4975(c)(1)(F) of the Code;

(3) In accordance with section 408(a) of ERISA and 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department makes the following determinations:

(i) The amendment set forth herein is administratively feasible;

(ii) The amendment set forth herein is in the interests of plans and of their participants and beneficiaries; and

(iii) The amendment set forth herein is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of plans;

(4) The amendment is applicable to a particular transaction only if the transaction satisfies the conditions specified in the exemption; and

(5) The amendment is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of ERISA and the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction.

Accordingly, PTE 92-6 is amended under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990), as set forth below:

I(a). Effective January 1, 1975, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the sale of an individual life insurance or annuity contract by an employee benefit plan to: (1) A participant under such plan; (2) a relative of a participant under such plan; (3) an employer any of whose employees are covered by the plan; or (4) another employee benefit plan, provided that the conditions in section II are met.

I(b). Effective February 12, 1992, the restrictions of sections 406(a), 406(b)(1) and 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (E) of the Code, shall not apply to the sale of an individual life insurance or annuity contract by an employee benefit plan to a trust established by or for the benefit of one or more of the persons described in (1) or (2) of section I(a) above, provided that the conditions in section II are met.

II. (a) Such participant is the insured under the contract;

(b) such relative is a “relative” as defined in section 3(15) of the Act (or a “member of the family” as defined in section 4975(e)(6) of the Code), or is a brother or sister of the insured (or a spouse of such brother or sister), and such relative or trust is the beneficiary under the contract;

(c) the contract would, but for the sale, be surrendered by the plan;

(d) with respect to sales of the policy to the employer, a relative of the insured, a trust, or another plan, the participant insured under the policy is first informed of the proposed sale and is given the opportunity to purchase such contract from the plan, and delivers a written document to the plan stating that he or she elects not to purchase the policy and consents to the sale by the plan of such policy to such employer, relative, trust or other plan;

(e) the amount received by the plan as consideration for the sale is at least equal to the amount necessary to put the plan in the same cash position as it would have been had it retained the contract, surrendered it, and made any distribution owing to the participant on his vested interest under the plan; and

(f) with regard to any plan which is an employee welfare benefit plan, such plan must not, with respect to such sale, discriminate in form or in operation in favor of plan participants who are officers, shareholders or highly compensated employees.

III. Effective October 22, 1986, the exemption provided for transactions described in part I is available for plan participants who are owner-employees (as defined in section 401(c)(3) of the Code) or shareholder-employees as defined in section 1379 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Subchapter S Revision Act of 1982) if the conditions set forth in part II are met.

Title of Collection: Grantee Reporting Requirements for Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships.

OMB Number: 3145-NEW.

Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish an information collection.

Abstract:

Proposed Project: The Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships Program supports innovation in the integrative conduct of research, education and knowledge transfer. Science and Technology Centers build intellectual and physical infrastructure within and between disciplines, weaving together knowledge creation, knowledge integration, and knowledge transfer. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships of academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. New knowledge thus created is meaningfully linked to society.

STCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, and create bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity more fully support the learning process. STCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.

Centers selected will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, STCs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via an NSF evaluation technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of this reporting will take the form of a database which will be owned by the institution and eventually made available to an evaluation contractor. This database will capture specific information to demonstrate progress towards achieving the goals of the program. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.

Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management and (7) budget issues.

For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.

Use of the Information: NSF will use the information to continue funding of the Centers, and to evaluate the progress of the program.

Estimate of Burden: In the first year, for the anticipated six centers' awards time estimate is total of 600 hours. In the subsequent years time estimate is 300 hours.

Respondents: Non-profit institutions; federal government.

Estimated Number of Responses per Report: One from each of the six centers.

Comments: 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 of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.