Title: Olives Grown in California, Marketing Order 932.

OMB Number: 0581-0142.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2003.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops, in a specified production area, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. Order regulations help ensure adequate supplies of good quality product and adequate returns to producers. Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (Act), as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), marketing order programs are established if favored by producers in referenda. The handling of the commodity is regulated. The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to oversee order operations and issue regulations recommended by a committee of representatives from each commodity industry.

The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the California olive marketing order program, which has been operating since 1965.

The California olive marketing order authorizes the issuance of quality, size, and inspection requirements. The order also has authority for research and development projects, including paid advertising. Pursuant to section 8e of the Act, import grade and size requirements are implemented on olives imported into the United States.

The order and its rules and regulations authorize the California Olive Committee (committee), the agency responsible for local administration of the order, to require handlers and producers to submit certain information. Much of this information is compiled in aggregate and provided to the industry to assist in marketing decisions.

The committee has developed forms as a means for persons to file required information with the committee relating to olive supplies, shipments, dispositions, and other information necessary to effectively carry out the purpose of the Act and the order. California olives are shipped year-round and these forms are used accordingly. A USDA form is used to allow growers to vote on amendments to or continuance of the order.

Formal rulemaking amendments to the order must be approved in referenda conducted by the Secretary. Also, the Secretary may conduct a continuance referendum to determine industry support for continuation of the order. Handlers are asked to sign an agreement to indicate their willingness to abide by the provisions of the order whenever the order is amended. These forms are included in this request.

All the forms under this program require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the order, and their use is necessary to fulfill the intent of the Act as expressed in the order.

The information collected would be used only by authorized representatives of the USDA, including AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs' regional and headquarter's staff, and authorized employees of the committee. Authorized committee employees and the industry are the primary users of the information and AMS is the secondary user.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average .28 hour per response.

Respondents: California olive handlers and growers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 691.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 15.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 2947 hours.

The information collection burden would affect both California olive growers and handlers. The majority of the collection burden consists of Weight and Grade Reports totaling an estimated 2,250 burden hours. These reports are filed by handlers, who like growers, benefit from improved returns due to more orderly market conditions. The rest of this information collection consists of twenty-four forms that add a total of 697 estimated burden hours.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of the information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-0142 and California Olive Marketing Order No. 932, and be sent to Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address and will become a matter of public record.

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

Title: Evaluation of Three Models Designed to Increase Participation of Eligible Elderly in the Food Stamp Program.

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: Two years from date of issuance.

Type of Request: Approval to collect information from elderly individuals who receive food stamps and who reside in one of the Elderly Nutrition Demonstration pilot sites.

Abstract: USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) has the responsibility to provide social and economic intelligence on consumer, food marketing, and rural issues, including food security status of the poor; domestic food assistance programs; low-income assistance programs; economic food consumption determinations and trends; consumer demand for food quality, safety, and nutrition; food market competition and coordination; and food safety regulation. In carrying out this overall mission, ERS seeks approval of information gathering activities that will provide key information about the impact of the Food Stamp Program's (FSP) Elderly Nutrition Demonstration pilots.

Six states (Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Michigan, and North Carolina) are implementing separate Elderly Nutrition Demonstration pilots, with each State's pilot based on one of three demonstration models: (1) A commodities alternative benefit model, in which elderly FSP participants can elect to receive a package of commodities each month in lieu of traditional FSP benefits; (2) a simplified eligibility model, in which the FSP eligibility rules for elderly applicants are streamlined; or (3) an application assistance model, in which demonstration staff assist elderly FSP applicants with completing the food stamp application. Two states (Connecticut and North Carolina) are implementing a commodities alternative benefit model; one state (Florida) is implementing a simplified eligibility model; and three states (Arizona, Maine and Michigan) are implementing an application assistance model. USDA is operating these pilot projects to explore which demonstration models lead to increased participation among elderly individuals in the Food Stamp Program and why.

Working with ERS, a contractor will be evaluating the six demonstration models. Participation data obtained through administrative case records will be used to estimate the impact of the demonstrations on the number of elderly participants in the Food Stamp Program. To identify reasons why elderly individuals may be more likely to participate under the demonstrations, the contractor will contact elderly Food Stamp Program participants directly.

In the two states that are implementing the commodities alternative benefit demonstration model (Connecticut and North Carolina), a sample of elderly food stamp participants will be surveyed. The survey will query respondents as to whether or not they chose to participate in the commodity alternative benefit demonstration, the reason for that choice, and, if they are receiving the commodity alternative benefit, what they like and dislike about it. A different sample of respondents will be identified every quarter, and interviews will occur between three and seven quarters. A small sub-sample of respondents will be contacted a second time to acquire more detailed information about their experience with the demonstration.

In addition to the survey conducted in the two commodities demonstration sites, focus groups will be conducted in the one state implementing the simplified eligibility demonstration model (Florida) and in the three states implementing the application assistance demonstration model (Arizona, Maine and Michigan). There will be two focus groups per state, with each focus group including 10 elderly FSP participants. These focus groups will be used to determine what aspects of each demonstration were beneficial to the clients.

Affected Public: Elderly FSP participants residing in the demonstration sites.

Estimated Number of Respondents: A combined total of 167 individuals in the two commodities alternative benefit demonstration sites will be interviewed per quarter, and interviews will be conducted for three to seven quarters. The maximum number of interviews conducted is 1,169 (= 167 respondents × 7 quarters). In the remaining four demonstration sites, a combined total of 80 individuals will participate in focus groups (10 participants per focus group × 2 focus groups × 4 states).

Number of Responses per Respondent: Of the individuals participating in the initial interview, a total of 36 individuals will respond twice (once to the initial interview and once to the follow-up interview). The remaining individuals (up to 1,133) will respond only once. The 80 individuals participating in the focus groups will respond once.

Estimated Total Responses: Maximum total number of responses: 1,285 (= 1,169 initial commodities interviews + 36 follow up interviews + 80 focus group participants).

Hours per Response: Initial commodities alternative benefit interview: 20 minutes per respondent; follow-up commodities alternative benefit interview: 20 minutes per respondent; focus group: 1 hour 15 minutes per respondent.

Total Reporting Hours: Maximum total reporting hours: 498 hours (= 1,169 initial commodities interviews * 0.33 hours + 36 follow up interviews * 0.33 hours + 80 focus group participants * 1.25 hours).

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 has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no new recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.

This action is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.

These programs are listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.553, No. 10.555, No. 10.556, No. 10.558 and No. 10.559 and are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, Subpart V, and the final rule related notice published at 48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983.)

Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1) and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR Part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR Part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR Part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR Part 225) and Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR Part 226) and the guidelines for free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR Part 215). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals and free milk in accordance with applicable program rules.

In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication Eligibility Guidance for School Meals Manual, “income,” as the term is used in this Notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions and bonds. It includes the following: (1) Monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources that would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.

“Income,” as the term is used in this Notice, does not include any income or benefits received under any Federal programs that are excluded from consideration as income by any legislative prohibition. Furthermore, the value of meals or milk to children shall not be considered as income to their households for other benefit programs in accordance with the prohibitions in section 12(e) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and section 11(b) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1760(e) and 1780(b)).

The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2003 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar. Weekly and monthly guidelines were computed by dividing annual income by 52 and 12, respectively, and by rounding upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four represent an increase of 1.66% over the July 2002 numbers for a family of the same size.

Title: Conservation Effects Assessment Survey.

Type of Request: Intent to Seek Approval to Conduct a New Information Collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue State and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The goal of this NASS project is to collect land management information that will assist the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in assessing environmental benefits associated with implementation of various conservation programs and installation of associated conservation practices. The 2002 Farm Bill substantially increased funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as well as other conservation programs; a portion of the technical assistance funds for conservation programs has been allocated for use in assessing the environmental benefits of these conservation practices. The assessment will be used to report progress annually on Farm Bill implementation to Congress and the general public. The information collected will also be used to provide OMB with requested information on the cost effectiveness of the EQIP and the Conservation Reserve Program.

NRCS has been given the responsibility of leading a multi-agency effort to estimate the environmental benefits of conservation practices. Benefit measures will initially include soil quality enhancement, erosion reduction, reduction in nutrient and sediment losses from farm fields, soil carbon sequestration, water use efficiency, and reductions in in-stream nutrient and sediment concentrations. Investments are being made in additional model development to address benefits associated with reductions in pesticide losses, air quality, and wildlife habitat. The assessment is designed to be national and regional in scope. A sampling and modeling approach has been adopted to avoid the high costs associated with expanded reporting by NRCS field staff.

Benefits will be estimated by applying transport models and other physical process models at sample sites associated with the National Resources Inventory (NRI) sampling frame. The NRI is a scientifically-based, longitudinal panel survey designed to assess conditions and trends of soil, water, and related resources of the Nation's non-federal lands. The NRI is conducted for the U.S. Department of Agriculture by NRCS in cooperation with the Iowa State University Statistical Laboratory and provides critical information to address agri-environmental issues at national, regional, and State levels. Data gathered in the NRI are linked to NRCS soil survey and climate databases. These linked data, along with NRI's historical data for 1982-2001, form the basis for unique modeling applications and analytical capabilities. The NRI sampling frame will be used for this project because it captures the diversity of the Nation's agricultural resource base (soils, topography, and climate), which is a critical factor in estimating benefits of conservation practices. Also critical are the historical and linked data that already exist for each NRI sample site. The assessment of benefits is not possible, however, without augmenting these existing data with additional information on land management and conservation practice adoption.

NASS will collaborate with NRCS in the acquisition of this additional information by conducting a survey for a sub-sample of NRI sample units in the contiguous 48 States. The survey will utilize personal interviews to administer a questionnaire that is designed to obtain from farm operators field-specific data associated with the selected sample units. Specific questions are asked about physical characteristics of the field and technical aspects of conservation practices associated with the field. Several other questions deal with production activities before and after implementation of specific conservation practice and with the operator's participation in conservation programs. The survey will be conducted in the fall of each year beginning in 2003 and extending through 2008, which is the last year covered by the 2002 Farm Bill. Approximately 15,000-20,000 interviews will be conducted each year. Each year's data collection will be for a different set of agricultural land units. The scope of the study will broaden as the models are extended to cover a broader suite of conservation practices and effects. These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response.

Respondents: Farm operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 18,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 18,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

This action has been reviewed and determined not to be a rule or regulation as defined in Executive Order 12866.

Title: Rural Housing Service—Customer Satisfaction Survey.

Type of Request: New information collection.

Abstract: The Rural Housing Service (RHS) provides insured loans to low- and moderate-income applicants located in rural geographic areas to assist them in obtaining decent, sanitary, and safe dwellings. RHS currently processes loan originations through approximately 900 Field Offices. The RHS Centralized Servicing Center (CSC), located in St. Louis, Missouri, provides support to the Field Offices and is responsible for loan servicing functions with borrowers. The CSC was established to achieve a high level of customer service and operating efficiency. The CSC has established a fully integrated call center and is able to provide borrowers with convenient access to their loan account information.

To facilitate the CSC's mission and in an effort to continuously improve its services, a survey has been developed that can measure the quality of service that the Field Offices and borrowers receive when they contact the CSC. Respondents will only need to report information on a one-time basis. The outcome of the Customer Satisfaction Survey will provide the general satisfaction level among RHS customers throughout the nation highlighting areas that need improvement and to provide a benchmark for future surveys and improvements in customer service. A follow up survey will be conducted in 18 months, but may or may not be sent to the same initial respondents. Additionally, in accordance with Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the survey will enable CSC to measure the results and overall effectiveness of customer services provided as well as implement action plans and measure improvements.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response.

Respondents: Field office personnel, most likely office clerks and borrowers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 23,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 23,000

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 3,680

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division at (202) 692-0043.

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 will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, Support Services Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The Census Bureau has conducted the Annual Survey of Manufacturers (ASM) since 1949 to provide key measures of manufacturing activity during intercensal periods. In census years ending in “2” and “7”, we mail and collect the ASM as part of the Economic Census covering the Manufacturing Sector. This survey is an integral part of the Government's statistical program. The ASM furnishes up-to-date estimates of employment and payrolls, hours and wages of production workers, value added by manufacture, cost of materials, value of shipments by product class, inventories, and expenditures for both plant and equipment and structures. The survey provides data for most of these items for each of the 473 industries as defined in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). It also provides geographic data by state at a more aggregated industry level.

The survey also provides valuable information to private companies, research organizations, and trade associations. Industry makes extensive use of the annual figures on product class shipments at the U.S. level in its market analysis, product planning, and investment planning. The ASM data are used to benchmark and reconcile monthly and quarterly data on manufacturing production and inventories.

The ASM statistics are based on a survey which includes two components, mail and nonmail. The mail portion of the survey is a probability sample of about 55,000 manufacturing establishments selected from a total of about 225,000 establishments. These 225,000 establishments represent all manufacturing establishments of multiunit companies (companies that operate at more than one physical location) and all single-establishment manufacturing companies that were mailed forms in the 1997 Economic Census.

The nonmail portion of the survey is defined as all single-establishment manufacturing companies that we tabulated as administrative records in the 1997 Economic Census. Although this portion includes approximately 155,000 establishments, it accounted for less than 2 percent of the estimate for total value of shipments at the total manufacturing level for 1997. No data are collected from this portion of the population, instead data are estimated based on selected information obtained annually from the administrative records of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Social Security Administrative (SSA). This administrative information, which includes payroll, total employment, industry classification, and physical location, is obtained under conditions which safeguard the confidentiality of both tax and census records.

MB Number: 0607-0449.

Form Number: MA-10000(L), MA-10000(S).

Type of Review: Regular review.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for profit, non-profit Institutions, small businesses or organizations, and State or Local Governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 55,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.4 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 187,000.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: The estimated cost to the respondents is $4,885,410.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

Legal Authority: Title 13, United States Code, sections 182, 224, and 225.

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

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

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) requires any commercial fisher operating in a Category I or II fishery to register for a certificate of authorization that will allow the fisher to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Category I and II fisheries are those identified by NOAA as having either frequent or occasional takings of marine mammals.

A paper form is used.

OMB Number : 0648-0293.

Form Number : None.

Type of Review : Regular submission.

Affected Public : Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households.

The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the provisions of 50 CFR 216.39 of the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the provisions of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. 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, Regulatory Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. 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. OMB 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 the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Student Aid Internet Gateway (SAIG) Enrollment Document (JS).

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary), Businesses or other for-profit, State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 6902.

 Burden Hours: 6902.

Abstract: Enrollment in SAIG allows eligible entities to exchange Title IV information electronically with the Department of Education. Users are able to receive, transmit, view and update student financial aid data via SAIG. Eligible respondents include postsecondary schools that participate in federal student financial aid programs, financial aid servicers, state and guaranty agencies, lenders, and need analysis servicers.

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 Vivian.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be 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 should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@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 Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission is established under Public Law 107-41 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. The Commission, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education, is responsible for planning and coordinating public education activities and initiatives. Also, the Commission, in cooperation with the Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence, and Research in Topeka, Kansas, and such other public or private entities as the Commission deems appropriate, is responsible for encouraging, planning, developing, and coordinating observances of the anniversary of the Brown decision. The meeting of the Commission is open to the public. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, materials in alternative format) should notify Gwendolen Long at (202) 205-9556 by no later than March 21, 2003. We will attempt to meet requests after that date, but cannot guarantee availability.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to prepare a revised draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship at the WVDP and Western New York Nuclear Service Center to examine the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action to decommission and/or maintain long-term stewardship at the Center. The NRC, the EPA, and NYSDEC will participate as cooperating agencies under NEPA. NYSDEC will also participate as an involved agency under SEQRA with respect to NYSERDA's proposed actions. DOE, under NEPA, and NYSERDA, under SEQRA, plan to evaluate the range of reasonable alternatives in this EIS to address their respective responsibilities at the Center, including those under the WVDP Act, Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended), and all other applicable Federal and State statutes.

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center consists of a 3,345-acre reservation in rural western New York that is the location of the only NRC-licensed commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to have ever operated in the United States. Reprocessing operations resulted in the generation of approximately 600,000 gallons of liquid high-level waste (HLW), which was stored in large underground tanks adjacent to the reprocessing facility. NYSERDA holds title to the Center on behalf of the people of the State of New York. (See H. Rep. No. 96-1000 at 4 (1980) reprinted in 1980 U.S.S.C.A.N 3102, 3103.)

The WVDP Act of 1980 required DOE to solidify the HLW, transport it to a Federal geologic repository, dispose of the low-level waste (LLW) and transuranic (TRU) waste generated from Project activities, and decontaminate and decommission the facilities used for the Project. The Act also authorized NRC to prescribe decommissioning criteria for the WVDP. The NRC has placed NYSERDA's NRC site license in abeyance during DOE's fulfillment of its WVDP Act requirements.

Pursuant to the WVDP Act, on October 1, 1980, DOE and NYSERDA entered into a Cooperative Agreement (amended September 19, 1981) that established a framework for the implementation of the Project. Under the agreement, NYSERDA has made available to DOE, without transfer of title, an approximately 200-acre portion of the Center, known as the “Project Premises,” which includes a formerly operated spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, spent nuclear fuel receiving and storage area, underground liquid HLW storage tanks, and a liquid LLW treatment facility with associated lagoons, as well as other facilities. Most of the facilities on the Project premises were radioactively contaminated from reprocessing operations and are located on a geographic area of the Center known as the North Plateau. Among the other facilities located within the Project Premises is a radioactive waste disposal area known as the NRC-licensed disposal area (NDA). Adjacent to the Project Premises is a radioactive waste disposal area known as the State Licensed Disposal Area (SDA) for which NYSERDA has operational responsibility. Both the NDA and SDA are located on the South Plateau geographic area of the Center.

In 1987, DOE agreed, in a Stipulation of Compromise settling a lawsuit filed by local citizens, to evaluate the feasibility of onsite disposal of LLW generated as a result of Project activities in a Cleanup and Closure EIS, and to initiate the EIS process by the end of calendar year 1988. DOE and NYSERDA jointly issued the resulting Draft EIS for Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (DOE/EIS-0226-D, also known as the “Cleanup and Closure EIS”) in 1996. The Cleanup and Closure draft EIS evaluated a range of alternatives that included a broad scope of waste management and decontamination/decommissioning activities. However, the draft EIS did not identify a preferred alternative.

In 2001, DOE revised its NEPA strategy to continue its EIS process in order to complete its obligations under the WVDP Act. DOE announced that it would prepare a separate EIS to address decontamination and near-term waste management activities for which it is solely responsible under the Act (66 FR 16647, March 26, 2001). In addition, DOE and NYSERDA would jointly prepare a second EIS for decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship to address activities for which each party is responsible. After considering public comments on the March 26, 2001, NOI and new information identified under “New Information to be Evaluated” below, DOE believes the scopes of both EISs should be further modified as follows. The first EIS, the West Valley Waste Management EIS, would address actions pertaining to waste accumulated in storage on site as a result of past Project activities as well as waste to be generated in the near term. The second EIS, this decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship EIS, would analyze various decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship alternatives and would include decontamination as well. It would also include the management of wastes generated by decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship actions. Because this second EIS addresses strategies that may be used to complete the WVDP and disposition the Center, DOE now intends that this EIS would replace the 1996 Cleanup and Closure EIS. (DOE issued an Advance Notice of Intent inviting preliminary public input to the scope of this EIS on November 6, 2001 [66 FR 56090].)

On February 1, 2002, the NRC published in the Federal Register (67 FR 5003) its Decommissioning Criteria for the West Valley Demonstration Project (M-32) at the West Valley Site; Final Policy Statement. The NRC decided that it would apply its License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20, Subpart E) as the decommissioning criteria for the WVDP and the decommissioning goal for the entire NRC-licensed site. The NRC intends to use this West Valley EIS to evaluate the environmental impacts of the various alternatives before deciding whether to accept the preferred alternative as meeting the criteria permitted by the License Termination Rule.

DOE is required by the WVDP Act to decontaminate and decommission the tanks and facilities used in the solidification of the HLW, and any material and hardware used in connection with the WVDP, in accordance with such requirements as the NRC may prescribe. The NRC has prescribed its License Termination Rule as the decommissioning criteria for the WVDP. Therefore, DOE needs to determine the manner that facilities, materials, and hardware for which the Department is responsible are managed or decommissioned, in accordance with applicable Federal and State requirements. To this end, DOE needs to determine what, if any, material or structures for which it is responsible will remain on site, and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions would be needed.

NYSERDA needs to determine the manner that facilities and property for which NYSERDA is responsible, including the State-Licensed Disposal Area, will be managed or decommissioned, in accordance with applicable Federal and State requirements. To this end, NYSERDA needs to determine what, if any, material or structures for which it is responsible will remain on site, and what, if any, institutional controls, engineered barriers, or stewardship provisions would be needed. It is NYSERDA's intent to pursue termination of the existing 10 CFR Part 50 license for the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (currently held in abeyance) upon DOE's completion of decontamination and decommissioning under the WVDP Act in accordance with criteria prescribed by the NRC. NYSERDA plans to use the analysis of alternatives in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS to support any necessary NRC or NYSDEC license or permit applications.

DOE and NYSERDA currently do not agree on their respective responsibilities, including whether DOE is required under the WVDP Act to remediate the North Plateau groundwater plume and decommission the NDA, and which party is responsible for any long-term stewardship following the decommissioning actions required under the WVDP Act.

In accordance with their respective applicable legal requirements, DOE and NYSERDA each have unilateral decision-making authority for those actions for which they are responsible. DOE will determine the manner in which it will decommission Project facilities as required under the WVDP Act. NYSERDA will determine the manner in which non-Project facilities, not required to be decommissioned under the WVDP Act, will be managed.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to use the NRC's License Termination Rule and associated guidance provided in the NRC's Final Policy Statement as the framework to evaluate possible alternatives for decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship actions involving WVDP facilities, as well as decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship actions involving NYSERDA-controlled facilities and areas on the Center. In the Final Policy Statement, the NRC recognized that it does not have the regulatory authority to apply the License Termination Rule to the SDA, and said that a cooperative approach with the State will be utilized to the extent practical to apply the License Termination Rule in a coordinated manner.

As required by NEPA, the EIS will present the environmental impacts associated with the range of reasonable alternatives to meet DOE's and NYSERDA's purposes and needs for action, and a no-action alternative. This range encompasses release of the Center for re-use under unrestricted and restricted conditions as allowed under the License Termination Rule. The EIS will present the health and environmental consequences of the alternatives in comparable form to provide a clear basis for informed decision making. DOE's and NYSERDA's preferred alternative will be identified in the Draft EIS. This Draft EIS will also include an evaluation of whether the alternatives would meet the NRC decommissioning criteria and other applicable requirements.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to evaluate an alternative that could satisfy the License Termination Rule criteria and permit termination of NYSERDA's NRC license without restrictions. DOE and NYSERDA are proposing that this alternative involve removal of WVDP and non-WVDP wastes, structures, and contaminated soils to the extent required so that the radiological criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 can be met for Project and non-Project facilities and the balance of the 3,345-acre Center. This alternative includes exhumation and offsite disposal of waste and contaminated soils from the NDA and SDA on the South Plateau.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to evaluate the need for new onsite interim waste storage capacity under Alternative 1 for some waste types, such as Greater-Than-Class C waste, that may not be able to be disposed of in a time frame that would support timely implementation of this EIS alternative. Such an interim storage facility would remain under institutional control until the waste it contains is removed from the site. Following implementation of this alternative, including removal of any wastes in interim storage, the Center could be released without restrictions.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to evaluate an alternative that could satisfy the radiological criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 for facilities and areas on the North Plateau geographic area of the Center, including the North Plateau groundwater plume, as well as the balance of the 3,345-acre Center, with the exception of the NDA and SDA. This would include removal of WVDP and non-WVDP wastes, structures, and contaminated soils to the extent required so that the radiological criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 can be met for the North Plateau. Appropriate infiltration controls would be evaluated for the NDA and the SDA. The NDA and SDA on the South Plateau would not be released but would be managed, monitored, and maintained under permit, license, or other appropriate regulatory oversight. With the exception of the NDA and SDA, the WVDP Project Premises and Center could be released without restrictions. DOE and NYSERDA also intend to evaluate the need for new onsite interim waste storage that may be required to support timely completion of this alternative.

DOE and NYSERDA intend to evaluate an alternative that may permit release with restrictions of portions of the North Plateau geographic area and the balance of the 3,345-acre Center, with the exception of the NDA and SDA. DOE and NYSERDA are proposing that this alternative involve removal of wastes and structures to the extent technically and economically practical so that the radiological criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1403 can be met for the North Plateau. This would involve in-place closure of the Process Building, Vitrification Facility, HLW Tank Farm, wastewater treatment facility lagoons, and the North Plateau contaminated groundwater plume in a manner that is protective of public health, safety, and the environment. Other ancillary North Plateau facilities would be removed. Appropriate infiltration controls would be evaluated for the NDA and the SDA. The application of institutional controls and engineered barriers would be required and evaluated. The NDA and SDA on the South Plateau would not be released but would be managed, monitored, and maintained under permit, license, or other appropriate regulatory oversight. With the exception of the NDA and SDA, the end state would be the release of the WVDP Project Premises and Center under restricted conditions. However, unimpacted and/or remediated areas of the Center could be considered for release without restrictions. DOE also intends to evaluate the need for new onsite interim HLW storage that may be required to support timely completion of this alternative.

This alternative involves the continued management and oversight of the Center and all facilities located upon the Center property, including the WVDP, after DOE's implementation of its Record of Decision for the WVDP Waste Management EIS. No decommissioning decisions would be made nor actions taken to make progress toward decommissioning, including decontamination beyond the scope that DOE is currently performing. No facilities would be closed in place, but would be left in their current configuration and actively monitored and maintained as required by existing regulations to protect public, worker, and environmental health and safety. When required, remedial actions would be taken in response to any releases of contamination into the environment that may present a health and safety risk, such as would be experienced from the eventual failure of the underground HLW storage tanks. Under this alternative, no portion of the Project Premises or the Center would be released for any present or future use.

This alternative involves the cessation of all management and oversight of the Center and all facilities located upon the Center property, including the WVDP, immediately after implementation of DOE's Record of Decision for the WVDP Waste Management EIS. The Process Building, Waste Tank Farm, Vitrification Facility, North Plateau groundwater plume, NDA, SDA, and other smaller facilities would remain and would not be monitored or maintained. Unmitigated natural processes, including erosion, groundwater transport of contamination, and concrete degradation, would be assumed to occur. The purpose of evaluating this alternative is to establish the basis against which the environmental impacts from all other decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship alternatives are compared.

DOE does not consider the use of existing structures or construction of new aboveground facilities at the WVDP for indefinite storage of Project and non-Project LLW and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) to be a reasonable alternative for further consideration. Under the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WMPEIS, DOE/EIS-0200-F) Record of Decision, DOE decided that sites such as the WVDP would ship their LLW and MLLW to other DOE sites that have disposal capabilities for these wastes. (This decision did not preclude the use of commercial disposal facilities as well.) The construction, subsequent maintenance, and periodic replacement over time of new facilities for indefinite onsite waste storage at West Valley would be impractical from a cost, programmatic, health, and environmental standpoint. Thus, given the capacity to safely and permanently disposition LLW and MLLW in available off site facilities, DOE would not consider indefinite onsite waste storage in new or existing facilities to be a viable waste management alternative for its decommissioning actions at the WVDP. For similar reasons, NYSERDA would use available commercial facilities for disposal of any non-Project LLW and MLLW that it may generate, in lieu of incurring the costs of new construction.

As discussed above, the NRC published its Final Policy Statement prescribing decommissioning criteria for the WVDP on February 1, 2002, stating that NRC intends to apply its License Termination Rule (10 CFR 20.1401 et seq. ) as decommissioning criteria in assessing the health and environmental impacts of decommissioning the WVDP facilities. DOE and NYSERDA will utilize the NRC's Final Policy Statement and the License Termination Rule as the benchmark to develop and analyze their decommissioning alternatives in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS.

For the 1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS, DOE and NYSERDA developed or modified a variety of analytical tools specifically for that document. DOE has continued to refine many of these analytical tools as a result of public comments received on the 1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS and ongoing interactions with stakeholders and regulatory agencies such as the NRC. DOE and NYSERDA intend to apply these improved analytical tools to the preparation of the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. To address significant issues such as erosion, for example, DOE and NYSERDA have developed a site-specific erosion model, with ongoing advice from NRC, and integrated that model into a revised performance assessment methodology, incorporating the use of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses.

There are also some additional areas where new information has or will be obtained specifically for the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. This work includes updated site characterization and census data and the performance of a seismic reflection survey in the vicinity of the Center. This seismic reflection survey, performed in consultation with academic, government, and industry participants, will contribute to knowledge about the regional structural geology as it may relate to the WVDP and the Center.

Additional information that has become available since publication of the 1996 Draft Cleanup and Closure EIS includes DOE's WM PEIS and its associated Records of Decision. The WM PEIS analyzed on a national scale the centralization, regionalization, or decentralization of managing HLW, transuranic waste, low-level radioactive waste, mixed radioactive low-level waste (containing hazardous constituents), and non-wastewater hazardous waste.

DOE has tentatively identified the following issues for analysis in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. The list is presented to facilitate early comment on the scope of the EIS. It is not intended to be all-inclusive nor to predetermine the alternatives to be analyzed or their potential impacts.

• Potential impacts to the general population and on-site workers from radiological and non-radiological releases from decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities.

• Potential environmental impacts, including air and water quality impacts, caused by decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities.

• Potential transportation impacts from shipments of radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and clean waste generated during decommissioning activities.

• Potential impacts from postulated accidents.

• Potential costs for implementation and long-term stewardship of alternatives considered.

• Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and minority populations (environmental justice).

• Potential Native American concerns.

• Irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources.

• Short-term and long-term land use impacts.

• Ability of alternatives to meet the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act risk range.

• Ability of alternatives to satisfy WVDP decommissioning criteria.

• Compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local requirements.

• Identification of Derived Concentration Guideline Limits, where appropriate.

• The influence of, and potential interactions of, any wastes remaining at the Center after decommissioning.

• Unavoidable adverse impacts.

• Issues associated with long-term site stewardship, including regulatory and engineering considerations, institutional controls, and land use restrictions, including the need for buffer areas.

• Long-term health and environmental impacts, including potential impacts on groundwater quality.

• Long-term site stability, including erosion and seismicity.

• Waste Incidental to Reprocessing.

• Disposition of wastes generated as a result of decommissioning and/or long-term stewardship activities.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: NRC has the regulatory responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act for the Center, which is the subject of the NRC license issued to NYSERDA pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, with the exception of the SDA. The NRC license is currently in abeyance pending completion of the WVDP.

The WVDP Act specifies certain responsibilities for NRC, including: (1) Prescribing requirements for decontamination and decommissioning; (2) providing review and consultation to DOE on the Project; and (3) monitoring the activities under the Project for the purpose of assuring the public health and safety. NRC will participate as a cooperating agency under NEPA on the West Valley Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. NRC may adopt this EIS for determining that the preferred alternative meets NRC's decommissioning criteria, assuming that NRC will find the preferred alternative acceptable.

Notwithstanding the WVDP, NRC retains the regulatory responsibility for the non-DOE activity in the non-Project area and non-SDA area to the extent that contamination exists both on and offsite resulting from activities performed when the facility was operating under its NRC 10 CFR part 50 license. Following completion of the WVDP and reinstatement of the license, NRC will have the regulatory responsibility for authorizing termination of the license, should NYSERDA seek license termination.

United States Environmental Protection Agency: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will participate as a cooperating agency under NEPA on the West Valley Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. As a cooperating agency, EPA will review the EIS and other documents developed by DOE in conjunction with NYSERDA to provide early input on the analyses of environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning alternatives to be analyzed.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation: With respect to DOE proposed actions, NYSDEC will participate as a cooperating agency under NEPA on the West Valley Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. As a cooperating agency, NYSDEC will review the EIS and other documents developed by DOE in conjunction with NYSERDA to provide early input on the analyses of environmental impacts associated with the decommissioning alternatives to be analyzed, and as part of their regulatory responsibilities. NYSDEC will participate as an involved agency under SEQRA with respect to NYSERDA's proposed actions.

NYSDEC regulates the SDA through issuance of permits under 6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 380 Rules and Regulations for Prevention and Control of Environmental Pollution by Radioactive Materials. NYSDEC also regulates hazardous and mixed waste at the Center pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 370 Series. This includes permitting activities under Interim Status for RCRA regulated units and Corrective Action Requirements for investigation and if necessary, remediation of hazardous constituents from Solid Waste Management Units.

NYSDEC is also responsible for ensuring compliance with the 1992 joint NYSDEC/USEPA 3008 (h) [New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Article 27, Titles 9 and 13] Order issued to the DOE and NYSERDA. The Order required investigation of solid waste management units, performance of interim corrective measures, and completion of Corrective Measures Studies, if necessary. NYSDEC and EPA intend to accommodate the DOE's and NYSERDA's efforts to coordinate and integrate the EIS process pursuant to the Order.

DOE and NYSERDA will hold two public scoping meetings on the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS at the Ashford Office Complex, located at 9030 Route 219 in the Town of Ashford, NY, from 7 to 9:30 p.m. on April 9 and April 10, 2003. The purpose of scoping is to encourage public involvement and solicit public comments on the proposed scope and content of the EIS. Requests to speak at the public meeting should be made by calling or writing the DOE Document Manager ( see ADDRESSES , above). Speakers will be scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. Individuals may sign up at the door to speak and will be accommodated as time permits. Written comments will also be accepted at the meeting. Speakers are encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments for the record.

The meetings will be facilitated by a moderator. Time will be provided for meeting attendees to ask clarifying questions. Individuals requesting to speak on behalf of an organization must identify the organization. Each speaker will be allowed five minutes to present comments unless more time is requested and available. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and will become part of the scoping meeting record.

These two public scoping meetings will be held during a public scoping comment period. The comment period begins with publication of this NOI and will formally close on April 28, 2003. Comments received after this date will be considered to the extent practical. Comments provided during scoping will be addressed in the revised draft Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. Written comments will be received during the scoping period either in writing, by facsimile, or by email to Mr. Daniel Sullivan, DOE Document Manager ( see ADDRESSES , above, for contact information).

The DOE intends to issue the draft Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS as early as December 2003. A public comment period of up to 180 days will start upon publication of the EPA's Federal Register Notice of Availability. DOE will consider and respond to comments received on the draft Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS in preparing the final EIS.

Comments received during the 1989 scoping process and from the public comment period on the 1996 Cleanup and Closure EIS (DOE/EIS-0226-D) will be considered in the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS.

Documents referenced in this Notice of Intent and related information are available at the following locations: Central Buffalo Public Library Science and Technology Department, Lafayette Square, Buffalo, New York 14203, (716) 858-7098; The Olean Public Library, 134 North 2nd Street, Olean, New York 14760, (716) 372-0200; The Hulbert Library of the Town of Concord, 18 Chapel Street, Springville, New York 14141, (716) 592-7742; West Valley Central School Library, 5359 School Street, West Valley, New York 14141, (716) 942-3261; Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 219, West Valley, New York 14171, (716) 942-4555.

Guidance regarding BPA ratemaking is provided by the Bonneville Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 832, the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, 16 U.S.C. 838, and the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839.

BPA's rates must be established to recover BPA's costs. In particular, section 7(a)(1), 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(1), provides in part that:

Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be established according to certain procedures. These procedures include, among other things, publication of notice of the proposed rates in the Federal Register ; one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a Hearing Officer; public opportunity for both oral presentation and written submission of views, data, questions, and argument related to the proposed rates; cross-examination; and a decision by the Administrator based on the record. This proceeding is governed by section 1010.9 of BPA's Procedures Governing Bonneville Power Administration Rate Hearings, 51 FR 7611 (1986) (Procedures). The Procedures implement the statutory section 7(i) requirements. Section 1010.7 of the Procedures prohibits ex parte communications. Special rules governing the rate proceeding may also be adopted at the prehearing conference. Documents will be filed and served electronically under procedures to be established by the Hearing Officer at the prehearing conference.

BPA's proposed SN CRAC adjustment is published in Part V. below. The study addressing the factors used to develop the SN CRAC adjustment is summarized in Part IV.

BPA will release its 2003 initial SN CRAC rate proposal on March 31, 2003, and expects to publish a final Record of Decision (ROD) on June 30, 2003. BPA will conduct a formal evidentiary rate hearing for parties. Entities interested in becoming parties to this proceeding must file petitions to intervene in order to participate in the formal hearing. (See Part III. for further details on becoming a party.) A proposed schedule for the formal hearing is set forth below. A final schedule will be established by the Hearing Officer at the prehearing conference.

Prehearing/BPA Direct Case: March 31.

Clarification: April 2.

Motions to Strike: April 4.

Data Request Deadline: April 4.

Answers to Motions to Strike: April 10.

Data Response Deadline: April 10.

Field Hearing: April 16.

Parties file Direct Cases: April 17.

Clarification: April 21.

Motions to Strike: April 22.

Data Request Deadline: April 22.

Answers to Motions to Strike: April 28.

Data Response Deadline: April 28.

Close of Participant Comments: May 1.

Litigants file Rebuttal: May 2.

Clarification: May 5.

Motions to Strike: May 7.

Data Request Deadline: May 7.

Answers to Motions to Strike: May 13.

Data Response Deadline: May 13.

Cross-Examination: May 15-16.

Initial Briefs Filed: May 20.

Oral Argument: May 23.

Draft ROD issued: June 12.

Briefs on Exceptions: June 17.

Final ROD—Final Studies: June 30.

BPA will conduct a public field hearing on April 16, 2003, in Portland, Oregon. The public field hearing will provide an opportunity for persons who are not parties in the formal rate hearing to have their views included in the official record. Written transcripts will be made of the field hearing. The field hearing is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. Confirmation of this hearing date and the specific location will be announced on BPA's Web site at: http://www.bpa.gov/power/psp/rates/RateCases/sn03/index.shtml and through public advertising, or interested persons may call the telephone numbers listed in above the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this Notice.

In May 2000, BPA completed its analysis and final proposal for FY 2002-2006 rates. On July 6, 2000, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. section 839e(a)(2), BPA's Power Business Line (PBL) filed its proposed wholesale power rates with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). On August 4, 2000, BPA filed a motion with FERC requesting that FERC stay the proceeding for 30 days. After requesting the stay, BPA reviewed the impact of the unexpected price increases in the wholesale power markets on the West Coast and their effect on PBL's power rate proposal.

BPA concluded that, in light of the unprecedented price spikes during the summer of 2000, PBL's proposed cost-based rates for FY 2002-2006 would be far more attractive to customers than market alternatives, and, in fact, public utility customers requested purchase contracts for significantly more power than forecasted in the BPA's May 2000 final rate proposal. This resulted in total load obligations of about 3,200 aMW more than the existing system could supply.

After a public comment period, BPA notified rate case parties on October 6, 2000, that it intended to initiate a limited 7(i) proceeding to address increased load obligations and high market prices. On December 1, 2000, BPA announced its proposed amendments to the 2002 wholesale power rate adjustment proposal. Proposed Amendments to 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Adjustment Proposal, 65 FR 75272 (2000) (Amended Proposal). BPA filed an Amended Proposal rather than formally modifying the original rate proposal for two main reasons. First, rates needed to be in place by October 2001 and there was no assurance a full rate proceeding could have been conducted within the time remaining. Second, the Treasury payment analysis showed that secondary revenues, even with very conservative assumptions relative to the actual forward market, would very likely cover any cost overruns.

After BPA released its Amended Proposal, the forecast for starting rate period reserves dropped substantially. In addition, market prices rose significantly from BPA's December 2000 forecast. These rapid developments necessitated significant changes to the Amended Proposal. BPA began settlement discussions with rate case parties to attempt to forge a resolution to the matter. When BPA and many of the rate case parties reached a Partial Settlement Agreement, BPA filed a Supplemental Proposal reflecting the terms of the Partial Settlement Agreement. The Partial Settlement Agreement included three separate Cost Recovery Adjustment Clauses, allowing the adoption of a general approach to keep base rates low and deal with financial shortfalls though the CRACs rather than raise base rates. These tools gave BPA the risk mitigation necessary to have a sufficiently high Treasury Payment Probability (TPP). The three CRACs are the Load-Based (LB) CRAC which is designed to cover augmentation costs, the Financial-Based (FB) CRAC which is designed to cover net revenue, and the Safety-Net (SN) CRAC which is available if the likelihood of missing a Treasury payment or payment to any other creditor is 50 percent or greater despite the implementation of the LB and FB CRACs. On September 28, 2001, FERC granted interim approval of BPA's rate filing, U.S. Department of Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 96 FERC ¶ 61,360 (2001).

The forecasts included in the Supplemental Rate Proposal, and reflected in the TPP forecast, included two sources of revenue that would cover expense increases. The first revenue source was secondary sales from high market prices. Market prices were forecast to stay high through 2003 because the development of electrical infrastructure was expected to take up to two years of development to catch up with the high demand that BPA and the west coast was experiencing. Therefore, the initial two years of the rate period were expected to be supply-limited. The second revenue source was also tied to these high market prices. Credits toward BPA's Treasury payments based on fish-related costs (fish credits) and impacts on operations were expected to contribute significantly to total revenues through high market prices. These fish credits contribute to BPA's overall revenues through a credit against BPA's payment to the U.S. Treasury. When market prices are higher, the size of the credit available to BPA may increase. BPA's June 2001 forecasts for secondary energy prices and available credits during the rate period proved to be inaccurate when market prices dropped faster and to lower levels than forecasted. This resulted in lower-than-forecasted revenues for BPA in fiscal year 2002. Hydro production during FY 2002-2003 also has been well below forecasts. The lingering effects of the 2001 drought on FY 2002 and the poor hydro conditions in 2003 have contributed to the significant decline in BPA's revenues. Although the hydro conditions appeared to be about normal over the January-July 2002 period, BPA stored a significant amount of water to replenish the low reservoirs resulting from the 2001 drought. This need for storage resulted in less 2002 hydro production than was forecast.

In addition, both operating and non-operating cost increases, relative to the levels assumed in the rates that BPA filed with FERC, have contributed to BPA's eroding financial condition. These increases include: BPA internal operating costs; hydro system costs; Federal debt service, net interest expense and depreciation; Columbia Generating Station costs; Direct Service Industries, California Independent System Operator and California Power Exchange bad debt expenses; conservation costs; and an increase in benefits to residential and small farm customers of investor-owned utilities.

Faced with a deterioration of its overall financial condition, BPA sent a letter to rate case parties and other interested entities in the region on July 2, 2002, announcing the beginning of the Financial Choices public comment process. The Financial Choices process examined a variety of financial and program options for addressing PBL's FY 2003-2006 financial challenges. In this process, BPA described those financial challenges, the actions BPA already had taken to address the problem, and the financial outlook for the remainder of the rate period. Additionally, BPA identified a variety of potential financial alternatives that, separately or in combination, could form the basis of a solution to PBL's financial situation.

During the course of the process, BPA held ten public meetings and workshops with customers, public interest groups, tribes, and other interested persons to explain the nature of the problem, and to show program level costs and the potential effects of cost reductions. BPA also solicited suggestions to address its growing financial problem. The public comment period closed on September 30, 2002. As a result of the Financial Choices process, BPA made decisions to cut, eliminate, or defer certain costs and expenses. BPA issued a Financial Choices close-out letter to the region on November 22, 2002, outlining BPA's plan, in part, for meeting the PBL's financial challenges. The plan takes into consideration extensive public input BPA received during the Financial Choices public process. The actions BPA has taken, and will take, as described in the Financial Choices close-out letter, include the identification of $350 million in expense savings, expense deferrals, and other actions for the FY 2003-2006 period. These will be reflected in the program levels in BPA's Initial Proposal. An additional $500 million of other potential savings and deferrals are being pursued, but are uncertain since they largely involve actions by other parties in the region.

While BPA did not trigger the SN CRAC in November, by January 2003, worsening water conditions and a refined secondary revenue forecast increased the net revenue gap for the 2002-2006 rate period to $950 million. In February 2003, the Administrator determined that BPA had lower than a 50 percent probability of making its Treasury payment in September 2003. An SN CRAC adjustment became necessary to ensure that rates and revenues will be sufficient to recover costs with a high degree of certainty over the remainder of the rate period.

Triggering SN CRAC starts an expedited section 7(i) hearing to establish changes in the amount, duration, and timing parameters of the FB CRAC, taking into account prevailing conditions. On February 7, 2003, the BPA Administrator determined that the SN CRAC triggered based upon a forecast of a 50 percent or greater chance of missing a payment to the U.S. Treasury or another creditor during this fiscal year.

a. Power Business Line WP-02 Rate Case . On July 6, 2000, BPA filed proposed wholesale power rate adjustments with FERC as noticed in the Federal Register . 16 U.S.C. 839e(a)(2). Proposed Amendments to 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Adjustment Proposal , 65 FR 75272 (2000). BPA supplemented its rate filing with FERC on June 29, 2001. The supplementation of the rate filing included three CRAC risk mitigation tools. On September 28, 2001, FERC granted interim approval to BPA's rates filing. U.S. Department of Energy—Bonneville Power Admin., 96 FERC ¶61,360 (2001).

Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions in the WP-02 rate hearing. These decisions include but are not limited to issues related to the Slice methodology and contract issues including the Slice audit.

b. Transmission Business Line TR-04 Rate Proceeding . On December 20, 2002, BPA's Transmission Business Line (TBL) published a Federal Register Notice announcing the initiation of a rate-setting process for the FY 2004-2005 period. TBL's Initial Proposal reflected a settlement reached between BPA and its transmission customers. The Initial Proposal contains certain assumptions regarding TBL's revenues and expenses over the rate period. Some of these assumptions have been used in developing aspects of the SN-03 proposal and are identified in the supporting documentation. BPA does not intend to revisit the underlying basis for TBL's assumptions. Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions in the TR-04 rate hearing.

The Financial Choices process allowed extensive review and comment on PBL's costs.

In addition, the decisions made in the Financial Choices process implemented prudent cost management to enhance TPP while minimizing rate impacts. These decisions are reflected in assumptions regarding program spending levels in the SN-03 Initial Proposal. BPA does not intend to revisit in this proceeding the decisions made during the Financial Choices process, including decisions on program spending levels.

Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions and other decisions made in Financial Choices on spending levels, as included in PBL's test period revenue requirement for FY 2003-2006. If, and to the extent, any re-examination of spending levels is necessary, that re-examination will occur outside of the rate case. Excepted from this direction on account of their variable nature, dependency on PBL's rate case models, or timing, are: (1) Forecasts of short-term purchase power costs; (2) capital recovery matters such as interest rate forecasts, scheduled amortization, depreciation, replacements, and interest expense; and (3) inter-business line expenses.

In BPA's WP-02 Wholesale Power Rate Case, potential fish and wildlife costs were reflected probabilistically, based on 13 system configuration alternatives arrived at during the development of the Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles (Revenue Requirement Study Documentation, Volume 1, WP-02-FS-BPA-02A, Chapter 13). These alternatives were developed specifically to inform and guide PBL's Subscription Process and power rate-setting, keeping options open because those processes would be concluded prior to decisions being made on system reconfiguration to aid threatened and endangered salmon.

In December 2000, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) issued a Biological Opinion on the operation and configuration of the FCRPS addressing threatened and endangered salmon. Also in December 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a Biological Opinion on the operation and configuration of the FCRPS addressing Endangered Species Act listed sturgeon and bull trout. Implementation of the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion requires the Action Agencies (Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and BPA) to issue annual implementation plans and five-year prospective implementation plans as well as regular annual progress reporting on the success of the Action Agencies' implementation actions. On November 6, 2002, BPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the Bureau of Reclamation released the Final FY 2003-2007 Implementation Plan for the FCRPS. The Implementation Plan identifies and describes the specific measures that the three agencies plan to implement in FY 2003-FY2007 and addresses the actions called for in the NOAA Fisheries and FWS 2000 Biological Opinions for the FCRPS. The Implementation Plan forms the basis for fish-related hydro-operations assumptions and spending level assumptions in the Initial Proposal.

BPA is currently engaged in regional discussions regarding fish-related changes to hydro operations, which are being evaluated in a regional forum. The Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council (Council) is evaluating these proposed changes in its mainstem rulemaking proceedings. Upon receipt of the Council's final recommendations, the Action Agencies, in coordination with NOAA Fisheries and FWS, may decide to implement changes to measures as outlined in the Action Agencies Implementation Plan. The proposed changes are included in the analysis used to prepare BPA's Initial Proposal. To the extent other decisions are made in these proceedings by the time BPA's Final ROD is prepared, those decisions will be included in the Final ROD.

BPA's fish and wildlife program spending levels are developed to implement not only the Action Agencies' Implementation Plan, but also a set of operational, habitat, harvest, and hatchery measures to protect, mitigate, and enhance non-ESA listed species affected by the FCRPS. When BPA initiated Financial Choices, fish and wildlife spending levels were presented and comments were taken. Those spending levels, including expenses and capital, are reflected in the SN-03 Initial Proposal, but are currently under review by the Council. If BPA changes those levels based on recommendations by the Council prior to writing the Final Record of Decision (ROD), those changes will be reflected in the Final ROD.

Pursuant to section 1010.3(f) of BPA's Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek in any way to revisit the policy merits or wisdom of implementation of the Biological Opinion, or the related operations, assumptions, and program spending level forecasts included in BPA's rate proposal, as discussed above. The Implementation Plan and any subsequent modifications were and are developed through extensive public involvement and comment processes, and have been and will be adopted as policy pursuant to those separate processes.

BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of this proposed rate adjustment, consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations. In its Business Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995 (Business Plan EIS), BPA evaluated the environmental impacts of a range of business structure alternatives that included, among other things, various combinations of power pricing and rate designs for BPA's power rates. In addition, the Business Plan EIS identifies various response strategies, such as raising firm power rates, that could be implemented to address revenue shortfalls. In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a Record of Decision (Business Plan ROD) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it is the alternative that best allows BPA to: (1) Recover costs through rates; (2) achieve strategic business objectives; (3) competitively market BPA's products and services; and (4) continue to meet BPA's legal mandates.

An initial review of this proposed rate adjustment indicates that it is consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. This rate proposal would result in rate levels similar to those resulting from the rate designs evaluated in the Business Plan EIS, and thus would not be expected to result in significantly different environmental impacts from those examined for the Market-Driven Alternative in the Business Plan EIS. Furthermore, implementation of this rate proposal would be consistent with the response strategy of raising firm power rates to generate necessary revenues that was identified for all alternatives in the Business Plan EIS and Business Plan ROD. Therefore, BPA expects that this rate proposal will fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Final Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD, and that BPA thus may tier its decision under NEPA for the proposed rate adjustment to the Business Plan ROD.

BPA distinguishes between “participants in” and “parties to” the hearings. Apart from the formal hearing process, BPA will receive comments, views, opinions, and information from “participants,” who are defined in the BPA Procedures as persons who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants' written and oral comments will be made part of the official record and considered by the Administrator. Participants are not entitled to participate in the prehearing conference; may not cross-examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties.

Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by May 1, 2003. This date follows the anticipated submission of BPA's and all other parties' direct cases. Written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should be submitted to the address listed in Section I. of this Notice. In addition, BPA will hold a field hearing in Portland, Oregon on April 16, 2003. Participants may appear at the field hearing and present oral testimony. The transcripts of these hearings will be a part of the record upon which the Administrator makes his final rate decisions.

Persons wishing to become a party to BPA's rate proceeding must notify BPA in writing. Petitioners may designate no more than two representatives upon whom service of documents will be made. Petitions to intervene shall state the name and address of the person requesting party status and the person's interest in the hearing.

Petitions to intervene as parties in the rate proceeding are due to the Hearing Officer by 9 a.m. on March 26, 2003. The petitions should be directed to: Maya R. Ferry, Hearing Clerk—LP, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 N.E. 11th Ave., P.O. Box 12999, Portland, Oregon 97212.

Petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether they have a relevant interest in the hearing. Pursuant to Rule 1010.1(d) of BPA's Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in Rule 1010.4(d) that an opposition to an intervention petition be filed and served 4 days before the prehearing conference. Any opposition to an intervention petition instead may be made at the prehearing conference. Any party, including BPA, may oppose a petition for intervention. Persons who have been denied party status in any past BPA rate proceeding shall continue to be denied party status unless they establish a significant change of circumstances. All timely applications will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored. Opposition to an untimely petition to intervene shall be filed and received by BPA within two days after service of the petition.

The record will include, among other things, the transcripts of all hearings, any written material submitted by the parties, documents developed by BPA staff, BPA's environmental analysis and comments accepted on it, and other material accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer then will review the record, will supplement it if necessary, and will certify the record to the Administrator for decision. Given the need for the SN CRAC adjustment to be in place by October 1, 2003, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to conclude the hearing process no later than July 10, 2003 so as to allow BPA sufficient time to comply with 18 CFR part 300.

The Administrator will develop final proposed rates based on the entire record, including the record certified by the Hearing Officer, comments received from participants, other material and information submitted to or developed by the Administrator, and any other comments received during the rate development process. The basis for the final proposed rates first will be expressed in the Administrator's Draft ROD. Parties will have an opportunity to respond to the Draft ROD as provided in BPA's Procedures. The Administrator will serve copies of the Final ROD on all parties. At the conclusion of the rate proceeding, BPA will file the SN-03 rate proposal with FERC for confirmation and approval.

BPA must continue to meet with customers in the ordinary course of business during the rate case. To comport with the rate case procedural rule prohibiting ex parte communications, BPA will provide notice of meetings involving rate case issues for participation by all rate case parties. Parties should be aware, however, that such meetings may be held on very short notice and they should be prepared to devote the necessary resources to participate fully in every aspect of the rate proceeding. Consequently, parties should be prepared to attend meetings every day during the course of the rate case.

As noted earlier, the Administrator determined that in spite of the significant cost cutting identified in the Financial Choices process, BPA has less than a 50 percent probability of meeting its Treasury payment obligations. On February 7, 2003, the Administrator sent a letter to rate case parties and other interested individuals explaining the continued deterioration of BPA's financial situation and announcing the triggering of the SN CRAC process.

BPA is proposing a three-year variable SN CRAC adjustment to power rates, which has a cap limiting the amount of revenues that can be collected each year. Under BPA's proposal, in August of each year, the level of SN CRAC for the next fiscal year will be determined, based on the then-current forecast of PBL's accumulated net revenues (ANR) for the end of the then-current fiscal year. The annual average expected value for the SN CRAC is about 30 percent above May 2000 base rates. The adjustment in a particular year could be as high as 41 percent or as low as zero, depending on PBL's financial condition as reflected in BPA's forecasted ANR.

These percentages do not reflect the overall rate increase customers can expect after the implementation of PBL's proposed SN CRAC because of the interaction among the three CRACs. The total power rate customers will pay will reflect changes to the LB and FB CRACs and the proposed SN CRAC. While it will vary, the resulting total rate is expected to be about 16 percent, on average, above FY2003 rates (which include LB and FB CRACs) for the remainder of the rate period.

BPA's SN CRAC proposal uses a Treasury payment probability measure different from that used in prior rate cases. BPA is concerned that a rate increase of the magnitude necessary to achieve the 80-88 percent five-year TPP standard used to establish the WP-02 rates is not sustainable in the current economy. Therefore, BPA is proposing to relax the standard, but at the same time provide sufficient assurance that by the end of the rate period BPA will have a high probability of making its payment to the U.S. Treasury. This assurance will be met in part by an additional criterion that the PBL expected net revenues for the entire rate period (FY 2002-2006) will be zero or greater. For the next general rate proceeding, BPA intends to return to its long-term goal of 88 percent TPP.

In January 1993, BPA adopted a 10-Year Financial Plan that included a TPP standard for use in setting BPA's rates. At that time, BPA typically had two-year rate periods and the TPP standard called for achieving a 95 percent probability that BPA would make all of its Treasury payments in that rate period on time and in full. BPA's 1996 rates were set to cover a five-year period, and in that process, the 95 percent probability was translated into an 88 percent five-year TPP that provided comparable assurance of timely repayment. The Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles guided the development of power rates for the FY 2002-2006 rate period. In the Fish and Wildlife Funding Principles, the standard for that five-year TPP was allowed to be in the range of 80 to 88 percent in light of the economic burden that achieving the full 88 percent TPP would impose on the Pacific Northwest region.

Specifically for the SN CRAC proceeding, BPA is proposing to use three payment probability criteria in lieu of the long-term goal, mentioned above, including the net revenue criterion. BPA does not intend to replace the 88 percent standard, but is proposing these three alternative standards in this SN-03 process in order to meet the twin goals of moving toward a financially healthier BPA while limiting the effect on a fragile economy. The first criterion is a 50 percent probability that BPA can make all of its Treasury payments in the FY 2004-2006 three year period. This is relaxed from 87.5 percent, which is the three-year probability that corresponds to 80 percent for a five-year period. The second standard, a Treasury Recovery Probability (TRP), requires that the calculated probability that BPA will be able to make all of its FY 2006 payments to the U.S. Treasury, including repayment of any amounts missed in years FY 2003-2005, is at least 80 percent. The third standard requires that net revenues over the FY 2002-2006 period are zero or greater. These criteria provide a high level of assurance that BPA's obligations to the U.S. Treasury will be satisfied by the end of FY 2006.

The proposed SN CRAC design is similar to the existing FB CRAC as described in the 2002 GRSPs. The proposed SN CRAC is a temporary, upward adjustment to posted power rates based on the level of end-of-year ANR in the generation function, as defined in the section on the FB CRAC in the 2002 GRSPs. The August forecast of ANR or each fiscal year from 2003-2005 is compared to the SN CRAC threshold applicable to that fiscal year. If the forecasted ANR is below the threshold, an SN CRAC rate adjustment will be implemented to collect either the amount of the difference between the forecasted ANR and the threshold, or an annual cap, whichever is smaller. The proposed SN CRAC rate adjustment will be determined annually, go into effect on October 1 of each year, and be in effect for the remainder of that fiscal year. The adjustment will be applied to the appropriate rates for the 12-month fiscal year.

The ANR threshold levels for the remaining three years of the rate period are: $-400 million for FY 2004, $−140 million for FY 2005, and $5 million for 2006. The annual cap is $470 million.

Consistent with the 2002 GRSPs, the SN CRAC applies to power customers under the following firm power rate schedules:

1. PF Preference (PF excluding Slice), PF Exchange Program, and PF Exchange Subscription;

2. Industrial Firm Power (IP-02), including purchases under the Industrial Firm Power Targeted Adjustment Charge (IPTAC) and Cost-Based Index Rate;

3. Residential Load (RL-02), including both actual power deliveries and the monetary benefits of any Residential Exchange Program (REP) Settlement;

4. New Resource Firm Power (NR-02); and

5. Subscription purchases under Firm Power Products and Services (FPS).

The SN CRAC does not apply to:

1. Pre-Subscription Contracts (to the extent prohibited by contract);

2. Seasonal and Irrigation Mitigation Contracts; or

3. Slice Purchases.

There will be one study with seven chapters supporting BPA's SN CRAC proposal. Chapter 1 describes PBL's financial conditions and an overview of BPA's SN CRAC proposal. Chapter 2 describes the methodology for PBL's loads and sales forecasts. It also includes the assumptions used in the development of the hydro regulation study and other resources. Chapter 3 contains BPA's generation revenue requirement including a forecast of generation expenses. Chapter 4 describes the analysis that quantifies PBL's net revenue risk. Chapter 5 describes the methodology and resulting forecast of PBL's secondary revenues. Chapter 6 contains PBL's revenue forecast at current and proposed rates, and chapter 7 describes the Tool Kit model, the SN CRAC proposed design and the associated GRSPs.

The SN CRAC applies to power purchases under the following firm power rate schedules: PF [Preference (excluding Slice), Exchange Program and Exchange Subscription]; Industrial Firm Power (IP-02), including purchases under the Industrial Firm Power Targeted Adjustment Charge (IPTAC) and Cost-Based Index Rate; Residential Load (RL-02) (including both actual power deliveries and the 900 aMW of monetary benefits under the financial portion of any REP Settlement, buy-downs and load reduction agreements); New Resource Firm Power (NR-02); and subscription purchases under Firm Power Products and Services (FPS). The SN CRAC does not apply to power purchases under Pre-Subscription contracts to the extent prohibited by such contracts, to BPA's current contractual obligations for Seasonal and Irrigation Mitigation sales including for any eligible customer that converts from Slice to another BPA product, or to purchases under the PF Slice Rate.

By August of each fiscal year (FY 2003-2005) immediately prior to each fiscal year of the remainder of the rate period ( i.e. , FY 2004-2006), a forecast of that end-of-year Accumulated Net Revenue (ANR) will be completed. BPA will compare the forecasted ANR to the SN CRAC Threshold applicable to that year to determine the SN CRAC to be implemented. If the ANR at the end of the forecast year falls below the SN CRAC Threshold applicable to that fiscal year, an SN CRAC rate adjustment will be implemented. That SN CRAC rate adjustment will go into effect beginning in October of the upcoming fiscal year (FY 2004-2006).

The Revenue Amount will be determined by the following formula:

Where Revenue Amount is the amount of additional revenue that an adjustment in rates under SN CRAC is intended to generate during the one year period that the rate adjustment is effective.

Where SN CRAC Threshold is the ANR level below which a rate adjustment is determined. The thresholds specified for the end of FY 2003, 2004, and 2005 are shown in Table A.

Where ANR is generation function net revenues, as accumulated since 1999, at the end of each of the fiscal years 2003-2005. The forecast of ANR through the end of each fiscal year will be calculated and used to determine if the threshold has been reached and the Revenue Amount needed. Net revenues for any given fiscal year are accrued revenues less accrued expenses, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, with the following two exceptions. First, for purposes of determining if the SN CRAC threshold has been reached, actual and forecasted expenses will include BPA expenses associated with Energy Northwest debt service as forecasted in the WP-02 Final Studies. Second, the impact of adopting Financial Accounting Standard 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, will not be considered in determining if the SN CRAC threshold has been reached. Only generation function actual and forecasted revenues and expenses that are associated with the production, acquisition, marketing, and conservation of electric power, will be included in determinations under the SN CRAC. Accrued revenues and expenses of the transmission function are excluded. Impacts of forecasted revenues, positive or negative, from contractual true-up pursuant to the Slice Agreement shall be included in the revenue forecast when determining the SN CRAC.

Where Maximum Planned Recovery Amount is the maximum annual amount planned to be recovered through the SN CRAC.

Once the Revenue Amount is determined, that amount will be converted to the SN CRAC Percentage. The SN CRAC Percentage is the percentage adjustment in customers' rates (not including LB CRAC or FB CRAC) in each of the firm power rate schedules listed above. This percentage will be applied to generate the additional SN CRAC revenue.

The SN CRAC Percentage will be determined by the following formula:

SN CRAC Revenue Basis is the total generation revenue (not including LB CRAC or FB CRAC) for the loads subject to SN CRAC for the fiscal year in which the SN CRAC implementation begins, based on the then most current revenue forecast. Each non-Slice product's total charge for energy, demand, and load variance will be adjusted by this CRAC percentage amount.

Payment under the SN CRAC rate adjustment will be due monthly from November (for the October billing period) through October of the following year.

In August prior to the beginning of each fiscal year of the rate period (FY 2004-2006), the Administrator will compare the ANR forecast at the end of that current fiscal year to that year SN CRAC Threshold. The customers will be billed in accordance with the SN CRAC adjustment.

Each customer will be notified, on or about September 1st, of the percentage adjustment in rates due to the SN CRAC. The rates used to calculate the customers' bills for the following October through September for FY 2004-2006, will reflect the SN CRAC adjustment.

The SN CRAC will be retriggered if the Administrator determines that, after implementation of the FB CRAC, the currently active SN CRAC, and any forecast of Augmentation True-Ups, either of the following conditions exists:

• BPA forecasts a 50 percent or greater probability that it will nonetheless miss a payment to the U.S. Treasury or other creditor, or

• BPA has missed a payment to the U.S. Treasury or has satisfied its obligation to the U.S. Treasury but has missed a payment to any other creditor.

A retriggering of the SN CRAC will result in an upward adjustment to posted power rates listed above by modifying the SN CRAC parameters that are currently in use. BPA will propose changes to the SN CRAC parameters that will, to the extent market and other risk factors allow, achieve a high probability that the remainder of Treasury payments during the FY 2002-2006 rate period will be made in full. BPA's proposal could include changes to the Revenue Amount, the Cap, the Threshold, the duration (the length of time the SN CRAC would be in place, which could be more than one year), and the timing of collection. The additional revenue to be generated by the SN CRAC will be collected through a percentage adjustment in applicable rates and a commensurate decrease in the financial portion of the Residential Exchange Settlement. In addition to the revenue generated by the SN CRAC, BPA's payments for IOU load reductions will be reduced in accordance with contractual provisions.

a. SN CRAC Notification Process. At the time the Administrator determines that the SN CRAC has retriggered, BPA will send written notification of the determination to customers that purchase power under rates subject to the SN CRAC and to interested parties. Such notification shall include the documentation used by BPA to determine that the SN CRAC has retriggered, the amount of any forecast shortfall, and the time and location of a workshop on the SN CRAC.

The purpose of the SN CRAC workshop will be to discuss with customers and interested parties the cause of the shortfall, and any proposed changes to the SN CRAC that will achieve a high probability that the remainder of Treasury payments during the FY 2002-2006 rate period will be made on time. In determining which proposal to include in its initial proposal in the SN CRAC Section 7(i) proceeding, BPA will give priority to prudent cost management and other options that enhance Treasury Payment Probability while minimizing changes to the SN CRAC.

b. SN CRAC Hearing Process. As soon as practicable after a determination that the SN CRAC has retriggered, BPA will publish a Federal Register Notice initiating an expedited hearing process to be conducted in accordance with Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act. The hearing shall be completed within 40 days, unless a different duration is agreed to by BPA and the parties. Upon completion of such hearing, BPA will submit the following documentation to FERC in support of a request for review and confirmation: Statements A through F from the 2002-2006 BPA Wholesale Power Rate Adjustment Proceedings, Separate Accounting Analyses, current and revised revenue tests, the proposed revisions to the SN CRAC parameters and the administrative record compiled by BPA in the SN CRAC proceeding.

The changes to the SN CRAC parameters shall take effect 60 days from filing with FERC unless FERC orders otherwise prior to that time.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On October 29, 2002 (67 FR 65979), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0092, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) Mail your comments to OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Activities Associated with EPA's Energy Star Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors, (OMB Control No. 2060-0347, EPA ICR No. 1772.03). This is a request to renew an existing approved collection that is scheduled to expire on April 30, 2003. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.

Abstract: Energy Star is a voluntary program to encourage organizations to prevent pollution rather than controlling it after its creation. The Program focuses on reducing utility-generated emissions by reducing the demand for energy. In 1991, EPA launched the Green Lights program to encourage corporations, State and local governments, colleges and universities, and other organizations to adopt energy-efficient lighting as a profitable means of preventing pollution and improving lighting quality. Since then, EPA has rolled Green Lights into Energy Star and expanded Energy Star to encompass organization-wide energy performance improvement, such as building technology upgrades, product purchasing initiatives, and employee training. At the same time, EPA has streamlined the reporting requirements of Energy Star and focused on providing incentives for improvements ( e.g. , Energy Star Awards Program). EPA also makes tools and other resources available over the Web to help the public overcome the barriers to evaluating their energy performance and investing in profitable improvements.

To join Energy Star, organizations are asked to complete a Partnership Letter or Agreement that establishes their commitment to energy efficiency. Partners agree to undertake efforts such as measuring, tracking, and benchmarking their organization's energy performance by using tools such as those offered by Energy Star; developing and implementing a plan to improve energy performance in their facilities and operations by adopting a strategy provided by Energy Star; and educating staff and the public about their Partnership with Energy Star, and highlighting achievements with the Energy Star Label, where available.

Partners also may be asked to periodically submit information to EPA as needed to assist in program implementation. For example, EPA compiles the Energy Service and Product Provider Directory to provide the public with easy access to energy efficiency products and services. Businesses wishing to appear in this directory are asked to submit a completed form that details their products and services.

Partnership in Energy Star is voluntary and can be terminated by Partners or EPA at any time. EPA does not expect organizations to join the program unless they expect participation to be cost-effective and otherwise beneficial for them.

In addition, Partners and any other interested party can help EPA promote energy-efficient technologies by evaluating the efficiency of their buildings by benchmarking individual buildings by using EPA's on-line benchmarking tool, Portfolio Manager, and apply for Energy Star Labels if their performance ranks in the top 25 percent. If they can demonstrate that an individual building meets the Energy Star criteria, they will receive an Energy Star plaque that they can display on the building. EPA does not expect to deem any information collected under Energy Star to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information will vary depending on the type of participant, the specific collection activity, and other factors. The annual burden for joining Energy Star and conducting related activities is estimated to range from about 2 to 8 hours per respondent. This includes time for preparing and submitting the Partnership Letter or Agreement and other information as requested. The burden for applying for an Energy Star Label is estimated to range from about 5.5 to 10.5 hours per respondent. This includes time for reading the instructions of the benchmarking tool if needed, gathering and entering information on building characteristics and energy use into the tool, printing a score report, and preparing/submitting the Energy Star Label application materials to EPA. The burden for applying for an Energy Star Award is estimated to range from 4 to 26.5 hours per respondent. This includes time for preparing and submitting the awards application materials to EPA.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Participants in EPA's Energy Star Program in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Frequency of Response: One-time, annually, and/or periodically, depending on type of respondent and collection.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 83,343 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $6,594,941, including $1,540,530 in annualized capital or O&M costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 134,371 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is a result of EPA's streamlining of Energy Star's information collections since preparing ICR 1772.02. EPA now places a greater emphasis on providing voluntary incentives for improvements and has simplified its collections. For example, EPA no longer requires Partners to submit the Annual Facility Report (AFR), which took Partners over 198,000 hours to prepare/submit annually. EPA also simplified other paperwork related to their Partnership. Organizations had previously submitted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to join the program, which took about five hours to complete. Partners now prepare a more streamlined Partnership Letter or Agreement, which takes between 2 and 2.5 hours. EPA estimates that its streamlining has resulted in 203,743 hours in burden reduction annually.

This burden reduction is partially offset, however, because EPA also expects to see greater benchmarking activity over the coming years. EPA developed a Web-based tool, Portfolio Manager, to help organizations benchmark the energy use in their buildings. ICR 1772.02 estimated about 2,300 benchmarkings per year, whereas ICR 1772.03 estimates more than 23,000 benchmarkings per year. This expected growth reflects EPA's view that an increased number of organizations will find Portfolio Manager beneficial and use it to improve their energy performance. EPA also expects to conduct activities to expand and refine Portfolio Manager ( e.g. , information collection and beta testing to expand Portfolio Manager to include new space use types). EPA expects to see an annual burden increase in benchmarking and related activities of 69,372 hours.

In summary, EPA estimates that the burden reduction of 203,743 hours explained above will be partially offset by the burden increase of 69,372 hours resulting from increased benchmarking and related activities. The result is a net burden reduction of 134,371 hours annually.

This document solicits cooperative agreement proposals from educational institutions and non-profit organizations supporting the Office of Air and Radiation's Environmental Internship Program. This cooperative agreement will provide summer internships for undergraduate students with internships in various environmental positions at EPA, Native American Tribal lands, and other institutions. EPA will provide students with work experience and orientation to support their environmental training positions. This assistance agreement will enable students to prepare to become future leaders in the environmental field and to recognize and appropriately manage complex environmental problems. It will also provide students with an environmental consciousness to encourage them to pursue environmental careers and become environmentally conscious citizens. Because this internship involves possible placement of interns onto Tribal lands, special consideration will be given to schools that have had a demonstrated history of recruiting students with prior experience working on tribal issues. However, all universities are encouraged to apply. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) for this program is 66.607.

Depending upon the availability of funds, it is anticipated that a total of approximately $400,000 over three years, including direct and indirect costs, will be awarded in FY 2003. Proposals may request funding with a total project cost of up to $133,333 per year with a duration of up to three years. This cooperative agreement is authorized under CAA section 103(b)(3) and no matching funds are required from the recipient.

Organizations being targeted for this assistance agreement include accredited 4-year educational institutions and non-profit organizations. EPA reserves the right to reject all applications and make no awards.

The resulting award will be a Cooperative Agreement. Cooperative Agreements involve substantial involvement between the EPA Project Officer and the selected applicant. Anticipated substantial Federal involvement for this project will include:

1. The EPA Project Officer will be part of the final evaluation of the interns for placement. The final decision of intern selection and placement rests with the recipient.

2. No stipend dollars will be used for any other purposes without the prior approval of the EPA Project Officer.

3. The EPA Project Officer will accompany the recipient on site visits (internship placement locations) and recruitments, when necessary.

In order to efficiently manage the selection process, the Office of Air and Radiation requests that an informal “Intent to Apply” be submitted by March 28, 2003. (Please provide project title or subject and e-mail address.) An “Intent to Apply” simply states, in the form of e-mail, mail, or fax, that your organization intends to submit a proposal to be received by the deadline. Submitting an “Intent to Apply” does not commit an organization to submit a pre-proposal. The “Intent to Apply” is an optional submission; those not submitting an “Intent to Apply” may still apply by the deadline for submitting proposals, which is April 29, 2003. However, only those submitting an intent to apply will be given the conference call-in number for pre-application assistance (please see section X “Pre-application assistance”). Instructions for submitting Intents to Apply and Proposals are found in section IX “Where and When to Submit.”

EPA anticipates student stipends to be approximately $4,500 per semester and the housing allowance to be approximately $1,500 (on an as-needed basis.) The Office of Air and Radiation expects to host a minimum of ten students per semester. Applicants should describe the following in detail:

• Recruitment: Each proposal should address their recruitment process in terms of obtaining a diverse population of students. Universities that have a demonstrated history of recruiting students who have had prior experience on tribal issues will be given special consideration.

• Stipends: Ability to process student stipends. Describe process for paying student stipends.

• Tracking: Ability to track students after completing the environmental program ( i.e. final employment selections, location of position, post-graduate work) for the purposes of creating an alumni database, measure effectiveness of program and to provide new students with information and phone numbers of previous students.

• Student Application Processing and Evaluation: Recipients must have a system to process and evaluate applications. At a minimum, the application process must evaluate potential interns on the basis of their academic record, computer skills, awards, and writing skills. Special consideration will be given to applicants that have scholarships, fellowships and/or work experience on tribal issues. Students must have a grade point average of 2.8 or higher to meet eligibility for internships at EPA.

• Eligibility requirements for internships: Students must be enrolled in a four-year accredited college or university. Students enrolled in a four-year college or university must have achieved at least second semester sophomore standing, or have completed 45 credit hours of academic study.

• Internship Management: Their recruitment priorities, internship management and how they foresee interaction with EPA. Applicants should describe training for students (i.e. environmental, math, science courses), and student intern performance evaluations.

• Orientation in Washington, DC: The orientation program should provide an opportunity for students to familiarize themselves with their prospective program offices and the functions of the program office as well as the issues of the specific media (water, air, solid waste, etc).

• Placements: Applicants should describe the process and how they will select placement sites focusing on tribal placements, when applicable.

• Housing: Include how housing (if needed) will be provided to students in the various project sites.

• Personnel and Administrative Services: Include how personnel and administrative services for interns will be provided. Such services should include ensuring students provide their own short-term sickness and accident insurance and assisting students with financial support (bank services for student to deposit stipend checks, etc.).

• Program Effectiveness: How the applicant plans to evaluate the success of each year of the three-year program, and what corrective action they will take to make any necessary improvements.

• Review and Selection Process: Proposals submitted to EPA headquarters will be evaluated using the criteria defined below. Proposals will be reviewed in two phases—the screening phase and the evaluation phase. During the screening phase, proposals will be reviewed to determine whether they meet the eligibility requirement of this document (please see section III “Eligibility”). Only those proposals that meet the eligibility requirement will enter the full evaluation phase of the review process. During the evaluation phase, proposals will be evaluated based upon the quality of their proposals. Reviewers conducting the screening and evaluation phases of the review process will include EPA officials and external environmental educators approved by EPA. At the conclusion of the evaluation phase, the reviewers will score work plans, on a one hundred point scale, based upon the system below:

• After the scores are evaluated and ranked, the selected applicant will be asked to submit a complete application package. For further information on submitting completed application packages, please see Section XIII below.

The proposal should conform to the following outline:

1. Title

2. Applicant (Organization) and contact name, phone number, fax and e-mail address

3. Summary of funds requested

4. Project period: Beginning and ending dates (for planning purposes, applicants should assume funds will be available on August 1, 2003).

5. Project work plan (including a description of all tasks, dates of completion, products and deliverables). The project work plan should cover all items listed in section VI “Project Design.”

6. Report Schedule: Acknowledgment of quarterly report requirement (schedule established by EPA) and planned final report submission date (due 90 days after the project end date).

7. Budget (Please provide with a narrative explanation for the following categories):

a. Personnel.

b. Fringe Benefits.

c. Contractual Costs.

d. Travel.

e. Equipment.

f. Supplies.

g. Other.

h. Total Direct Costs (add a-g).

i. Total Indirect Costs (must include documentation of accepted indirect rate).

j. Total Cost (add h and i).

8. Attach a one page resume for key personnel conducting the project.

Please submit intents to apply by March 28, 2003 Intents to Apply must be e-mailed, faxed, or mailed to the Project Officer, Linda Zarow. If Intents to Apply are mailed, they must be received by March 28, 2003. Only those submitting an “Intent to Apply” will be given the conference call-in number for pre-application assistance (please see section X “Pre-application Assistance”). Send “Intents to Apply” to: Linda Zarow, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 20004; mail code 6101A; Rm 5433; fax: (202) 501-1004; email: zarow.linda@epa.gov . Please include organization name, contact, and phone number.

Please submit proposals by April 29, 2003 (Remember, the Intent to Apply is not required and will have no bearing on the judging process, we recommend it for the benefit of our planning process only.) Please submit an original and three copies of the proposal. Submission of the Intent to Apply does not commit the applicant to submit a proposal. Submission of an Intent to Apply or a proposal does not guarantee funding. Electronic proposals will be accepted.

To ensure that every interested party has equal opportunity to gain any needed additional administrative information useful to the application process, the Office of Air and Radiation has scheduled one conference call. The call will take place on April 10, 2003 from 10 AM to 12 PM EST. A call-in number will provided to those who submit an Intent to Apply. Questions and answers from this conference call will be summarized and posted on OAR's web-site. The web-site address will be available at the pre-application assistance conference. Federal rules protecting applicants' equal access to information prohibit any other contact that would result in information given to some but not all applicants. Therefore, as much as it desires to encourage all interested applicants, EPA can give no other assistance prior to final submission of applications. Requests for information outside the context of this conference call cannot be answered. The content of the call is entirely dependent upon questions asked.

If the applicant includes a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with proposal, the applicant will be notified of proposal receipt.

The Office of Air and Radiation will notify all unsuccessful offerors no later than 60 days after notifying the selected applicant.

Completed application package: Applies only to the selected applicant. The selected applicant will be contacted by the Project Officer and will be requested to submit a complete application. Instruction on how to obtain an application tool kit will be provided at that time. The application must be postmarked or received by regular or express mail on or before midnight May 30, 2003. Please provide an original and six copies. Electronic applications will be accepted.

The application package should be submitted to Linda Zarow at: Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. Rm. 5433, Washington DC 20004; mail code 6101A. Courier or personally delivered applications must be brought to the same address.

The applicant selected for funding will be required to provide a copy of the proposal to their designated State Point of Contact for review, pursuant with Executive Order 12372. This review is not required of initial proposals; only to the selected applicant.

Subject to the availability of funding, awards should be made by August 1, 2003 for placement in the summer term 2004.

The Agency will resolve any disputes arising from this solicitation pursuant to the procedures outlined at 40 CFR 30.63 and § 31.70, subpart F.

The applicant selected will abide by 40 CFR part 30, OMB Circular A-122, and OMB Circular A-133.

If any portion of an applicant's proposal is comprised of confidential business information (CBI), appropriate pages should be so marked at the top of each page.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are interested in agricultural biotechnology or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2002-0353. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0353. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0353. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0353.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2002-0353. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.

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

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

Both Mycogen Seeds/Dow AgroSciences LLC and Pioneer Hi-Bred International have applied to amend EUPs 68467-EUP-3, 68467-EUP- 5, 29964-EUP-1, and 29964-EUP-3 for Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/35Ab1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (from the insert of plasmid PHP 14352) in corn and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/35Ab1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (from the insert of plasmid PHP 12560) in corn to allow plant material grown under these EUPs to be used for food and/or feed. The original notice of approval for these EUPs published in the Federal Register on February 20, 2002 (67 FR 7688) (FRL-6820-3). Under the original notice, the Cry34/35Ab1 proteins were described as 149B1 protein since they had not yet received their Bacillus thuringiensis Pesticidal Crystal Proteins Nomenclature designation, http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/Neil_Crickmore/Bt/. These proteins have now been designated as Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 by the Bacillus thuringiensis Pesticidal Crystal Proteins Nomenclature Committee, a non-governmental scientific committee.

Mycogen Seeds/Dow AgroSciences LLC and Pioneer Hi-Bred International have also applied for EUPs involving Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/35Ab1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (from the insert of plasmid PHP 17662) in corn, and Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34/35Ab1 protein and the genetic material necessary for its production (from the insert of plasmid PHP 17658) in corn. These EUPs have been proposed as non-crop destruct.

For Mycogen Seeds/Dow AgroSciences LLC, 394 acres each are proposed under 68467-EUP-I and 68467-EUP-T for testing in Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. Testing is to include maize breeding and observation nursery, maize agronomic observation, herbicide tolerance, maize efficacy, insect resistance management, and maize demonstration trials.

For Pioneer Hi-Bred International, 623 acres are proposed under 29964-EUP-U and 624 acres are proposed under 29964-EUP-L for testing in California, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Testing is to include insect resistance management, maize agronomic observation, maize breeding and observation nursery, maize demonstration, maize efficacy, maize hybrid production plots, maize regulatory field studies, non-target organism, and herbicide tolerance trials.

Following the review of the Mycogen Seeds/Dow Agrosciences LLC and Pioneer Hi-Bred International's applications and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny these EUP requests. Any issuance of EUPs will be announced in the Federal Register .

The specific legal authority for EPA to take this action is under FIFRA section 5.