The APAC and the ATACs are authorized by sections 135(c)(1) and (2) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-618, 19 U.S.C. 2155). The purpose of these committees is to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) concerning agricultural trade policy. The committees are intended to ensure that representative elements of the private sector have an opportunity to express their views to the U.S. Government.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), the FAS gives notice that the Secretary and the USTR intend to reestablish the APAC and the following five ATACs:

• Animals and Animal products;

• Fruits and Vegetables;

• Grains, Feed, and Oilseeds;

• Sweeteners and Sweetener Products; and

• Tobacco, Cotton, Peanuts, and Planting Seeds.

FAS also gives notice that the Secretary and the USTR intend to establish a new ATAC for Processed Foods.

In 1974, Congress established a private sector advisory committee system to ensure that U.S. trade policy and negotiation objectives adequately reflect U.S. commercial and economic interests. The private sector advisory committee system currently consists of three tiers:

• The President's Advisory Committee on Trade and Policy Negotiations;

• Five general policy advisory committees, including the APAC and;

• 28 technical advisory committees, including the ATAC for Processed Foods.

The establishment and renewal of such committees is in the public interest in connection with the duties of the USDA imposed by the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

• All committee members are appointed by the Secretary and the USTR, and serve at the discretion of the Secretary and the USTR.

• Committee size will be limited up to approximately 35 members each.

• All committee appointments will expire in 2 years, but the Secretary and USTR may renew an appointment for one or more additional terms.

• All committee members must be U.S. citizens.

• To attend certain meetings, committee members must have a current security clearance or have submitted an application for a security clearance.

• Committee members serve without compensation; they are not reimbursed for their travel expenses.

• No person can serve on more than one USDA advisory committee at the same time.

• Each committee has a chairperson, who his elected from the membership of that committee.

• All committee meetings will be held in Washington, DC.

• Committee meetings will be open to the public, unless the USTR determines that a committee will be discussing issues that justify closing a meeting or portions of a meeting, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(c).

• In addition to their other advisory responsibilities, all committees are required to meet at the conclusion of negotiations of any trade agreement, and to provide a report on each agreement to the President, Congress, and the USTR.

The APAC is composed of a broad spectrum of agricultural interests. The APAC provides advice concerning:

• Negotiating objectives and bargaining positions before the U.S. enters into a trade agreement;

• The operation of various U.S. trade agreements; and

• Other matters arising from the administration of U.S. trade policy.

The ATACs provide advice and information regarding trade issues which affect both domestic and foreign production in their commodities, drawing upon the technical competence and experience of its members. There will be six ATACs, one for each of the following sectors:

• Animals and Animal Products;

• Fruits and Vegetables;

• Grains, Feed, and Oilseeds;

• Processed Foods;

• Sweeteners and Sweetener Products; and

• Tobacco, Cotton, Peanuts, and Planting Seeds.

Nominations for APAC and ATAC membership are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure that the recommendations of the committees take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.

Members are appointed primarily for their expertise and knowledge of agricultural trade as it relates to policy and commodity specific products. No person, company, producer, farm organization, trade association, or other entity has a right to membership on a committee. In making appointments, every effort will be made to maintain balanced representation on the committees: representation from producers, farm and commodity organizations, processors, traders, and consumers. Geographical balance on each committee will also be sought.

Nominees to the new ATAC for processed foods should represent a company or trade association of companies engaged in the production and/or trade of processed or value-added food, pet food, or beverage products at the retail, distribution, or processor level, and have knowledge of the effects that various trade barriers (including technical barriers to trade) can have on the products they represent. Each nominee representing a trade association should represent a membership comprised largely of processed food companies and/or companies engaged in the trade of processed or value-added products. All nominees should be recognized leaders in their fields, and be able to defend those interests fully and professionally. Processed products, according to the International Trade Commission's report Processed Foods and Beverages: A Description of Tariff and Non-tariff Barriers for Major Products and Their Impact on Trade, “generally include food and beverage products that have some degree of value-added through processing beyond any minimal first-stage processing ( e.g., grading, sorting, washing) and either (i) can be directly consumed as a food or beverage product, either immediately or with minimal preparation, or (ii) can be directly used as an input in the production of a food or beverage product without significant further processing.”

Nominations: Nominating a person to serve on any of the committees requires submission of a current resume for the nominee and the following form:

• AD-755 (Advisory Committee Membership Background Information), available on the Internet at www.fas.usda.gov/admin/ad755.pdf.

Foreign Firms: Persons who are employed by firms that are 50 percent plus one share foreign-owned must state the extent to which the organization or interest to be represented by the nominee is owned by non-U.S. citizens, organizations, or interests. If the nominee is to represent an entity or corporation with 10 percent or greater non-U.S. ownership, the nominee must demonstrate at the time of nomination that this ownership interest does not constitute control and will not adversely affect his or her ability to serve as an advisor on the U.S. agriculture advisory committee for trade.

The Ash Creek Fire Salvage planning area comprises about 14,197 acres of which about 156 acres (11 percent) are private lands. About 1,480 acres of plantations were burned in the fire and will need to be re-established. There are no planned activities within the inventoried roadless area or the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness. The Planning Area includes all or portions of in sections 27-29 and 32-34, T. 28S, R. 2W; sections 3-8, 17 and 18 T. 29S, R. 2W; and section 13, T. 29S, R. 1W, Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon.

Purpose and Need for Action . There is a need to salvage merchantable dead and dying trees for the purpose of recovering salvageable volume from fire damaged trees and begin essential reforestation efforts. There is a need to maintain the ecological value for species that depend on large wood on the forest floor or standing as snags. The trees are within the Ash Creek Planning Area and will be removed in a manner consistent with the Forest Plan.

Proposed Action . The proposed action is to harvest about 350 acres of mature and late seral dead and dying trees, spread throughout 23 separate timber stands comprising about 1,366 acres that were killed in the Boulder Fire. Of these dead trees, about 2 to 6 trees per acre will be left as coarse down wood and snags. No new roads or temporary roads are being planned. The proposed harvest is in the matrix land allocation of the Ash/Zinc sub-watershed. Upon completion of harvest activities, the area will be planted with a mixture of conifers: Douglas-fir; sugar pine; white pine; incense-cedar; Pacific yew; and native hardwoods and shrubs.

This analysis will consider a range of alternatives that will address the purpose and need for the proposed project. The no-action alternative will be part of this range so that effects associated with not implementing any of the proposed activities can be evaluated. Preliminary issues identified include effects on: habitat of species associated with late-successional and old growth forests; aquatic habitats; and hydrologic processes.

Scoping Process. The Umpqua National Forest is seeking public input on this proposed action. A comment sheet will be posted to the Forest website and mailed with the scoping letter. The proposed action will be published in the Umpqua National Forest Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions and posted on the Forest Web site on the Internet: www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/planning/planning1.html .

The Forest Service will be seeking additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies, tribal governments, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested or affected by the proposed project. Public meetings and field trips are scheduled. Dates and locations for these activities will be announced. The scoping process will include identifying: issues; alternatives to the proposed action; and potential environmental effects (that is, direct, indirect and, cumulative effects) of the proposed action and alternatives.

Comment Requested. Comments received in response to this notice and through scoping, include names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review May 2003. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register . The final EIS is scheduled to be available September 2003.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage, but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to substantive comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the Ash Creek Fire Salvage. The Responsible Official is James A. Caplan, Forest Supervisor, Umpqua National Forest. The Responsible Official will document the decision and rationale for the Ash Creek Fire Salvage decision in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to review under Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

None.

Section 343 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Pennsylvania will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS in Pennsylvania regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

The Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations is composed of 36 members, appointed by the Presidents of the American Economic Association, the American Statistical Association, and the Population Association of America, and the Chairperson of the Board of the American Marketing Association. The Committee addresses issues regarding Census Bureau programs and activities related to their respective areas of expertise.

The meeting is open to the public, and a brief period is set aside for public comment and questions. Those persons with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing, at least three days before the meeting, to the Committee Liaison Officer named above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer.

On January 27, 2003, Solvay Solexis SpA and Solvay Solexis, Inc. (collectively, Solvay Solexis) requested that the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiate and conduct an expedited changed circumstances review, in accordance with section 351.216 and 351.221(c)(3)(ii) (2003) of the Department's regulations, to confirm that Solvay Solexis is the successor-in-interest to Ausimont SpA and Ausimont USA, Inc. (collectively, Ausimont). In its request, Solvay Solexis stated that Solvay S.A. acquired the assets of Ausimont from its parent company, Montedison, on May 7, 2002. Furthermore, Solvay Solexis requested that Ausimont's cash deposit rate be applied to Solvay Solexis retroactive to January 1, 2003, the effective date of Ausimont's name change. Solvay Solexis also requested that the Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review pursuant to section 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

On February 10, 2003, Solvay Solexis, formerly Ausimont, submitted additional information and documentation regarding its purchase by the Solvay Group, an international chemical and pharmaceutical company, and Ausimont's subsequent name change to Solvay Solexis. On February 11, 2003, the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, opposed Solvay Solexis' requests for an expedited changed circumstances review and for a retroactive assignment of a company-specific cash deposit rate.

The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States. See Final Affirmative Determination; Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy , 58 FR 26100 (April 30, 1993). This order excludes PTFE dispersions in water and fine powders. Such merchandise is classified under item number 3904.61.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). We are providing this HTSUS number for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope remains dispositive.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order. As indicated in the Background section, we have received information indicating that Ausimont has been acquired by the Solvay Group. This constitutes changed circumstances warranting a review of the order. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a changed circumstances review based upon the information contained in Solvay Solexis' submissions.

Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of the regulations permits the Department to combine the notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review and the notice of preliminary results in a single notice if the Department concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because we have the information necessary to make a preliminary finding already on the record, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.

In making successor-in-interest determinations, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See, e.g., Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002) citing, Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). While no single factor, or combination of factors, will necessarily prove dispositive, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to its predecessor company if the resulting operations are essentially the same as the predecessor company. Id . citing, Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company operates as the same business entity as its predecessor, the Department will assign the new company the cash-deposit rate of its predecessor.

In its January 23, 2003, submission Solvay Solexis stated that, prior to its acquisition of Ausimont, neither the Solvay Group, nor any affiliated party of the Group, manufactured or exported subject merchandise. The Solvay Group merged its fluoropolymers business with that of Ausimont's and Ausimont changed its name to Solvay Solexis effective January 1, 2003. Furthermore, in both its January 23 and February 10, 2003, submissions, Solvay Solexis stated that the change in ownership has not significantly changed the companies' personnel, operations, supplier/customer relationships, or facilities. To support its claims, Solvay Solexis provided press releases discussing Solvay Group's purchase of Ausimont, investor presentations, an application for amended certificate of authority, an amended certificate of incorporation, shareholder meeting minutes, management charts, a letter to customers, and product labels.

In its February 11, 2003, submission the petitioner contended that Solvay Solexis did not provide adequate legal documentation regarding the acquisition or support for its claim that management had not changed substantially as a result of the purchase of Ausimont by the Solvay Group. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Department should require Solvay Solexis to submit additional information before the Department made a preliminary finding in this review. Finally, the petitioner argued that the applicable cash deposit rate should not apply to Solvay Solexis retroactively.

Based on the information submitted by Solvay Solexis, we preliminarily find that Solvay Solexis is the successor-in-interest to Ausimont. We find that the company's senior management, production facilities, supplier relationships, and customers have not changed significantly. Furthermore, Solvay Solexis provided management charts in its February 10, 2003, submission that addressed the petitioner's concerns and demonstrated management did not change significantly as a result of the Solvay Group's purchase of Ausimont. Based on all the evidence reviewed, we find that Solvay Solexis operates as the same business entity as Ausimont. Thus, we preliminarily find that Solvay Solexis should receive the same antidumping duty cash-deposit rate ( i.e ., 12.08 percent) with respect to the subject merchandise as Ausimont, its predecessor company.

However, because cash deposits are only estimates of the amount of antidumping duties that will be due, changes in cash deposit rates are not made retroactive. If Solvay Solexis believes that the deposits paid exceed the actual amount of dumping, it is entitled to request an administrative review during the anniversary month of the publication of the order of those entries to determine the proper assessment rate and receive a refund of any excess deposits. See Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products From the United Kingdom: Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews , 64 FR 66880 (November 30, 1999). As a result, if these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this changed circumstances review, we will instruct the Customs Service to suspend shipments of subject merchandise made by Solvay Solexis at Ausimont's cash deposit rate ( i.e ., 12.08 percent). Until that time, the cash deposit rate assigned to Solvay Solexis' entries is the rate in effect at the time of entry (i.e., the “all others” rate).

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days if all parties agree to our preliminary finding.

We are issuing and publishing this finding and notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and section 351.216 of the Department's regulations.

For purposes of this administrative review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed ( e.g. , cold-rolled, polished, aluminized, coated, etc.) provided that it maintains the specific dimensions of sheet and strip following such processing.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) at subheadings: 7219.13.00.31, 7219.13.00.51, 7219.13.00.71, 7219.13.00.81, 7219.14.00.30, 7219.14.00.65, 7219.14.00.90, 7219.32.00.05, 7219.32.00.20, 7219.32.00.25, 7219.32.00.35, 7219.32.00.36, 7219.32.00.38, 7219.32.00.42, 7219.32.00.44, 7219.33.00.05, 7219.33.00.20, 7219.33.00.25, 7219.33.00.35, 7219.33.00.36, 7219.33.00.38, 7219.33.00.42, 7219.33.00.44, 7219.34.00.05, 7219.34.00.20, 7219.34.00.25, 7219.34.00.30, 7219.34.00.35, 7219.35.00.05, 7219.35.00.15, 7219.35.00.30, 7219.35.00.35, 7219.90.00.10, 7219.90.00.20, 7219.90.00.25, 7219.90.00.60, 7219.90.00.80, 7220.12.10.00, 7220.12.50.00, 7220.20.10.10, 7220.20.10.15, 7220.20.10.60, 7220.20.10.80, 7220.20.60.05, 7220.20.60.10, 7220.20.60.15, 7220.20.60.60, 7220.20.60.80, 7220.20.70.05, 7220.20.70.10, 7220.20.70.15, 7220.20.70.60, 7220.20.70.80, 7220.20.80.00, 7220.20.90.30, 7220.20.90.60, 7220.90.00.10, 7220.90.00.15, 7220.90.00.60, and 7220.90.00.80. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled; (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length; (3) plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled stainless steel products of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more); (4) flat wire ( i.e. , cold-rolled sections, with a prepared edge, rectangular in shape, of a width of not more than 9.5 mm); and (5) razor blade steel. Razor blade steel is a flat-rolled product of stainless steel, not further worked than cold-rolled (cold-reduced), in coils, of a width of not more than 23 mm and a thickness of 0.266 mm or less, containing, by weight, 12.5 to 14.5 percent chromium, and certified at the time of entry to be used in the manufacture of razor blades. See Chapter 72 of the HTSUS, “Additional U.S. Note” 1(d).

In response to comments by interested parties the Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below.

Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves for compressors.

Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.

Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.

Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.”  1

Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.”  2

Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.”  3

Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools ( e.g. , carpet knives). 4 This steel is similar to ASTM grade 440F, but containing, by weight, 0.5 to 0.7 percent of molybdenum. The steel also contains, by weight, carbon of between 1.0 and 1.1 percent, sulfur of 0.020 percent or less, and includes between 0.20 and 0.30 percent copper and between 0.20 and 0.50 percent cobalt. This steel is sold under proprietary names such as “GIN4 Mo.” The second excluded stainless steel strip in coils is similar to AISI 420-J2 and contains, by weight, carbon of between 0.62 and 0.70 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, manganese of between 0.45 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This steel has a carbide density on average of 100 carbide particles per square micron. An example of this product is “GIN5” steel. The third specialty steel has a chemical composition similar to AISI 420F, with carbon of between 0.37 and 0.43 percent, molybdenum of between 1.15 and 1.35 percent, but lower manganese of between 0.20 and 0.80 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.025 percent, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of no more than 0.020 percent. This product is supplied with a hardness of more than Hv 500 guaranteed after customer processing, and is supplied as, for example, “GIN6.”  5

On February 10, 2003, respondent ThyssenKrupp Mexinox, S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox) timely filed, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2), an allegation that the Department made one ministerial error in its final results. Mexinox states the Department recalculated U.S. indirect selling expenses (INDIRSU) for the final results by multiplying the revised indirect selling expense ratio by the net price, which was calculated as gross unit price plus billing adjustments minus rebates. Mexinox alleges the Department erred in its recalculation of INDIRSU by failing to deduct early payment discounts from gross unit price. Therefore, Mexinox requests that the Department correct this error. Petitioners submitted no rebuttal comments to this clerical error allegation.

We agree with Mexinox. Mexinox calculated its indirect selling expense ratio using a sales denominator net of discounts and other adjustments. See, e.g. , Mexinox's May 8, 2002 supplemental questionnaire response at Attachment C-36; see also the Mexinox USA sales reconciliation in Mexinox's July 17, 2002 supplemental questionnaire response at Attachment A-39-A. Although we revised the indirect selling denominator for the final results by deducting raw material sales, the denominator remains net of discounts and other adjustments. Since the sales denominator of the indirect selling expense ratio is net of discounts and other adjustments, it is proper to deduct early payment discounts from the gross unit price before applying the indirect selling expense ratio. Therefore, we have amended our final results by subtracting early payment discounts from the gross unit price in our recalculation of U.S. indirect selling expenses. See line 2338 of the margin calculation program.

On February 11, 2003, Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Union, and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, petitioners) timely filed a ministerial error allegation. Petitioners allege that for sales made by Mexinox's U.S. affiliated reseller, Ken-Mac Metals, Inc. (Ken-Mac), the Department inadvertently set to zero further manufacturing expenses incurred by Mexinox USA. Thus, petitioners request that the Department correct this error by removing two lines of code from the final margin calculation program. Mexinox did not comment on this ministerial error allegation.

We agree with petitioners. In our margin calculation program, we calculated U.S. price based on sales made by Mexinox USA and Ken-Mac. Mexinox reported sales made by these entities in two separate databases. To append the two databases without error, if a particular variable appeared in one database but not the other, we assigned a value of zero to that variable in the latter database. In doing so, we erroneously set the variables FURMAN1U and FURMAN2U to zero when introducing the database containing Ken-Mac's sales. Because these two variables are not unique to the Mexinox USA sales listing but rather appear in the Ken-Mac sales listing as well, they should not have been set to zero. Thus, we have amended this error by removing the language found at lines 2372 and 2373 of the final margin calculation program.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we have amended the final results of the 2000-2001 antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico, as noted above. However, the weighted-average percentage margin for Mexinox remains unchanged at 6.15 percent.

This administrative review and notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.

The National Coral Reef Action Strategy was produced through extensive consultation with the federal, state, territory and commonwealth members of the Task Force and its Working Groups. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 states that in developing this Strategy, the Secretary may consult with the Task Force. The Strategy builds on the existing National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, which was adopted by the Task Force in 2000 as the national blueprint for U.S. action to address the coral reef crisis. The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 also establishes a Coral Reef Conservation Program to provide grants of financial assistance for projects that are consistent with the Strategy.

The Strategy is designed to track accomplishments and identify priorities to implement the goals and objectives of the Coral Reef Conservation Act and the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs. The Strategy provides partial summaries of accomplishments and needs to address 13 major goals. The intent is to work closely with the Task Force, other partners, and the public to update the Strategy annually or as needed to help guide future actions.

The Task Force was established by Executive Order 13089 in 1998 to help lead and coordinate U.S. government efforts (both domestically and internationally) to conserve and sustain coral reef ecosystems. The Task Force is co-chaired by the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, and includes the heads of 11 federal agencies and the Governors of 7 states, territories and commonwealths with coral reef management responsibilities.

After the close of the comment period, NOAA will consider the comments received during review and possible revision of the Strategy in the future. The Strategy is available from the web site www.coralreef.noaa.gov or from see ADDRESSES .

Proposed Agenda: An Executive Session of the CERB will be held April 9, 2003. Topics to be discussed will include Section 227 Shoreline Erosion and Control Demonstration Projects and Contracting Process, Regional Sediment Management (RSM) Demonstration and RSM Research and Development, Field Data Collection Programs and Performance of Shore Protection projects, the National Shoreline Management Study, and Coastal Louisiana.

This meeting is open to the public, but since seating capacity of the meeting room is limited, advance notice of intent to attend, although not required, is requested in order to assure adequate arrangements for those wishing to attend.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is the most sweeping reform of Federal education policy in a generation. It is designed to implement the President's agenda to improve America's public schools by: (1) Ensuring accountability for results, (2) providing unprecedented flexibility in the use of Federal funds in implementing education programs, (3) focusing on proven educational methods, and (4) expanding educational choice for parents. Since the enactment of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, the Federal Government has spent more than $130 billion to improve public schools. Unfortunately, this investment in education has not yet eliminated the achievement gap between well-off and lower-income students or between minority students and non-minority students.

In implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has developed a strategic plan that will serve as the roadmap for all Departmental activities and investments. The plan specifically focuses on, among other areas, improving the performance of all high school students and holding schools accountable for raising the academic achievement level of all students. The Department will work with States to ensure that students attain the strong academic knowledge and skills necessary for future success in postsecondary education and adult life. The Department will encourage students to take more rigorous courses, especially in the areas of math and science. In addition, the Department of Education is committed to ensuring that our Nation's schools are safe environments conducive to learning.

One strategy that holds promise for improving the academic performance of our Nation's young people is the establishment of smaller learning communities as components of comprehensive high school improvement plans. The problems of large high schools and the related question of optimal school size have been debated for the last 40 years and is of growing interest today. Approximately 70 percent of American high schools enroll 1,000 or more students; nearly 50 percent of high school students attend schools enrolling more than 1,500 students. Some students attend schools enrolling as many as 4,000 to 5,000 students.

While the research to date on school size is largely non-experimental, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that smaller schools may have advantages over larger schools. Research suggests that the positive outcomes associated with smaller schools stem from the schools' ability to create close, personal environments in which teachers can work collaboratively, with each other and with a small set of students, to challenge students and support learning. A variety of structures and operational strategies are thought to provide important supports for smaller learning environments; some data suggest that these approaches offer substantial advantages to both teachers and students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).

The Smaller Learning Communities program is authorized under Title V, Part D, Subpart 4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 7249), as amended by Pub. L. 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

Structural changes for recasting large schools as a set of smaller learning communities are described in the Conference Report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-113, H.R. Conference Report No. 106-479, at 1240 (1999)). Such methods include establishing small learning clusters, “houses,” career academies, magnet programs, and schools-within-a-school. Structural changes are necessary but not sufficient to ensure that the reorganization will result in improved academic performance. It is also necessary to define a set of operational considerations that describe what learning looks like in the restructured smaller learning community. For example, strategies that complement a restructured large high school should include at a minimum a focus on a rigorous academic course of study. Other activities may include: freshman transition activities, advisory and adult advocate systems, academic teaming, multi-year groupings, “extra help” or accelerated learning options for students or groups of students entering below grade level, and other innovations designed to create a more personalized high school experience for students and, thus, improve student achievement.

Prospective applicants are encouraged to review the program Web site for non-regulatory guidance and information about current grantees, and to review a successful application that received fiscal year 2001 funding at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OVAE/HS/SLCP/ .

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the competitive priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), it is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed rules. Section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however, allows the Secretary to exempt from this requirement rules governing the first competition under a new or substantially revised program authority (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)). This competition is the first Smaller Learning Communities competition under the program as reauthorized by Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and, therefore, qualifies for this exemption. The Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, exercises his authority to waive public comment in order to ensure timely grant awards. These rules will apply to the FY 2002 grant competition only.

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) the Secretary gives an absolute priority to applications in which the following conditions are met: (1) The applicant will place students in smaller learning communities based on student/parent choice or through random assignment— consistent with the statute, students may not be placed according to ability or any other measure, and not pursuant to testing or other judgments; and (2) The application must address the following instructional or operational issues:

a. How the applicant will provide a common core of rigorous academic courses tied to standards;

b. A process that the applicant will use for distribution of highly qualified teachers among SLCs in the school and strategies for improving teacher content knowledge;

c. Explicit strategies for providing assistance for struggling students; and

d. Strategies for securing widespread staff, community, and parent support for the initiative.

The Secretary will fund only applicants that meet the absolute priority described above and that meet all of the other requirements for this competition described elsewhere in this notice and in the accompanying notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year 2002.

In addition to the points to be awarded under the selection criteria for both planning and implementation grants, the Secretary proposes to award additional points to an application from an LEA applying on behalf of a high school that has failed to achieve adequate yearly progress for two or more consecutive years, as defined by section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. LEAs applying on behalf of one or more than one school will be awarded additional competitive preference points (up to five points) proportionate to the number of schools in the application that meet the criterion above. For example, an LEA applying on behalf of five schools would be awarded the maximum of five points if all five schools meet the criterion. An LEA applying on behalf of five schools would be awarded three out of a possible five points if only three of the schools meet the criterion.

The Secretary announces the following application requirements for the Smaller Learning Communities program. A discussion of each requirement follows. These requirements are in addition to the content that all Smaller Learning Communities grant applicants must include in their applications as required by the program statute under Title V, Part D, Subpart 4, Section 5441(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. A discussion of each requirement follows:

To be considered for funding, LEAs must include for each eligible school included in the application the name of the eligible school and the number of students enrolled in the school. Enrollment must be based upon data from the current school year or from the most recently completed school year. LEAs, including schools funded by the BIA, applying on behalf of schools that are still being constructed and do not have an active student enrollment at the time of application are not eligible under this program.

The Secretary will award both planning and implementation grants under this competition. In an effort to encourage systemic, district-level reform efforts, the Secretary is permitting an individual LEA to submit only one planning grant application and one implementation grant application under this competition, specifying in each application which high schools the LEA intends to fund. An LEA may not apply for both a planning and implementation grant on behalf of the same high school. A high school may only be included in either the LEA's planning grant application or its implementation grant application. Applicants pursuing planning grant funds must not yet have developed a viable plan for creating smaller learning communities in the schools that would be served through the grant. To apply for implementation grant funds, applicants must be prepared either to implement a new smaller learning community program within each targeted high school, or to expand an existing smaller learning community program.

For a one-year planning grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, $25,000 to $50,000. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools may receive up to $250,000 per planning grant. As this program is designed for redesign and improvement efforts at the individual school level, districts must stay within the minimum and maximum school allocations when determining their award request. In addition, in order to ensure sufficient planning funds at the local level, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10 schools under a single application.

The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under a planning grant:

In previous SLC competitions, applicants have routinely requested more money than the above award ranges dictate. As a result, plans submitted to the Department have included any number of activities that could only be made possible if an applicant received a funding amount much higher than intended in the award range. Based on this experience, the Department will fund only those applications that correctly request funds within the award ranges specified in this notice for both planning and implementation grants. Applicants requesting funding amounts higher than the award ranges dictated by the number of schools to be served will be declared ineligible and will not receive funding. Further, schools that received support through planning grants in the FY 2000 or FY 2001 competition are not eligible to receive support through additional planning grants under this competition.

For a three-year implementation grant, LEAs may receive, on behalf of a single school, $250,000 to $500,000. LEAs applying on behalf of a group of eligible schools may request up to $2,500,000 per implementation grant. As with planning grants, districts must stay within the minimum and maximum school allocations when determining their group award request, or the Department will consider the application ineligible. In order to ensure sufficient implementation funds at the local level, LEAs may not request funds for more than 10 schools under a single application.

The chart below provides eligible ranges for awards under the implementation grant:

As previously noted, LEAs may not apply on behalf of a single high school in more than one application. Schools that benefited from FY 2000 or FY 2001 implementation awards are not eligible to receive additional support under this competition.

Applicants should note that the requirements listed in this notice are material requirements. Please note that a failure to comply with any applicable program requirement (for example, failure to reasonably implement the proposed grant-funded project) may subject a grantee to administrative action, including the imposition of special conditions or termination of the grant.

Planning grants will fund activities up to 12 months. Implementation grants will fund activities up to 36 months.

Applicants should limit the application narrative to no more than 25 double-spaced pages using the following standards:

• A page is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only;

• The page limit includes all narrative, titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as charts, tables, figures, and graphs. Charts, tables, figures, and graphs may be single-spaced;

• The font should be 12-point or larger;

For both planning and implementation grants, applicants must describe their:

(a) Project activities, including measurable goals, objectives and timelines; and

(b) Indicators to gauge progress toward meeting project objectives.

In addition, the Secretary requires implementation grantees to collect data that address the performance indicators for this program, in order for them to produce annual performance reports. These reports will document the grantees' yearly progress toward expected project objectives. The Secretary will use these reports to measure the success of each grantee's project, as well as the effects of the Smaller Learning Communities program nationwide. A copy of the Smaller Learning Communities Annual Performance Report form for implementation grantees is included in the application package. Planning grantees will be required to submit a performance report, including their implementation plan, at the end of their project.

Applicants for an implementation grant must submit initial baseline data for each student outcome measure described below. Baseline data should come from either the current or previous school year. Applicants must report these data as an appendix. Upon notification of award, implementation grantees will be required to submit student outcome data for all participating schools for three years preceding the baseline year within forty-five days of the award date.

Required student outcome measures include:

(a) Definitions in EDGAR—Definitions defined in 34 CFR 77.1 are applicable to this program.

(b) Other definitions—The following definitions also apply to this program:

BIA school is a school operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

A group of schools is two or more schools that each meet the definition of a large high school.

A large high school is an entity that includes grades 11 and 12 and has an enrollment of 1,000 or more students in grades 9 and above.

The following selection criteria will be used to evaluate applications submitted for planning and implementation grants. Please note:

(a) The maximum score for both planning and implementation grants is 110 points. The additional 10 points will be awarded to those applicants that respond to the competitive preference described earlier in the notice.

(b) The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.

(a) Need for the project. (10 points)

In determining the need for the proposed project, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Describes and documents evidence of the applicant schools' need for the proposed restructuring of the school learning environment. Need may be demonstrated by such factors as: Low student achievement scores; number of students enrolled; low attendance; low graduation rates; and high dropout rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; percentage of students who have limited English proficiency, come from low-income families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; evidence of achievement gaps among student populations; or other need factors as identified by the applicant. (5 points)

(2) Documents how the creation of smaller learning communities will address the nature and magnitude of specific gaps or weaknesses in both structural and operational services, infrastructure, or opportunities within the learning environment. (5 points)

(b) Foundation for planning. (30 points)

In determining the merit of the proposed process for developing its smaller learning communities plan, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Provides evidence on how the applicant has involved and secured the support of, and will continue to involve and secure the support of, teachers, administrators, and other pertinent staff within each school to be restructured in the planning process, particularly those teachers and other staff who will be directly affected by the implementation plan. (10 points)

(2) Provides evidence on how the applicant has involved and secured, and will continue to involve and secure, the support of individuals within the broader local community (such as parents, institutions of higher education, businesses, employers, and community organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based organizations, and other service organizations) in the planning process. (5 points)

(3) Provides evidence on how the proposed effort aligns with the State's education reform efforts and State, or, when applicable, industry standards. (5 points)

(4) Describes the applicant's approach for identifying and utilizing evidence-based practices, particularly practices that are grounded in “scientifically-based research” as defined in section 9101(37) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in designing the structural and operational changes necessary to accomplish the desired change in the learning environment. (10 points)

(c) Feasibility and soundness of the planning process. (40 points)

In determining the feasibility and soundness of the applicant's planning process, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Proposes a process for developing a plan that, within a three-year grant period, will result in identification of the structural changes necessary to create smaller learning communities, assign all students to a smaller learning community within the school(s), and describe the method the school(s) will use to place students in a smaller learning community. (10 points)

(2) Proposes a feasible and sound process to conduct research and plan for the development of smaller learning communities that address the operational and instructional considerations needed to facilitate student achievement. These considerations include a common core of rigorous academic coursework and a clear, sequenced program of study, appropriate teacher assignment and professional development, strategies for assisting struggling students, and strategies for ensuring school, district and community engagement and support. (15 points)

(3) Proposes a process for developing a plan that would ensure appropriate autonomy of the smaller learning communities in their administrative and managerial relationship to the governance structure of the high school(s) and the local school district, including other Federal grants and how those programs will come together to produce a comprehensive and successful smaller learning communities project. (10 points)

(4) Proposes a process for developing a plan that includes quantifiable goals, objectives, and timelines for implementing structures and operational strategies needed for the implementation of smaller learning communities, and phasing them in over the period of the grant, addresses evidence of achievement gaps within student populations, and identifies key personnel who are qualified to undertake project activities. (5 points)

(d) Commitment of resources to the planning effort. (20 points)

In determining the commitment of resources to the planning process, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Requests a budget that adequately supports the proposed activities. Expenditures on equipment and administrative costs should be limited. (10 points)

(2) Provides evidence that the administrators of the district and school(s) understand and are committed to the smaller learning community concept, and to the inclusion of rigorous academic courses in smaller learning communities and propose to integrate project planning activities with local policy and to use other State, local, and Federal funds to ensure sustainability of efforts after Federal support ends. (10 points)

(a) Need for the project. (10 points)

In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Describes and documents evidence of the applicant schools' need for implementation funds and how a smaller learning communities approach will facilitate improved student learning. Need may be demonstrated by such factors as: student achievement scores and enrollment; attendance and dropout rates; incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use, and disciplinary actions; percentage of students who have limited English proficiency, come from low-income families, or are otherwise disadvantaged; or other need factors as identified by the applicant. (5 points)

(2) Describes and documents the nature and magnitude of specific gaps or weaknesses in current school services, infrastructure, or opportunities and how the proposed project will address these gaps and weaknesses. (5 points)

(b) Foundation for implementation. (25 points)

In determining the quality of the implementation plan, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Provides evidence of the involvement and support of teachers, administrators, and other pertinent staff within each school in the planning, development, and implementation of the proposal, particularly those teachers who will be directly affected by the implementation plan. (5 points)

(2) Provides evidence of how the applicant has involved and secured, and will continue to involve and secure, the on-going support of stakeholders within the broader local community (such as parents, institutions of higher education, businesses, employers, and community organizations, including local non-profit agencies, faith-based organizations, and other service organizations) in the planning process. (5 points)

(3) Provides evidence of how the proposed effort aligns with State education reform efforts designed to increase student achievement (5 points); and

(4) Provides evidence of how the applicant has identified and used evidence-based practices in the development of structural and operational strategies for creating smaller learning communities designed to improve student achievement. (10 points)

(c) Project design. (30 points)

In determining the quality of the design of the project the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Proposes both structural and operational changes that result in the establishment of smaller learning communities designed to improve the academic performance of participating students. These changes may include, but are not limited to, development of programs of study that include rigorous academic coursework, freshman transition activities, and innovations to create a more personalized and safe learning environment. The applicant clearly defines the proposed smaller learning community, including the structures and strategies to be implemented, the grade levels or ages of the students who will participate and the rationale and research base supporting the applicant's contention that these particular structures are likely to be effective in raising achievement and helping all students make more informed choices about postsecondary education and longer-term career options. (10 points)

(2) Provides evidence that decisions about how students will be placed in the smaller learning community or communities will be made based on student/parent choice or random assignment. The applicant provides assurances that placement by smaller learning community will not be based on ability, testing or other judgments or any other measure, and describes the process for making smaller learning community student assignments. The applicant also assures that, by the end of the three-year grant period, all students will be assigned to a smaller learning community structure within the school(s). (5 points)

(3) Describes the applicant's operational strategies for improving the learning environment including (1) the common academic core curriculum and standards, (2) how teachers will be assigned to SLCs and provided with appropriate content and knowledge specific to smaller learning community implementation, (3) strategies for assisting struggling students, and strategies for securing and maintaining widespread staff, community and parent buy-in. (10 points)

(4) Documents the administrative and managerial relationship of the smaller learning communities to the governance structure of the high school(s) and the local school district, including the LEA's operation of other Federal grants, and demonstrates a commitment to sustain the smaller learning community structures beyond the period covered by the Federal smaller learning communities grant. The applicant must describe the timeline and milestones for implementing the proposed structures and strategies and for phasing them in over the period of the grant. (5 points)

(d) Feasibility of the plan. (15 points)

In determining the feasibility of the implementation plan, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Provides a budget that adequately supports the proposed activities. In addition, items in the budget must clearly reflect the proposed goals and objectives in the application. (5 points)

(2) Provides evidence that the proposed project will provide high-quality professional development for teachers in their academic content areas as well as professional development for other pertinent staff, to enable them to improve classroom instruction and target instruction to helping all students meet challenging academic content standards. This professional development must be aligned with the goals, curriculum, and evidence-based instructional practices of the proposed smaller learning communities. (5 points)

(3) Provides evidence of, or proposes, an ongoing partnership with an external technical assistance provider. (5 points)

(e) Quality of the project evaluation. (10 points)

In determining the quality of the applicant's project evaluation plan, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Describes the overall evaluation strategy, including the applicant's plan to contract with an independent, third-party evaluator and the measures that evaluator will use to determine (a) progress of implementation and (b) changes in student outcomes, especially student achievement, both school-wide and disaggregated by the population categories identified in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; (5 points)

(2) Describes the method of collecting and reporting the required data for the Annual Performance Reports to the Department of Education (2 points); and

(3) Describe how the proposed project will address the school's efforts to make adequate yearly progress as defined in section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and how information gleaned from student assessments, and used in adequate yearly progress determination, will be used for project improvement within the school. (3 points)

(f) Adequacy of resources. (10 points)

In determining the adequacy of resources, the Department will consider the extent to which the applicant:

(1) Focuses grant expenditures on activities that directly affect the structural and operational changes needed to establish SLCs that will endure beyond the life of the grant, and how the applicant will limit expenditures on equipment and administrative costs. (5 points)

(2) Documents qualifications and availability of project personnel responsible for implementing the project plan, and the amount of time they will dedicate to this effort. (5 points)

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

The proposed Wallula Project is a 1,300-megawatt (MW) natural-gas-fired, combined-cycle turbine power plant that Wallula LLC is planning to construct on a site near the Columbia River in Walla Walla County, Washington, approximately eight miles south of the City of Pasco. BPA will construct a new 5.1-mile, 500-kilovolt (kV) transmission line to interconnect the Wallula Project with the FCRTS and the new Smiths Harbor Substation, where the interconnection will be located. The new substation will be located adjacent to the existing 500-kV Lower Monumental-McNary transmission line, which is a part of the FCRTS. Power generated by the Wallula Project will be made available for purchase in the wholesale power market.

Wallula LLC has also requested firm transmission service be available on the FCRTS to John Day and Big Eddy Substations. The proposed action evaluated in the EIS included an additional 28 miles of 500-kV line that was expected to be needed for firm transmission service to John Day and Big Eddy. The need for the 28-mile segment of line diminished as other proposed generation projects that requested firm transmission on existing transmission lines were cancelled or put on hold. This has resulted in adequate transmission capacity for Wallula Project service becoming available on the existing Lower Monumental-McNary line. Although construction of all project components and negotiation of contract agreements were originally expected to be completed by Fall of 2004, the current schedule is uncertain.

For BPA, implementing the proposed action involves offering contract terms to Wallula LLC or its successor for interconnecting the Wallula Project into the FCRTS and providing firm transmission service to John Day and Big Eddy Substations. Under these contracts, BPA will construct, operate, and maintain the necessary interconnection facilities (including the new transmission line and substation) and integrate power from the Wallula Project into the FCRTS. Firm transmission service will require transmission capacity be available on the existing Lower Monumental-McNary transmission line. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted and will be implemented in accordance with Appendix A of the Final EIS, Revised Mitigation Measures.

On June 5, 2000, the MDEQ received an application from Minergy for a permit to install a glass aggregate facility that would utilize municipal wastewater solids (MWWS) in a cyclone furnance located at 7819 West Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.

The proposed facility is a major source under federal air construction permit regulations, due to the potential significant emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10-microns in diameter (PM-10), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and lead (Pb). The facility has the following major sources of emissions: a 550 MMBtu/hr glass furnace and a 249 MMBtu/hr natural gas fired boiler. The roadways and the MWWS silos are additional sources of PM.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(j), Minergy was required to conduct a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis for pollutants regulated under the Act. Under Michigan regulations, it was also required to determine Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) for each toxic air contaminant (TACs) and hazardous air pollutant (HAPs).

The following technologies will be employed as air quality control equipment: fabric filters to control PM/PM-10 and trace metals; fuel controls by using a coal flux at minimum available sulfur concentration (0.32 percent) and a dry scrubbing process; a selective non-catalytic reduction system using urea/ammonia upon an optimization study to control NO X and ammonia emissions; ultra-low-NO X burners in the stand-by boiler, for controlling the NO X emissions; an overfire air system and good combustion practice to control CO emissions; high temperature retention, exceeding 1700 degrees Fahrenheit for greater than 2 seconds residence time and good combustion practices, to control VOCs and also for the State of Michigan's T-BACT for toxics such as acrolein, acrylonitrile, formaldehyde, dioxin, and furans; in addition to lime injection, carbon injection to reduce mercury emissions, dioxin and furans; and a vitrification process to minimize solid waste production, produce an inert product, and minimize metal emissions such as arsenic, beryllium and lead.

The combustion of natural gas, coal flux and municipal wastewater solids also has the potential to emit TACs and HAPs. Combustion techniques will be used to control the emission of TACs and HAPs and ensure the applicable screening levels are not exceeded. Each screening level is established to protect public health.

USEPA reviewed the permit application and the draft permit, and found their conditions in compliance with all federal regulations. State environmental officials reviewed Minergy's pollution estimates and evaluated the comments received during the public hearing held on June 28, 2001 and during the public comment period which ended on July 13, 2001. MDEQ approved the permit application request in September 20, 2001. As part of the approval, as a result of information submitted during the public participation process, a few new conditions were added to the permit issued.

MDEQ issues PSD permits under an EPA delegated program. Permits issued under a delegated program may be appealed to the EAB. The Minergy PSD permit was appealed by Saulius Simoliunas to the EAB on January 11, 2002 and by John Riehl of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Local 207, on January 14, 2002. Both petitioners questioned the adequacy of the permit's testing requirements related to emissions from the facility's cyclone furnace, and requested that special condition number 7 be modified to require the testing be done by an independent laboratory having proper certification, with the participation of citizens chosen by local non-governmental organizations.

On February 19, 2002, MDEQ filed a motion for Summary Disposition arguing that there was no regulatory or jurisdictional basis for imposing the conditions proposed by Petitioner, and requested that the Board decline review. On March 1, 2002, the EAB issued an order denying review of the permit.

The MDEQ issued the permit on September 20, 2001. The permit became effective on March 25, 2002.

Agenda: On the morning of April 9, the first day of the meeting, guest speakers will discuss management techniques for groundwater, including the Mimbres Aquifer. The morning session will begin at 8:30 a.m. and conclude with a public comment session from 12-12:30 p.m. During the afternoon session, beginning at 2 p.m., guest speakers will discuss innovative environmental technology such as wind energy, solar stills, and water management technology. A second public comment session will be held from 5-5:30 p.m., which will conclude the first day of the meeting. For both public comment sessions on April 9th, the Board invites comments on a wide range of issues, including the topic for its upcoming Seventh Report: links between children's health in the border region and the region's environmental infrastructure.

The second day of the meeting, April 10, will begin at 8 a.m. and conclude at 11:45 a.m. The format will be a routine business meeting, with agenda items including approval of minutes, planning for upcoming meetings, and status of reports.

Public Attendance: The public is welcome to attend all portions of the meeting. Members of the public who plan to file written statements and/or make brief (suggested 5-minute limit) oral statements at the public comment session are encouraged to contact the Designated Federal Officer for the Board prior to the meeting.

Background: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board meets three times each calendar year at different locations along the U.S.-Mexico border and also holds an annual strategic planning session. It was created by the Enterprise for the Americans Initiative Act of 1992. An Executive Order delegates implementing authority to the Administrator of EPA. The Board is responsible for providing advice to the President and the Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues and needs within the States contiguous to Mexico in order to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border. The statute calls for the Board to have representatives from U.S. Government agencies; the governments of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and private organizations with expertise on environmental and infrastructure problems along the southwest border. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gives notice of this meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463).

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

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0056. 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. 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. 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. 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-2003-0056. 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-2003-0056. 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) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0056.

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-2003-0056. 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. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. 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.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received pesticide petitions (6F4631 and 0F6095) from Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.527(a) by establishing permanent tolerance[s] for residues of the herbicide flufenacet; N -(4-fluorophenyl)- N -(1-methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide and metabolites containing the 4-fluoro- N -methylethyl benzenamine moiety in or on the raw agricultural commodities: corn, field, forage at 0.4 parts per million (ppm); corn, field, grain at 0.05 ppm; corn, field, stover at 0.4 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.1 ppm (PP 6F4631); cattle, fat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, kidney at 0.5 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.05 ppm; cattle, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; goat, fat at 0.05 ppm; goat, kidney at 0.5 ppm; goat, meat at 0.05 ppm; goat, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; hog, fat at 0.05 ppm; hog, kidney at 0.5 ppm; hog, meat at 0.05 ppm; hog, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; horse, fat at 0.05 ppm; horse, kidney at 0.5 ppm; horse, meat at 0.05 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.05 ppm; sheep, kidney at 0.5 ppm; sheep, meat at 0.05 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.1 ppm; wheat, forage at 10.0 ppm; wheat, grain at 1.0 ppm; wheat, hay at 2.0 ppm; wheat, straw at 0.50 ppm (PP 0F6095); and 40 CFR 180.527(d) by establishing permanent tolerances for indirect or inadvertent residues of the herbicide flufenacet; N -(4-fluorophenyl)- N -(1-methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide and metabolites containing the 4-fluoro- N -methylethyl benzenamine moiety in or on the following raw agricultural commodities from the application of this herbicide to the raw agricultural commodities listed in 40 CFR 180.527(a): alfalfa, forage at 0.1 ppm; alfalfa, hay at 0.1 ppm; alfalfa, seed at 0.1 ppm; clover, forage at 0.1 ppm; clover, hay at 0.1 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15, except rice at 0.4 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, forage at 10.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except rice, stover at 3.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder, and straw, group 16, except rice, straw at 1.0 ppm; grass, forage, fodder, and hay, group 17 at 0.1 ppm (PP 6F4631).

1. Plant metabolism . The nature of the residue in field corn, soybean, rotational crops and livestock is adequately understood. The residues of concern for the tolerance expression are flufenacet parent and its metabolites containing the 4-fluoro- N -methylethyl benzenamine moiety. Based on the results of animal metabolism studies, it is unlikely that secondary residues would occur in animal commodities from the use of flufenacet on field corn and soybean.

2. Analytical method . An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring, is available for enforcement purposes. Because of the long lead time from establishing these tolerances to publication of the enforcement methodology in the Pesticide Analytical Manual, Vol. II, the analytical methodology is being made available in the interim to anyone interested in pesticide enforcement when requested from: Calvin Furlow, Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Room 119E, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5937).

3. Magnitude of residues . Field residue trials were conducted across the major regions of corn and soybean production in the United States. In both cases, the treatment regime was selected to represent the use patterns that are most likely to result in the highest residue and used a 60% dry flowable formulation of the active ingredient. In all cases, the test plots received a single application of the product at a rate of 0.9 lbs. of active ingredient per acre.

For corn, flufenacet was applied at preplant soil incorporated, preemergence broadcast, and early postemergence application timings. The highest average field trial residues in corn raw agricultural commodities were 0.36 ppm in forage, 0.16 ppm in fodder, and less than 0.05 ppm in grain. No significant concentration of these residues occurred when the corn grain was processed by either wet or dry milling procedures.

For soybean, flufenacet was applied as a preplant broadcast treatment that was incorporated to a depth of approximately 2 inches or as a preemergent broadcast treatment made within 1 day of planting the soybean crop. The maximum residues detected were 0.10 ppm in seed, 1.20 ppm in green forage, and 9.75 ppm in dry hay.

1. Acute toxicity . i. Technical grade flufenacet has a low to moderate order of toxicity in rats by the oral route of exposure. The acute oral LD 50 was 1,617 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) for males and 589 mg/kg for females.

ii. A dermal toxicity study on technical grade flufenacet revealed low acute toxicity to rats. The dermal LD 50 for both sexes was > 2,000 mg/kg, the highest dose tested.

iii. An acute inhalation study on technical grade flufenacet showed low toxicity in rats with a 4-hour liquid aerosol LC 50 for males and females of > 3,740 mg/m 3 air, the highest concentration tested.

iv. An eye irritation study on technical grade flufenacet in rabbits showed minimal irritation to the conjunctiva completely reversible within 7 days.

v. A dermal irritation study on technical grade flufenacet in rabbits did not produced any irritation.

vi. Skin sensitization studies on technical grade flufenacet in guinea pigs have produced equivocal results. A skin sensitization potential was exhibited under the conditions of a maximization test, whereby, there was no skin sensitization potential when tested by the Buehler Topical Closed Patch Technique.

2. Genotoxicty . Flufenacet was negative for mutagenic/genotoxic effects in a gene mutation/ in vitro assay in bacteria, a gene mutation/ in vitro assay in Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts cells, a cytogenetics/ in vitro assay in Chinese hamster ovary cells, a cytogenetics/ in vivo mouse micronucleus assay, and an in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in primary rat hepatocytes.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . i. A two-generation rat reproduction study with a parental systemic no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 20 ppm (1.4 mg/kg/day in males and 1.5 mg/kg/day in females) and a reproductive NOAEL of 20 ppm (1.3 mg/kg/day) and a parental systemic lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 100 ppm (7.4 mg/kg/day in males and 8.2 mg/kg/day in females) based on increased liver weight in F 1 females and hepatocytomegaly in F 1 males and a reproductive LOAEL of 100 ppm (6.9 mg/kg/day) based on increased pup death in early lactation (including cannibalism) for F 1 litters and the same effects in both F 1 and F 2 pups at the high dose level of 500 ppm (37.2 mg/kg/day in F 1 males and 41.5 mg/kg/day in F 1 females, respectively).

ii. A rat developmental study with a maternal NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day and with a maternal LOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain initially and a developmental NOEL of 25 mg/kg/day and a developmental LOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day based on decreased fetal body weight, delayed development (mainly delays in ossification in the skull, vertebrae, sternebrae, and appendages), and an increase in the incidence of extra ribs.

iii. A rabbit developmental study with a maternal NOAEL of 5 mg/kg/day and a maternal LOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day based on histopathological finds in the liver and a developmental NOAEL of 25 mg/kg/day and a developmental LOAEL of 125 mg/kg/day based on increased skeletal variations.

4. Subchronic toxicity. i. A 84-day rat feeding study with a NOAEL less than 100 ppm (6.0 mg/kg/day) for males and a NOAEL of 100 ppm (7.2 mg/kg/day) for females and with a LOAEL of 100 ppm (6.8 mg/kg/day) for males based on suppression of thyroxine (T4) level and a LOAEL of 400 ppm (28.8 mg/kg/day) for females based on hematology and clinical chemistry findings.

ii. A 13-week mouse feeding study with a NOAEL of 100 ppm (18.2 mg/kg/day for males and 24.5 mg/kg/day for females) and a LOAEL of 400 ppm (64.2 mg/kg/day for males and 91.3 mg/kg/day for females) based on histopathology of the liver, spleen and thyroid.

iii. A 13-week dog dietary study with a NOAEL of 50 ppm (1.70 mg/kg/day for males and 1.67 mg/kg/day for females) and a LOAEL of 200 ppm (6.90 mg/kg/day for males and 7.20 mg/kg/day for females) based on evidence that the bio-transformation capacity of the liver has been exceeded, (as indicated by an increase in LDH, liver weight, ALK and hepatomegaly), globulin and spleen pigment in females, decreased T4 and ALT values in both sexes, decreased albumin in males, and decreased serum glucose in females.

iv. A 21-day rabbit dermal study with the dermal irritation NOAEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day for males and females and a systemic NOAEL of 20 mg/kg/day for males and 150 mg/kg/day for females and a systemic LOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day for males and 1,000 mg/kg/day for females based on clinical chemistry data (decreased T4 and FT4 levels in both sexes) and centrilobular hepatocytomegaly in females.

5. Chronic toxicity . i. A 1-year dog chronic feeding study with a NOAEL was 40 ppm (1.29 mg/kg/day in males and 1.14 mg/kg/day in females) and a LOAEL of 800 ppm (27.75 mg/kg/day in males and 26.82 mg/kg/day in females) based on increased alkaline phosphatase, kidney, and liver weight in both sexes, increased cholesterol in males, decreased T2, T4 and ALT values in both sexes, and increased incidences of microscopic lesions in the brain, eye, kidney, spinal cord, sciatic nerve and liver.

ii. A rat chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study with a NOAEL less than 25 ppm (1.2 mg/kg/day in males and 1.5 mg/kg/day in females) and a LOAEL of 25 ppm (1.2 mg/kg/day in males and 1.5 mg/kg/day in females) based on methemoglobinemia and multi-organ effects in blood, kidney, spleen, heart, and uterus. Under experimental conditions the treatment did not alter the spontaneous tumor profile.

iii. In a mouse carcinogenicity study the NOAEL was less than 50 ppm (7.4 mg/kg/day) for males and the NOAEL was 50 ppm (9.4 mg/kg/day) for females and the LOAEL was 50 ppm (7.4 mg/kg/day) for males and the LOAEL was 200 ppm (38.4 mg/kg/day) for females based on cataract incidence and severity. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity for flufenacet in this study.

6. Animal metabolism . A rat metabolism study showed that radio-labeled flufenacet was rapidly absorbed and metabolized by both sexes. Urine was the major route of excretion at all dose levels and smaller amounts were excreted via the feces.

7. Metabolite toxicology . A 55-day dog study with subcutaneous administration of thiadone (flufenacet metabolite) supports the hypothesis that limitations in glutathione interdependent pathways and antioxidant stress result in metabolic lesions in the brain and heart following flufenacet exposure.

8. Endocrine disruption . EPA is required to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticides and inerts) may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other effect. The Agency is currently working with interested stakeholders, including other government agencies, public interest groups, industry and research scientists in developing a screening and testing program and a priority setting scheme to implement this program. Congress has allowed 3 years from the passage of FQPA (August 3, 1999) to implement this program. At that time, EPA may require further testing of this active ingredient and end use products for endocrine disrupter effects. Based on the toxicological findings for flufenacet relating to endocrine disruption effects, flufenacet should be considered as a candidate for evaluation as an endocrine disrupter when the criteria are established.

9. Other studies . i. An acute rat neurotoxicity study with a NOAEL less than 75 mg/kg/day and a LOAEL of 75 mg/kg/day based on decreased motor activity in males.

ii. A rat subchronic neurotoxicity study with a NOAEL of 120 ppm (7.3 mg/kg/day in males and 8.4 mg/kg/day in females) and a LOAEL of 600 (38.1 mg/kg/day in males and 42.6 mg/kg/day in females) based on microscopic lesions in the cerebellum/medulla and spinal cords.

iii. A rat developmental neurotoxicity dietary study established an overall NOAEL for both dams and offspring of 17.5 ppm. A LOAEL of 80.8 ppm was established based on body weight and feed consumption declines common to both dams and offspring as well as developmental delays which were noted in the offspring (eye opening, preputial separation). No evidence of specific neurobehavioral effects in the offspring were observed at dietary concentrations of up to 404 ppm.

1. Dietary exposure . Flufenacet is an herbicide with currently registered uses on corn and soybean. Section 18 emergency exemptions for use on wheat have been approved in several states. Also, time limited tolerances exist for inadvertent or indirect residues on alfalfa, clover, and crop groups 15, 16 and 17. Tolerances are proposed for use on Crop Group 1C, tuberous and corm vegetables, which includes potatoes and sweet potatoes. There are no residential uses for flufenacet, therefore aggregate exposure would consist of any potential exposure to flufenacet residues in the registered and proposed crops and in drinking water.

i. Food . Acute and Chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM®, Version 7.76) from Exponent, Inc. and the 1994-1996, 1998 CSFII consumption database. Dietary exposure values were compared to the acute RfD of 0.083 milligrams/kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg bw/day) based on a LOEL from an acute neurotoxicity study in rats and a 900-fold uncertainty factor. The chronic RfD of 0.004 mg/kg bw/day is based on a LOEL from a combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study in the rat with a 300-fold uncertainty factor.

The refined acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were performed using anticipated residues for all registered and proposed crops and crop groups. Adjustments were made to account for percent of crop treated and processing factors where available. The Tier 2 acute analysis resulted in the U.S. population using 0.00437 mg/kg bw/day or 5.2% of the acute RfD. The highest exposed subpopulation was non-nursing infants at 0.00893 mg/kg bw/day utilized or 10.7% of the acute RfD.

For the Tier 3 chronic analysis the U.S. population utilized 0.000087 mg/kg bw/day or 2.2% of the chronic RfD. The highest exposed subpopulation was children 1-6 at 0.000179 mg/kg bw/day or 4.5% of the chronic RfD.

ii. Drinking water . The EPA has calculated drinking water level of comparison (DWLOCs) for acute exposure to flufenacet in drinking water as 2.87 ppm for the U.S. population and 813 ppb for children (1-6 years old). The Agency's screening concentration in ground water (SCI-Grow) model estimates peak levels of flufenacet and its metabolite thiadone in groundwater to be 15.3 ppb. EPA's Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) estimates peak levels of flufenacet and its metabolite thiadone in surface water to be 17 ppb. EPA's acute drinking water levels of comparison are well above the estimated exposures for flufenacet in water for the U.S. population and the subgroup with highest estimated exposure.

The EPA has calculated the drinking water level of comparison for chronic exposure to flufenacet in drinking water as 136 ppb for the U.S. population assuming that an adult weighs 70 kg and consumes a maximum of 2 liters of water per day. For children (1-6 years old), the DWLOC was 37.7 ppb assuming that a child weighs 10 kg and consumes a maximum of 1 liter of water per day. The drinking water estimated concentration (DWECs) for groundwater (parent flufenacet and degradate thiadone) calculated from modeling data is 0.03 ppb for chronic concentrations which does not exceed the DWLOC of 37.7 ppb for children (1-6 years old). The DWEC for surface water based on the computer models PRZM 2.3 and EXAMS 2.97.5 was calculated to be 14.2 ppb for chronic concentration (parent flufenacet and degradate thiadone) which does not exceed the DWLOC of 37.7 ppb for children (1-6 years old). The EPA has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to flufenacet residues.

2. Non-dietary exposure . There are no non-food uses of flufenacet currently registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. No non-dietary exposures are expected for the general population.

Flufenacet is structurally a thiadiazole. EPA is not aware of any other pesticides with this structure. For flufenacet, EPA has not yet conducted a detailed review of common mechanisms to determine whether it is appropriate, or how to include this chemical in a cumulative risk assessment. After EPA develops a methodology to address common mechanism of toxicity issues to risk assessments, the Agency will develop a process (either as part of the periodic review of pesticides or otherwise) to reexamine these tolerance decisions. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, flufenacet does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of these tolerance actions; therefore, EPA has not assumed that flufenacet has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

1. U.S. population . Using the assumptions and data described above, it is concluded that chronic dietary exposure to all registered and proposed uses of flufenacet will utilize at most 2.2% of the chronic RfD for the U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure assessment results in the U.S. population utilizing 5.2% of the acute RfD. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the acute or chronic reference dose. Drinking water levels of comparison based on the dietary exposure are greater than the highly conservative drinking water estimated concentrations as shown above. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to the U.S. population from aggregate exposure (food and drinking water) to residues of flufenacet.

2. Infants and children . In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of flufenacet, EPA considered data from developmental toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit and a two-generation reproduction study in the rat. The developmental toxicity studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during prenatal development to one or both parents. Reproduction studies provide information relating to effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals and data on systemic toxicity. FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Although there is no indication of increased sensitivity to young rats or rabbits following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to flufenacet in the standard developmental and reproductive toxicity studies, an additional developmental neurotoxicity study, which is not normally required, is needed to access the susceptibility of the offspring in function/neurological development. Therefore, EPA has required that a developmental neurotoxicity study be conducted with flufenacet and a threefold safety factor for children and infants will be used in the aggregate dietary acute and chronic risk assessment. Although there is no indication of additional sensitivity to young rats or rabbits following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to flufenacet in the developmental and reproductive toxicity studies; the Agency concluded that the FQPA safety factor should not be removed but instead reduced because:

i. There was no assessment of susceptibility of the offspring in functional/neurological developmental and reproductive studies.

ii. There is evidence of neurotoxicity in mice, rats, and dogs.

iii. There is concern for thyroid hormone disruption.

Using the assumptions and data described in the aggregate exposure section and the appropriate safety factors as discussed above it is concluded that the most sensitive subpopulations of infants and children have a reasonable certainty of no harm. For the chronic assessment, the most sensitive subpopulation, children 1-6, uses 4.5% of the chronic RfD. The acute assessment shows the most sensitive subpopulation to be non-nursing infants at 10.7% of the acute RfD. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison (DWLOCs) for children of 765 ppb (acute) and 38 ppb (chronic) are well above the conservative drinking water estimated concentrations. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to potential residues of flufenacet in food and drinking water.

Maximum residue levels are established or proposed for countries of the European Communities in the following commodities: Cereals at 0.5 ppm; corn at 0.5 ppm; potato at 0.1 ppm; sunflower at 0.05 ppm; soybean at 0.05 ppm; animal meat at 0.05 ppm; animal edible offal's at 0.05 ppm; animal fat at 0.05 ppm; milk at 0.01 ppm; and eggs at 0.05 ppm.

The Commission has requested emergency OMB review of this collection with an approval by March 19, 2003.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0110.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 303-S.

Form Number: FCC 303-S.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 3,217.

Estimated Time per Response: 40 mins. to 9.75 hrs.

Frequency of Response: Eight-year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 5,271 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,567,401.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 303-S is used in applying for renewal of a license for a commercial or non-commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station and FM translator, TV translator, or low power TV (LPTV), or low power FM broadcast station. It can also be used to seek the joint renewal of licenses for an FM or TV translator station and its co-owned primary FM, TV, or LPTV station. The FCC has recently made two new statutory changes—47 U.S.C. 312(g), which provides for automatic expiration of a license if the licensee does not broadcast (“goes silent”) for twelve months; and 47 U.S.C. 309(k), which affects renewal standards and FCC violations. The Commission is also revising Form 303-S to make it a simpler and clearer form that shifts to a convenient certification-based approach to applicants. Furthermore, the Commission is changing this form in line with the release on November 20, 2002 of the Second Report and Order and FNPRM, Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunities Rules and Policies, MM Docket No. 98-204, FCC 02-303.

All Executive agencies will be required to adopt an online booking service to make travel reservations for temporary duty travel. FedTrip, provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is an online booking service that is available for use by Executive agencies and should be agencies' first choice for online booking. Of an online booking service is not currently deployed in an agency, officials responsible for managing the agency's travel program should take steps to implement an online booking service including coordination with their Travel Management Center (TMC) where applicable. Executive agency travel managers should contact Arnie Linares at (202) 366-0520 or e-mail arnie.linares@ost.dot.gov to make the necessary arrangements to obtain FedTrip. Executive agency employees should contact their agency's travel office for information on how to make travel arrangements online. Please note that this document implements a new numbering system for FTR bulletins.

45 CFR section 160.306 establishes general provisions for submission of complaints against a covered entity for non-compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. A person who believes a covered entity is not complying with these requirements may file a complaint with the Secretary. A covered entity is a health plan, health care clearinghouse, and any health care provider who conducts certain health care transactions electronically. Complaints to the Secretary must: (1) Be filed in writing, either on paper or electronically; (2) name the entity that is the subject of the complaint and describe the acts or omissions believed to be in violation of the applicable requirements of part 160 or the applicable standards, requirements, and implementation specifications of subpart E of part 164; and (3) be filed within 180 days of when the complainant knew or should have known that the act or omission complained of occurred, unless this time limit is waived by the Office for Civil Rights for good cause shown. Complaints to the Secretary may be filed only with respect to alleged violations occurring on or after April 14, 2003.

The Secretary has delegated to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) the authority to receive and investigate complaints as they may relate to the Privacy Rule. See 65 FR 82381 (Dec. 28, 2000). Individuals may file written complaints with OCR by mail, fax or e-mail at the addresses listed below. Individuals may, but are not required to, use OCR's Health Information Privacy Complaint Form. To obtain a copy of this form, or for more information about the Privacy Rule or how to file a complaint with OCR, contact any OCR office or go to www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/. For more information on what entities are covered by HIPAA, go to www.cms/hipaa/hipaa2/support/tools/decisionsupport/default.asp.

As listed below, health information privacy complaints to the Secretary should be addressed to the OCR regional office that is responsible for matters relating to the Privacy Rule arising in the State or jurisdiction where the covered entity is located. Complaints may also be filed via email at the address noted below.

For complaints involving covered entities located in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Vermont:

For complaints involving covered entities located in New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, or Virgin Islands:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or West Virginia:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, or Tennessee:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, or Wisconsin:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, or Texas:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, or Nebraska:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, or Wyoming:

For complaints involving covered entities located in American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, or Nevada:

For complaints involving covered entities located in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, or Washington:

For all complaints filed by e-mail send to: OCRComplaint@hhs.gov.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of endangered species such as the Houston toad. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take endangered wildlife species incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.22.

The Service has prepared the Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan (EA/HCP) for the incidental take application. A determination of jeopardy or non-jeopardy to the species and a decision pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will not be made until at least 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

Applicant: Ralph Smoot plans to construct Earth-sheltered condominiums, within 5 years, on a 2.5-acre property on Highway 71, Bastrop County, Texas. This action will eliminate 2.5 acres or less of Houston toad habitat and result in indirect impacts to the toad within the property. The Applicant proposes to compensate for the loss of Houston toad habitat by providing $5,000.00 to the Houston Toad Conservation Fund at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for the specific purpose of land acquisition and management within Houston toad habitat.

Background

Restoring endangered or threatened animals or plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, we are working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) (Act), requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that during recovery plan development, we provide public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment. This revision to the recovery plan was released for public comment on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55269), and the comment period was reopened on November 21, 2002 (67 FR 70237). Information presented during the comment periods has been considered in the preparation of this revision.

The red-cockaded woodpecker was listed as an endangered species in 1970 (35 FR 16047). This taxon is endemic to open, mature and old-growth pine ecosystems in the Southeastern United States. Currently, there are an estimated 14,068 red-cockaded woodpeckers living in 5,627 known active clusters across 11 States. It is estimated that pre-European settlement there were 1 to 1.5 million groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Limiting factors for the red-cockaded woodpecker are those that directly affect the number of potential breeding groups, because this is the primary determinant of population size and trend. Multiple factors currently impact the persistence of breeding groups and, therefore, population and species viability. Foremost among these are the factors that limit suitable nesting habitat, namely fire suppression and lack of cavity trees. Another factor directly limiting the number of potential breeding groups is habitat fragmentation and consequent isolation of groups, which results in disrupted dispersal of helpers and failure to replace breeders. There are several other threats to the existence and recovery of the species, not limiting most populations currently, but which will become more important as the current limitations are addressed. Chief among these are the degradation of foraging habitat through fire suppression and loss of mature trees, and the loss of valuable genetic resources because of small population size and isolation of populations.

The objective of this revision is to provide a framework for the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker so that protection under the Act is no longer necessary. As recovery criteria are met, the status of the species will be reviewed and it will be considered for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR part 17). The red-cockaded woodpecker will be considered for delisting when (1) there are 10 populations that each contain at least 350 potential breeding groups (400 to 500 active clusters), and 1 population that contains at least 1,000 potential breeding groups (1,100 to 1,400 active clusters) from among 13 designated primary core populations (see recovery plan for the list of primary core populations and the recovery units in which they are located); (2) there are 9 populations that each contain at least 250 potential breeding groups (275 to 350 active clusters), from among 10 designated secondary core populations (see recovery plan for the list of secondary core populations and the recovery units in which they are located); (3) there are at least 250 potential breeding groups (275 to 350 active clusters) distributed among designated essential support populations in the South/Central Florida Recovery Unit, and six of these populations (including at least two of the following—Avon Park Air Force Range, Big Cypress National Preserve, and Ocala National Forest) exhibit a minimum population size of 40 potential breeding groups; (4) the following populations are stable or increasing and each contain at least 100 potential breeding groups (110 to 140 active clusters)—(a) Northeast North Carolina/Southeast Virginia Essential Support Population of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit, (b) Talladega/Shoal Creek Essential Support Population of the Cumberlands/Ridge and Valley Recovery Unit, and (c) North Carolina Sandhills West Essential Support Population of the Sandhills Recovery Unit; and (5) for each of the populations meeting the above size criteria, responsible management agencies shall provide (a) a habitat management plan that is adequate to sustain the population and emphasizes frequent prescribed burning, and (b) a plan for continued population monitoring.

Section 9 of the Act, and its implementing Federal regulations prohibit the “taking” of a species listed as endangered or threatened. The term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture or collect listed wildlife, or attempt to engage in such conduct. Harm includes habitat degradation or modification that kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Under section 10(a) of the Act, we may issue permits for take of listed species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for threatened and endangered species are found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22.

The OPRD has management responsibility on all Oregon coastal beaches (approximately 260 miles) for such activities as recreation, ocean shore alterations (riprap, seawalls, etc.), natural product removal (sand), and non-traditional activities (e.g., weddings, commercial filming, fireworks displays). Such activities may result in take of the threatened Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover.

In accordance with section 10(a) of the Act, OPRD will prepare an HCP which will address conservation of western snowy plovers and their habitat, while providing for recreational use, non-traditional uses, and for ocean shore alteration activities on the entire length of Oregon's beaches. The proposed HCP will consider all uses on ocean beaches from low mean tide to the actual or statutory vegetation line, whichever is furthest inland, as well as all OPRD owned and managed coastal park units.

Comments will be available for public inspection at OPRD, 1115 Commercial Street, NE, Salem, Oregon. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish your name and/or address withheld from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments.

The Northwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Colorado.

Purpose of the Northwest Colorado RAC May 8, 2003 meeting is to consider several resource management related topics including; RAC goals and priorities, coal bed methane development update, North Fruita Desert Plan update, fire program update, Committee reports, RAC Chairman/BLM Director Washington Office meeting report, Roan Plateau Plan update, and Northwest Colorado Stewardship update. Topics of discussion for the following Northwest Colorado RAC meetings scheduled for August 14, 2003 and November 13, 2003 will include fire management, land use planning, weeds management, travel management, wilderness, wild horse program update, land exchange proposals, cultural resources, and other issues as appropriate.

These RAC meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RAC. Each RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals planning to attend the meetings who need special assistance should contact the RAC Coordinator listed above.

The USFWS and CDFG will acquire from Cargill Salt, 15,100 acres of industrial solar salt ponds and/or associated salt-making rights in south San Francisco Bay, California. Under terms of the acquisition, the USFWS will own and manage 8,000 acres of “Alviso Ponds,” the 1,600 acres of “West Bay Ponds.” The CDFG own and will manage 5,500 acres of “Baumberg Ponds.” The Alviso Ponds consist of an 8,000-acre complex of 25 ponds on the shores of the South Bay in Fremont, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Mountain View, in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve and Charleston Slough border the acquisition area on the west, on the south by Moffet Naval Air Station, Sunnyvale Baylands Park and to the east by Coyote Creek and Cushing Parkway in Fremont. Major drainages which discharge into San Francisco Bay within the complex area include Charleston Slough, Mountain View Slough, Stevens Creek, Guadalupe Slough, Alviso Slough (Guadalupe River), Artesian Slough, Mud Slough, and Coyote Creek. The complex includes three “Island Ponds” surrounded by Coyote Creek and Mud Slough.

The West Bay Ponds consist of a 1,600-acre complex of 7 ponds on the bay side of the Peninsula, on both sides of Highway 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge, bayward of the developed areas of the City of Menlo Park in San Mateo County. Bayfront Park is located to the west, and the Dumbarton Bridge approach and the UPRR are located at its southern border. Ravenswood Slough discharges to the Bay through the complex.

The Baumberg Ponds consist of a 5,500-acre complex of 23 ponds on the shores East Bay, west of Hayward and Union City in Alameda County. The approach to the San Mateo Bridge and the CDFG Eden Landing Ecological Reserve, form the northern boundary of the acquisition area. Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel and the Coyote Hills form the southern boundary. Major drainages that discharge into the San Francisco Bay within the complex include Old Alameda Creek and Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel.

The proposed South Bay Salt Ponds Initial Stewardship Project is intended to provide for management of the ponds from the time management responsibility is transferred by Cargill to the USFWS and CDFG until a long-term restoration and management plan for the South Bay is completed. It is anticipated that the planning and design process for long-term restoration, and thus the duration of the ISP, will require at least five years.

The objectives of the proposed South Bay Salt Ponds Initial Stewardship Project include:

1. Cease salt production;

2. Circulate bay water through the ponds and introduce tidal hydrology to ponds where feasible;

3. Maintain existing open water and wetland habitat for the benefit of wildlife, including habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl and resident breeding species;

4. Maintain ponds in a restorable condition to facilitate future long term restoration;

5. Meet all regulatory requirements, including discharge requirements to maintain water quality standards in the South Bay.

Proposed changes to existing operations include:

1. Circulating bay waters through reconfigured pond systems and releasing pond contents into the Bay. The plan will require installing new water control features, consisting of intake structures, outlet structures and additional pumps to maintain existing shallow open water habitat.

2. Managing a limited number of ponds as seasonal wetlands, to reduce management costs and optimize habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl.

3. Managing different summer and winter water levels in a limited number of ponds to reduce management costs and optimize habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl.

4. Restoration of three ponds to muted tidal or full tidal influence.

5. Managing several ponds in the Alviso system as “batch ponds”, where salinity levels would be allowed to rise in order to support specific wildlife populations.

Installation of all proposed water control structures is anticipated to require several years to complete. After water control structures are installed for individual pond systems, intake of bay water into ponds and initial release of pond contents into the Bay will generally begin the following March to May time period when salinities within ponds and in the Bay are at their lowest. During the initial release period, the discharge salinity from the pond system may be significantly higher than normal Bay salinity. Three levels of maximum initial release salinity conditions are proposed in Table 1. Ponds were designated for a particular salinity group based on the historic operation of the salt operations and system constraints on changes to the existing salinities. Salinity group 1 ponds would have a maximum initial discharge salinity of 65 parts per thousand (ppt). (Seawater is approximately 32 ppt.) These ponds are generally intake ponds or ponds near intakes with the lowest existing and historic salinities. Salinity group 2 ponds would have a maximum initial discharge salinity of 100 ppt. These ponds are in the middle range of the ponds in the acquisition. Salinity group 3 ponds would have a maximum initial discharge salinity of 135 ppt.

For Alviso systems expected water depths in most of the ponds will be 1 to 2 feet on average, similar to their existing condition. Average water depths in the Baumberg systems will range from zero to about 2.5 feet in summer, and about 1 to 2.5 feet in winter. To save on pumping costs, water surface levels in the Baumberg systems will be operated at levels lower than existing conditions. Eliminating pumping in winter will result in different operating water levels between summer and winter. The West Bay Ponds will be managed in a similar manner to current salt making operations for at least three years. During this period, high salinity brines will be moved to the Cargill Newark Plant Site. Intake structures needed for the ISP may also be used during this period. Management plans and hydrologic modeling for Initial Stewardship will be completed during that time.

The EIS/EIR will consider a range of actions, alternatives and impacts, including the no action alternative. Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. To date, the following alternatives have been identified.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no flow circulation through the pond systems. No additional water control structures would be installed, no release of pond contents or management of water and salinity levels would occur, and the existing infrastructure would not be maintained. The contents of the ponds would be allowed to evaporate leaving behind salt-crusted flats and in deeper areas, residual pools of concentrated brine. Ponds would take 1 to 2 years to dry. The deepest portions of the ponds will be seasonally wet during winter, filling with water after rain events. Under the No Action alternative, most of the existing open water habitats currently used by wildlife would be eliminated. Without maintenance pond levees and control structures would be prone to failure, increasing risk of uncontrolled intake and release of flows from/to the Bay. Although this alternative minimizes additional inputs of salinity, long-term pond drying may result in hyper-saline soil conditions. This may cause the chemistry of the soil to be affected in a manner that would likely increase the cost and level of effort of future restoration.

This alternative is the same as the No Action alternative except that the levees and water control structures would be maintained and repaired as needed. The ponds would be managed as seasonal ponds until the final restoration plan has been completed. Under this scenario the pond contents would be removed or allowed to evaporate. During the summer, they would be maintained as dry to minimize construction and management costs. During winter they would fill during precipitation events but contents would not be discharged. Maintenance of the levees and water control structures would prevent their deterioration that could cause the accidental breaching of the ponds and release of pond contents to the Bay. Under this alternative, most of the existing open water habitats currently used by wildlife would be eliminated, significantly changing the character of the South Bay salt ponds. This alternative minimizes additional inputs of salinity and does not require a permit to discharge pond contents into the Bay. As with the No Action alternative, long-term pond drying may result in hyper-saline soil conditions. This may cause the chemistry of the soil to be affected in a manner that would likely increase the cost and level of effort of future restoration.

Under the proposed action, the Island Ponds would be retrofitted with new intake and outlet structures, and managed under a muted tidal condition. Breaching of the levees of each pond would allow the three ponds to return to a more natural tidal regime. Due to their location between Lower Coyote Creek and Mud Slough, the Island Ponds are fairly inaccessible, and therefore, difficult to actively manage. They would be inundated during the high tides but would be above water at other times resulting in 474 acres of intertidal marsh and mudflat habitat. Concerns regarding the breach alternative include increasing the tidal prism of Coyote Creek as well as altering the existing deposition and scour regime of Coyote Creek. Specifically, there is a concern that increased velocities in Coyote Creek could cause scour at the railroad crossing of Coyote Creek.

Under the proposed action, pond systems consisting of numerous ponds generally have one or more pond(s) serving as batch ponds. Due to their location and, in some cases, relatively high bottom elevations, batch ponds do not have continuous water circulation. They do not have a direct hydrologic connection to the bay or tidal sloughs and creeks, but rely on a neighboring pond for delivery of inflows and release of outflows. The volume and frequency of the intake and release from/to a neighboring pond are used to control the batch pond salinity and water levels. Batch ponds can easily be managed for high salinity in the range of 80-120 ppt to favor brine shrimp and brine fly production, an important food source to certain waterfowl.

As an alternative to a batch pond, certain ponds could be operated as a seasonal pond to eliminate costly pumping during summer to maintain water levels. Seasonal ponds differ from batch ponds in that their contents would be drained prior to summer. Seasonal ponds will fill from rain during winter and be allowed to dry-down through the summer. The pond salinity would not be controlled, but would fluctuate due to residual salt in the pond, rainwater inflows, and seasonal evaporation.

Under the proposed action, initial discharge of pond contents would begin in March/April when salinities within the ponds and receiving waters are the lowest. Allowing initial release of pond contents into the Bay at other times during the year would be desirable as a contingency since all necessary water control structures cannot be installed prior to the initial March/April release date. In addition, for certain Alviso ponds, discharge at other time periods would avoid entrainment of juvenile salmonids during downstream migration periods. Concerns regarding this alternative include the ability to meet regulatory requirements for the initial discharge of pond contents and effects of elevated salinity at discharge locations to upstream migrating adult salmonids and bay shrimp.

The EIS/EIR will analyze, describe, and evaluate direct, indirect and cumulative potential environmental impacts of alternatives, including the no project/no action alternative in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. The range of alternatives being considered may be refined, expanded, or revised as a result of the scoping process. Impact analysis will include a discussion of direct and indirect impacts, short- and long-term impacts, cumulative impacts, and unavoidable impacts. For each issue listed below, the EIS/EIR will include a discussion of the parameters used in evaluating the impacts; recommended mitigation, indicating the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed to be implemented and what, if any, additional measures would be required to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. Direct and indirect impacts that will be analyzed include disturbance during construction of water control structures, changes in pond water depth and salinity, changes to water quality in the receiving Bay, creeks and sloughs, and effects caused by operation and maintenance.

The list of issues presented below is preliminary both in scope and number. These issues are presented to facilitate public comment on the scope of the EIS/EIR, and are not intended to be all-inclusive or to be a predetermination of impacts to be considered.

The EIS/EIR will describe existing water quality conditions in the salt ponds within the project area and the receiving waters; characterize effects of discharges including changes in salinity, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, BOD, and metals; and consider potential effect of the timing of discharges as well as the specific location of discharges.

The EIS/EIR will describe existing contaminant levels in sediments of the salt ponds and adjacent Bay, creek and sloughs including chromium, copper, lead, nickel, silver, zinc, arsenic, cadmium and mercury; and consider potential effects of water level management in remobilization of buried contaminants.

The EIS/EIR will describe existing habitat and characterize changes in wildlife habitat and wildlife use in ponds and receiving waters. The EIS/EIR will also identify potential sensitive species and habitats in or near the project area and determine their abundance and extent of sensitive habitats that may be impacted by project implementation. Specific species to be addressed include California clapper rail, snowy plover, California least tern, salt marsh harvest mouse, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.

The EIS/EIR will evaluate effects of changes in water quality and water elevations that may cause the release of hydrogen sulfide and other odorous organic gases.

The EIS/EIR will evaluate effects of introduction of water circulation into ponds to changes in flood protection to neighboring developments.

The EIS/EIR will evaluate effects of the project to commercial fishing of Bay shrimp, including the initial release of pond contents to sloughs and creeks where juveniles are found.

The EIS/EIR will examine the cumulative impacts of past, ongoing, and probable future projects affecting tidal marsh and estuarine habitats in the South Bay. Projects will include other salt pond restoration projects and wetland habitat improvement project.

The EIS/EIR will be prepared in compliance with NEPA and Council on Environmental Council Regulations, contained in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; and with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sec 21000 et seq. , and the CEQA Guidelines as amended. Because requirements for NEPA and CEQA are somewhat different, the document must be prepared to comply with whichever requirements are more stringent. The Service will be the lead agency for the NEPA process and the Department of Fish and Game will be the lead agency for the CEQA process. In accordance with both CEQA and NEPA, these lead agencies have the responsibility for the scope, content, and legal adequacy of the document. Therefore, all aspects of the EIS/EIR scope and process will be fully coordinated between these two agencies.

The draft EIS/EIR will incorporate public concerns associated with the project alternatives identified in the scoping process and will be distributed for at least 45-day public review and comment period. During this time, both written and verbal comments will be solicited on the adequacy of the document. The final EIS/EIR will address the comments received on the draft during public review and will be made available to all commenters on the draft EIS/EIR and anyone requesting a copy during the 45-day public review period. The final EIS/EIR shall (1) provide a full and fair discussion of the proposed action's significant environmental impacts, and (2) inform the decision-makers and the public of reasonable measures and alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.

The final step in the Federal EIS process is the preparation of a Record of Decision (ROD), a concise summary of the decision(s) made by the USFWS. The ROD can be published immediately after the final EIS comment period has ended. The final step in the State EIR process is certification of the EIR, which includes preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan and adoption of its findings, should the project be approved. A certified EIR indicates the following: (1) The document complies with CEQA; (2) the decision-making body of the lead agency reviewed and considered the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) the final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.

This notice is provided pursuant to regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6).

The withdrawal includes all lands open to mining on the Scenic section, including the river bed, extending 1/4 mile from the centerline.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:

1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), but not from the mineral leasing laws, to protect the North Fork Smith River:

All lands lying on the right (west) bank of the river corridor, including the river bed, and extending 1/4 mile from the centerline of the North Fork Smith River, from confluence of Horse Creek (boundary of upstream wild segment of the North Fork Smith River) downstream 4.5 miles to the confluence of Baldface Creek (boundary of the downstream wild segment of the North Fork Smith River). These lands are located approximately in but not limited to the following:

2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the lands under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.

3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the expiration date pursuant to section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f)(1994), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

Section 101(a) of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA) provides that no person shall engage in any farm labor contracting activity unless such person has a certificate of registration from the Secretary of Labor specifying which farm labor contracting activities such person is authorized to perform. Further, section 101(b) of MSPA provides that a farm labor contractor shall not hire, employ, or use any individual to perform farm labor contracting activities unless such individual has a certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor. Form WH-530, Application for Farm Labor Contractor and Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate of Registration is used by the applicant to obtain authorization to engage in farm labor contracting activities under MSPA or to obtain authorization to be hired, employed or used by a currently registered farm labor contractor to perform named activities under MSPA. This information collection is currently approved for use through August 31, 2003.

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

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

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

• Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

The Department of Labor seeks approval for the extension of this information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to issue, after appropriate investigation and review, a farm labor certificate of registration, including a certificate of registration as an employee of a farm labor contractor, to any person who has filed with the Secretary a written application for a certificate.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards Administration.

Title: Application for Farm Labor Contractor and Farm Labor Contractor Employee Certificate of Registration.

OMB Number: 1215-0037.

Agency Number: WH-530.

Affected Public: Business of other for-profit; Farms.

Total Respondents: 9,200.

Total Responses: 9,200.

Time per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: On Occasion (initial application); biennially (renewal).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,600.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $2,392.

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

The BLS enters into Cooperative Agreements with State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) annually to provide financial assistance to the SESAs for the production and operation of the following LMI statistical programs: Current Employment Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Covered Employment and Wages Report, and Mass Layoff Statistics. The Cooperative Agreement provides the basis for managing the administrative and financial aspects of these programs.

The BLS is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

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

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance is being sought for the LMI Cooperative Agreement. The existing collection of information allows Federal staff to negotiate the Cooperative Agreement with the SESAs and monitor their financial and programmatic performance and adherence to administrative requirements imposed by common regulations implementing OMB Circular A-102 and other grant-related regulations. The information collected also is used for planning and budgeting at the Federal level and in meeting Federal reporting requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Title: Labor Market Information (LMI) Cooperative Agreement.

OMB Number: 1220-0079.

Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Governments.

Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, annually.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $0.

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

I. Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problem there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

The Depart of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e. , employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of the 1970 (the Act) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). In this regard, the information collection requirements in the Benzene Standard provide protection for employees from the adverse health effects associated with exposure to Benzene.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) for the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is proposing to extend the information-collection requirements specified in the Benzene Standard. The information-collection requirements specified in the Benzene Standard protect employees from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational exposure to benzene. The major information-collection requirements in the Standard include conducting employee exposure monitoring, notifying employees of their benzene exposures, implementing a written compliance program, implementing medical surveillance of employees, providing examining physicians with specific information, ensuring that employees receive a copy of their medical-surveillance results, maintaining employees' exposure-monitoring and medical-surveillance records for specific periods, and providing access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the employee who is the subject of the records, the employee's representative, and other designated parties.

OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements in the Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information-collection requirement.

Title: Benzene Standard (29 CFR 1910.1028).

OMB Number: 1218-0129.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 13,498.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Responses: 265,428.

Average Time Per Response: Time per response ranges from 5 minutes to maintain records to 2 hours to complete a referral medical examination.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 125,195.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $8,179,933.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).