The purpose of the meeting is to elect officers, recommend opening dates and selling schedules, and discuss other related issues for the 2003-2004 burley tobacco marketing season.

The meeting is open to the public. Persons, other than members, who wish to address the Committee at the meeting should contact John P. Duncan III, Deputy Administrator, Tobacco Programs, AMS, USDA, STOP 0280, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0280, prior to the meeting. Written statements may be submitted to the Committee before, at or after the meeting. If you need any accommodations to participate in the meeting, please contact the Tobacco Programs at (202) 205-0567 by October 1, 2003, and inform us of your needs.

The Federal Government's patent rights in this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Aerotech Laboratories, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license.

The prospective license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective license may be granted unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published notice, the Forest Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

At the September 25 meeting the RAC will receive an update of how the fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 projects are progressing, discuss replacement RAC members and re-chartering of the RAC, allocate remaining fiscal year 2004 dollars to existing projects, and review project issues. A public comment period will be provided at 1:15 p.m. and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that RUS is submitting to OMB for extension.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1522. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

Title: 7 CFR 1779, Water and Waste Disposal Programs Guaranteed Loans.

OMB Number: 0572-0122.

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

Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service is authorized by section 306 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926) to make loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, and Indian tribes for the development of water and waste disposal facilities primarily servicing rural residents. The guaranteed loan program encourages lender participation and provides specific guidance in the processing and servicing of guaranteed loans. The regulations governing the Water and Waste Disposal Guaranteed Loan program are codified at 7 CFR 1779. The required information, in the form of written documentation and Agency approved forms, is collected from applicants/borrowers, their lenders, and consultants. The collected information will be used to determine applicant/borrower eligibility, project feasibility, and to ensure borrowers operate on a sound basis and use loan funds for authorized purposes. Failure to collect proper information could result in improper determinations of eligibility, improper use of funds, and/or unsound loans.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 7.8 hours per response.

Respondents: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local or tribal government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 7.3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 858 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Michele Brooks, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 690-1078. FAX: (202) 720-4120.

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

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments of the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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

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

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

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

On July 11, and July 18, 2003, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (68 FR 41297, and 42684) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This review covers the exporter Liyang Skyblue Chemical Co., Ltd. (Liyang).

On March 10, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (68 FR 11371) (Preliminary Results). On April 9, 2003, Liyang requested a public hearing, but withdrew that request on May 7, 2003. Liyang submitted additional surrogate value data on April 14, 2003. We received case briefs from the petitioner, Buffalo Color Corporation, and Liyang on April 25, 2003. We received rebuttal briefs from these parties on April 30, 2003. The Department placed additional information on the record on May 19, 2003, and both the petitioner and Liyang submitted comments on this information on May 29, 2003. On July 7, 2003, the Department placed on the record import statistics from various countries relevant to certain surrogate values. On July 10, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register the postponement of the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on synthetic indigo from the PRC (68 FR 41113). Liyang submitted comments on the Department's July 7, 2003, import statistic data. Liyang submitted additional comments in an August 14, 2003, letter. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The products subject to this order are the deep blue synthetic vat dye known as synthetic indigo and those of its derivatives designated commercially as “Vat Blue 1.” Included are Vat Blue 1 (synthetic indigo), Color Index No. 73000, and its derivatives, pre-reduced indigo or indigo white ( Color Index No. 73001) and solubilized indigo (Color Index No. 73002). The subject merchandise may be sold in any form (e.g., powder, granular, paste, liquid, or solution) and in any strength. Synthetic indigo and its derivatives subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 3204.15.10.00, 3204.15.40.00 or 3204.15.80.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under the order is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) covers the period June 1, 2001, through May 31, 2002.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated September 5, 2003, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Based on our analysis of comments received and a review of the available information on the record, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations, including:

• We corrected the valuation of the “auxiliary agent” and the “wetting agent,” which Liyang obtained from market economy sources and paid for in market economy currencies, by converting the per-kilogram prices for these inputs to per-metric ton prices for purposes of calculating Liyang's normal value.

• We revised the valuation of solid potassium hydroxide to rely on the average of the Chemical Weekly POR average price and the Indian import weighted-average value during the POR for this chemical.

• We corrected the valuation of liquid potassium hydroxide by adjusting the surrogate value for solid potassium hydroxide to reflect the concentration of the liquid input consumed by Liyang.

• We revised the valuation of liquid sodium hydroxide, also known as lye, to rely on the average of the Chemical Weekly POR average price and Indian import POR average value for this chemical, adjusted for the concentration consumed by Liyang. To calculate the Indian import portion of the value, we excluded imports from countries on which India has issued an antidumping duty order.

• We revised the valuation of solid sodium hydroxide, which was based on the average of the Chemical Weekly POR average price and the Indian import POR average value, to exclude imports of liquid sodium hydroxide and imports from countries on which India has issued an antidumping duty order from the import value portion of the calculation

• We revised the surrogate value for inland freight to apply the average of the Indian freight rate information derived from the February through May 2002 editions of Chemical Weekly.

• We revised the valuation of international freight to rely on the arrival notices submitted by Liyang.

• We revised the valuation of the foreign brokerage and handling expense to include an amount for terminal handling charges, which were considered part of the surrogate ocean freight value applied in the preliminary results.

• We revised the valuation of marine insurance to apply the surrogate value rate on a percentage basis, rather than a per-unit basis.

For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” section of the Decision Memo, the Decision Memo comments, and the September 5, 2003, Final Results Valuation Memorandum.

We determine that the following margin percentage exists:

The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping margins calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to BCBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. For entries of the subject merchandise during the POR from companies not subject to this review, we will instruct the BCBP to liquidate them at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.

The cash deposit rate for all shipments by Liyang of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, will be the rate of 4.60 percent, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act. The cash deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding for which there was no request for administrative review will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding. The cash deposit rate for the PRC NME entity will continue to be 129.60 percent, and the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will continue to be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulation and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213.

NMFS and the Council published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS evaluating rebuilding plans for overfished groundfish at 67 FR 18576 on April 16, 2002. Rebuilding measures apply to groundfish species that have been declared overfished by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and these measures must be consistent with the provisions of Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At that time, NMFS and the Council planned to prepare a single EIS evaluating both the framework for adopting rebuilding plans and the adopted rebuilding plans themselves. A subsequent notice of intent, published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2003, (68 FR 12888) announced that separate analyses would be prepared: an environmental assessment (EA) for the framework portion of the action and one or more EISs for the rebuilding plans themselves. This approach facilitates rebuilding plan adoption for two reasons. First, the framework, which establishes procedures and standards, was not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the human environment. Therefore, the proposed action could be evaluated in an EA. Completing Council decision-making on this framework would provide greater certitude about the process and standards to be subsequently used in adopting rebuilding plans. Second, not all the scientific analyses needed to prepare rebuilding plans were completed simultaneously. Rather than waiting and delaying adoption of rebuilding plans, several amendments were planned based on the availability of stock assessments and scientific analyses. The framework is established in Amendment 16-1, which is currently under Secretarial review published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2003, at (68 FR 49415). The Council prepared an EIS for Amendment 16-2, that adopts rebuilding plans for four species: canary rockfish (Sebastes pinniger), darkblotched rockfish (S. crameri), Pacific ocean perch (S. alutus), and lingcod (Ophidon elongatus). The Amendment 16-2 draft EIS (DEIS) is scheduled to be available for a 45-day public comment period beginning on September 19, 2003.

Amendment 16-3 will adopt rebuilding plans for four overfished groundfish species: cowcod (Sebastes levis), bocaccio (S. paucispinis), widow rockfish (S. entomelas), and yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus). The rebuilding plan for Pacific whiting (Merluccius productus), the final groundfish species to be declared overfished to date, will be adopted in a subsequent FMP amendment.

According to the rebuilding plan framework, certain elements of rebuilding plans must be incorporated into the Groundfish FMP and Federal groundfish regulations. These include strategic rebuilding parameters, which are subject to policy decisions made by the Council. These parameters reflect the tradeoff between rebuilding the stock in as short a time period as possible and the needs of fishing communities and the interaction of the stock with the marine ecosystem. Rebuilding means returning a fish stock to a size and structure capable of supporting maximum sustainable yield (or the highest level of harvest that can occur on a continuing basis). There are three such strategic rebuilding parameters. The first is the harvest control rule, which expresses a given fishing mortality rate over the course of rebuilding the stock. The second is, for a given fishing mortality rate, the probability that the stock will be rebuilt in the maximum time period allowed under National Standard 1 guidelines (50 CFR 600.310(e)(4)(ii)), or the “rebuilding probability.” The third is a “target year,” which is defined as the year in which there is a 50 percent likelihood that the stock will have been rebuilt, for a given fishing mortality rate. For any given fishing mortality rate, there is a unique value for the rebuilding probability and the related target year. However, in developing their strategy, policymakers can choose any one of the three strategic parameters, recognizing that choosing one parameter will determine the value of the other two parameters.

The alternatives in the Amendment 16-2 EIS present the choice of rebuilding strategies in terms of rebuilding probabilities for each of the overfished species. It is likely that the alternatives in Amendment 16-3 will be similarly structured. Once the strategic parameters are chosen, they will be used to determine annual harvest levels, or optimum yield (OY) values for overfished species. A rebuilding strategy also includes the management measures necessary to constrain fishing mortality to the OY. However, new management measures will not be incorporated into the FMP through Amendment 16-3. Instead, existing management measures, which are part of the Groundfish FMP management framework, will be used to manage total fishing mortality. These measures are implemented periodically, through a harvest specification process. (To date, this harvest specification process has occurred annually. Beginning in 2005, it will switch to a biennial cycle.) This approach is considered more adaptive, because management measures can be regularly adjusted in response to new information about the status of stocks.

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

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under Section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

The term “Level A harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(i). The term “Level B harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

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

On April 21, 2003, NMFS received an application from LDEO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey program within the Storegga slide area off the west coast of Norway, in the Norwegian Sea, between 8oW and 7oE and between 62 and 68oN, during late August and September 2003. The Storegga slide was produced by colossal slope failures on the Norwegian continental margin in the late Quarternary period. The purpose of this survey is to determine whether submarine landslides can release methane from hydrate into the oceans and/or atmosphere. More specifically, the survey of the Storegga slide seeks to discover: (1) How much hydrate and free gas is present in the Storegga region and how it is distributed, (2) if methane escaped from the slide, and if so, how much, when and by what mechanisms, and (3) if hydrate dissociation promotes and/or localizes submarine landslides. A coordinated seismic and coring study of the Storegga slide is proposed to obtain information on these subjects (the coring portion of the project will be completed in 2004). This study will help explain whether methane in gas hydrate reservoirs is mobile and can affect the earth's climate.

The seismic survey will involve a single vessel, the R/V Maurice Ewing, which will conduct the seismic work. The Maurice Ewing will deploy an array of airguns as an energy source, plus a 6-km (3.2-nm) towed streamer containing hydrophones to receive the returning acoustic signals.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by LDEO scientists, with the participation of scientists from the University of Wyoming. Water depths within the Storegga slide survey area will range from approximately 100 to 5,000 m (330 to 16,405 ft). The Maurice Ewing will initially deploy a 2-General Injector (GI) gun array for several survey lines, and then a 6-airgun array will be employed for several survey lines. Whichever array produces better data will be used for the rest of the cruise. The project will consist of 3,109 km (1,678 n.mi) of survey lines, of which approximately 2,596 km (1,402 n.mi) will be conducted in water depths greater than 1,000 m (3,280 ft), 504 km (272 n.mi) will be surveyed in depths 100-1000 m (330-3,280 ft), and 9 km (4.9 n.mi) will be surveyed in water less than 100 m (330 ft) deep. There will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard.

The procedures to be used for the 2003 seismic survey will be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by LDEO, e.g., in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Carbotte et al., 1998, 2000). The proposed program will use conventional seismic methodology with a towed airgun array as the energy source and a towed streamer containing hydrophones as the receiver system. The energy to the airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. In addition, a multi-beam bathymetric sonar will be operated from the source vessel continuously throughout the entire cruise, and a lower-energy sub-bottom profiler will also be operated during most of the survey. Seismic surveys will likely commence on August 28, 2003, and continue until September 25, 2003, for a total of 29 days of seismic surveying.

The R/V Maurice Ewing will be used as the source vessel. It will tow the airgun array (either the 2-GI gun or 6-gun array) and a streamer containing hydrophones along predetermined lines. The vessel will travel at 4-5 knots (7.4-9.3 km/hr), and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of approximately 20 seconds. The 20-sec spacing corresponds to a shot interval of about 50 m (164 ft). The 6-gun array will include six 2000 psi 1500C Bolt airguns ranging in chamber volume from 80 to 500 in3, with a total volume of 1,350 in3. These airguns will be spaced in an approximate rectangle with dimensions 12 m (39.4 ft)(across track) by 10 m (32.8 ft)(along track). The two 105 in3 GI guns will be towed 7.8 m (25.6 ft) apart side by side and 37 m (121.4 ft) behind the vessel, with a total volume of 210 in3.

The dominant frequency components for both airgun arrays is 0 - 188 Hz. The 2-airgun array will have a peak sound source level of 237 dB re 1 μPa or 243 dB peak-to-peak (P-P). The 6-airgun array will have a peak sound source level of 243 dB re 1 μPa or 250 dB P-P. These are the nominal source levels for the sound directed downward, and represent the theoretical source level close to a single point source emitting the same sound as that emitted by the array of 2 or 6 sources. Because the actual source is a distributed sound source (2 or 6 guns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level. Also, because of the downward directional nature of the sound from these airgun arrays, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions will be substantially lower.

Along with the airgun operations, two additional acoustical data acquisition systems will be operated during most or all of the cruise. The ocean floor will be mapped with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multi-beam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler will also be operated along with the multi-beam sonar. These mid-frequency sound sources are commonly operated from the Maurice Ewing simultaneous with the airgun array.

The Atlas Hydrosweep is mounted in the hull of the R/V Maurice Ewing, and it operates in three modes, depending on the water depth. The first mode is when water depth is <400 m (1312.3 ft). The source output is 210 dB re 1 Pa-m rms and a single 1-millisec pulse or “ping” per second is transmitted, with a beamwidth of 2.67 degrees fore-aft and 90 degrees in beamwidth. The beamwidth is measured to the 3 dB point, as is usually quoted for sonars. The other two modes are deep-water modes: The Omni mode is identical to the shallow-water mode except that the source output is 220 dB rms. The Omni mode is normally used only during start up. The Rotational Directional Transmission (RDT) mode is normally used during deep-water operation and has a 237 dB rms source output. In the RDT mode, each “ping” consists of five successive transmissions, each ensonifying a beam that extends 2.67 degrees fore-aft and approximately 30 degrees in the cross-track direction. The five successive transmissions (segments) sweep from port to starboard with minor overlap, spanning an overall cross-track angular extent of about 140 degrees, with tiny (<1 millisec) gaps between the pulses for successive 30-degree segments. The total duration of the “ping”, including all 5 successive segments, varies with water depth but is 1 millisec in water depths <500 m (1640.4 ft) and 10 millisec in the deepest water.

The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the Hydrosweep. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5-kHz transducer mounted in the hull of the Maurice Ewing. The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. Sounds from the sub-bottom profiler are very short pulses, occurring for 1, 2 or 4 msec once every second. Pulse interval is 1 second but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5-s pause. Most of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by this multi-beam sonar is at mid-frequencies, centered at 3.5 kHz. The beamwidth is approximately 30° and is directed downward.

Sound levels have not been measured for the sub-bottom profiler used by the Maurice Ewing, but Burgess and Lawson (2000) measured the sounds propagating more or less horizontally from a similar unit with similar source output (205 dB re 1 μPa-m). The 160 and 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) radii, in the horizontal direction, were estimated to be near 20 m (66 ft) and 8 m (26 ft), respectively, from the source, as measured in 13 m (43 ft) water depth. The corresponding distances for an animal in the beam below the transducer would be greater, on the order of 180 m (591 ft) and 18 m (59 ft), assuming spherical spreading.

The sub-bottom profiler on the Maurice Ewing has a maximum source level of 204 dB re 1 μPa-m. Thus the received level would be expected to decrease to 160 and 180 dB at about 160 m (525 ft) and 16 m (52 ft) below the transducer, respectively (assuming spherical spreading). Corresponding distances in the horizontal plane would be lower, given the directionality of this source (30o beamwidth) and the measurements of Burgess and Lawson (2000). Additional information on the airgun arrays, Atlas Hydrosweep, and sub-bottom profiler specifications is contained in the application, which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

An earlier notice of an LDEO application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 17909). That notice described, in detail, the characteristics of the Ewing's acoustic sources and, in general, the anticipated effects on marine mammals including masking, disturbance, and potential hearing impairment and other physical effects. In addition, another notice of receipt of an LDEO application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2003 (68 FR 44291). That notice described in detail the proposed activity and the marine mammal species that may be affected by it. That information is not repeated here. During the 30-day public comment period, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).

Comment 1: The Commission believes that NMFS preliminary determinations are reasonable, provided NMFS is satisfied that the proposed mitigation and monitoring activities are adequate to detect marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed operations and ensure that marine mammals are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers. In this regard, NMFS Federal Register notice and the application state that [v]essel-based observers will monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime startups of the airguns;” and that bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during nighttime activities but that “[o]bservers will not be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night. The Federal Register notice states that image-intensifier night-vision devices (NFDs) will be available for use at night, although past experience has shown that NFDs are of limited value for this purpose.” Thus it is unclear that, for nighttime activities, the monitoring effort will be sufficient to determine that no marine mammals are within the safety zones at start-up or will be an effective means of detecting when marine mammals enter the safety zones during operations such that activities are suspended before received levels of 180 and 190 dB (rms) are reached.

Response: As part of the IHA, NMFS is requiring that if the airguns are started up at night, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals within the safety radii for 30 minutes prior to start up using night vision devices as described later (see Monitoring and Reporting). Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter designated safety zones, and operations will not resume until the animal is outside the safety radius. Once the safety zone is clear of marine mammals, the observer will advise that seismic surveys can re-commence. The “ramp-up” procedure will then be followed. Because the sizes of the two airgun arrays to be used are small, the safety zones are relatively small, and there are no “power-down” procedures, ramp-up may not commence unless the entire safety radii is visible for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up in either daylight or nighttime. The combination of the two conditions ensures, to the greatest extent practicable, that no mammals will be within the appropriate safety zones whenever the airguns are turned on, either in daylight or nighttime.

However, it is noted that at times, pinnipeds and even some small cetaceans will approach a vessel during transmissions (the vessel itself moving forward at about 3-5 knots) from the side of the vessel or the stern, meaning that the animal is voluntarily approaching a noise source that is increasing in strength as the animal gets closer. Experience indicates that pinnipeds will come from great distances to scrutinize seismic-reflection operations. Seals have been observed swimming within airgun bubbles only 10 m (33 ft) away from active arrays. Also, Canadian scientists, who were using a high-frequency seismic system that produced sound frequencies closer to pinniped hearing than those used by the Ewing, describe how seals frequently approached close to the seismic source, presumably out of curiosity. Therefore, because at least pinnipeds indicated no adverse behavioral reaction to seismic noise, NMFS has concluded that the above-mentioned mitigation requirement is reasonable because the bridge-watch will be concentrating on marine mammals approaching the vessel from the bow. Also, the night-vision ability of the trained bridge-watch staff will be better than observers elsewhere on the vessel where normal ship-board lighting is more likely. Finally, an observer is still required to be on standby, meaning he or she will be in the vicinity of the bridge and is not precluded from conducting observations during night-time.

Comment 2: The Commission notes that there is no discussion on why nighttime operations are considered necessary.

Response: The daily cost to the Federal government to operate the Ewing is approximately $33,000-$35,000/day (Ljunngren, pers. comm. May 28, 2003), or approximately $1,050,000 for this 30-day research cruise. If the Ewing is prohibited from operating during nighttime, the 30-day trip would require an additional 3-5 days, or up to $105,000-175,000 more, depending upon average daylight at the time of the work.

Therefore, because NMFS has determined that the safety zone must be visible during ramp-up, and because once the Ewing is underway and ramp-up completed, mammals will have sufficient notice of a vessel approaching (at least one hour) to avoid the approaching array if the sounds are annoying, NMFS determined that it is neither practical nor necessary to limit seismic operations to daylight hours since marine mammals are unlikely to be injured.

Comment 3: The Commission notes that it is unclear whether vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring will be conducted as an adjunct to visual monitoring during daytime and particularly during nighttime operations to detect, locate, and identify marine mammals, and, if not, why not.

Response: The passive acoustical monitoring equipment that was used onboard the Ewing during the 2003 Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS), is not the property of LDEO or the Ewing, and therefore is not available for the Norwegian Sea cruise. LDEO is presently evaluating the scientific results of the passive sonar from the SWSS trip to determine whether it is practical to incorporate it into future seismic research cruises. NMFS expects a report on this analysis shortly.

Comment 4: The Commission asks whether conducting monitoring for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations during the day and at night is sufficient, particularly for detecting the presence of species that make long dives.

Response: NMFS believes it is unnecessary to lengthen this period considering that the ramp-up period will increase SPLs at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5-minutes for a total ramp-up duration of approximately 14 min for the 6 gun array. Also, while some whale species may dive for up to 45 minutes, it is unlikely that the ship's bridge watch would miss a large whale surfacing from its previous dive if it is within a mile or two of the vessel.

Comment 5: The Commission notes that there are several species of beaked whales in the Norwegian Sea, and states that “although the link between the Gulf of California strandings and the seismic (plus multi-beam sonar) survey is inconclusive, this....suggests a need for caution in conducting seismic surveys in areas occupied by beaked whales.” The Service's Federal Register notice, however, makes no reference to or requirement for any additional caution with respect to beaked whales.

Response: While NMFS shares the Commission's concern regarding the possible relationship between low-frequency seismic survey transmissions and the beaked whale strandings in the Gulf of California, NMFS believes that additional factors probably also influence whether beaked whales will be affected in ways other than possibly vacating the immediate vicinity of the noise similar to other marine mammal species. For example, beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico have been exposed to seismic noise for several decades but mass stranding events similar to the 2000 event in the Bahamas do not appear in the stranding record. However, NMFS welcomes recommendations regarding additional practical mitigation measures to protect beaked whales from anthropogenic sounds. A notice of receipt of an LDEO application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2003 (68 FR 44291).

For the seismic operations in the Storegga slide area, LDEO will use 2 GI guns with a total volume of 210 in3 and/or a 6-gun array with a total volume of 1350 in3. The airguns comprising these arrays will be spread out horizontally, so that the energy from the arrays will be directed mostly downward. The directional nature of the airgun arrays to be used in this project is an important mitigating factor, resulting in lower sound levels at any given horizontal distance than would be expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source (2 or 6 guns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level.

Modeled results for the 2- and 6-gun arrays indicate received levels to the 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) isopleth (the level for the potential for Level A harassment applicable to cetaceans) were estimated as 50 and 220 m (164 and 722 ft), respectively. The radii around the 2- and 6-gun arrays where the received level would be 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), (the level for the potential for Level A harassment applicable to pinnipeds), were estimated as 15 and 50 m (49 and 164 ft), respectively. A calibration study was conducted prior this survey to determine the actual radii corresponding to each sound level. These actual radii will be implemented for this study. Until then, or if those measurements appear defective, LDEO will use a precautionary 1.5 times the 180-dB (cetaceans) and 190-dB (pinnipeds) radii predicted by the model as the safety radii. Under those circumstances, the safety radii for cetaceans are 75 and 330 m (246 and 1,083 ft), respectively, for the 2-GI gun and 6-gun arrays, and the proposed safety radii for pinnipeds are 23 and 75 m (75 and 246 ft), respectively.

Vessel-based observers will monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel during daylight and for at least 30 minutes prior to start up during darkness throughout the program. Airgun operations will be suspended immediately when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety zones. The shutdown procedure should be accomplished within several seconds or a single seismic ping of the determination that a marine mammal is within or about to enter the safety zone.

Vessel-based observers will monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel during daylight and for 30 minutes prior to start up during darkness throughout the program. The same procedures for shut-down will be followed in the case that marine mammals are seen within, or about to enter, designated safety zones.

A standard “ramp-up” (soft start) procedure will be followed when the airgun arrays begin operating after a period without any airgun operations as specified in this paragraph. From shut-down, ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the 6-gun array (80 in3), and guns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of approximately 14 min. Under normal operational conditions (vessel speed 4-5 knots), a ramp-up will be required after a “no shooting” period lasting 2 minutes or longer. At 4 knots, the source vessel would travel 247 m (810 ft) during a 2-minute period. If the towing speed is reduced to 3 knots or less, as sometimes required when maneuvering in shallow water, ramp-up will be required after a “no shooting” period lasting 3 minutes or longer. At towing speeds not exceeding 3 knots, the source vessel would travel no more than 277 m (909 ft) in 3 minutes. These guidelines would require modification if the normal shot interval were more than 2 or 3 min, but that is not expected to occur during the Storegga slide cruise. During the ramp-up procedures, the safety zone for the full gun array will be maintained. Ramp-up will not occur for the 2-GI gun array, since the total air discharge volume for this array is small (210 in3).

If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius and, based on its position and relative motion, is likely to enter the safety radius, alternative ship tracks will be plotted against anticipated mammal locations. The vessel's direct course and/or speed will be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shutdown of the airguns. The Ewing is required to adopt this mitigation measure during the Norwegian Sea seismic survey program provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements.

LDEO will conduct marine mammal monitoring during its seismic program in the Norwegian Sea in order to verify that the taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting the seismic survey will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and to ensure that these harassment takings are at the lowest level practicable. Up to three vessel-based observers will be stationed on the R/V Maurice Ewing during seismic operations in the Storegga slide area. Vessel-based observers will monitor for marine mammals near the seismic source vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to and during all daylight ramp-up and airgun operations, and for at least 30 minutes before and during any nighttime startups of the airguns. At least one experienced marine mammal observer will be on duty aboard the seismic vessel, as well as a fisheries expert (as likely required by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (2003)) and possibly one qualified contract biologist. Observers (appointed by LDEO) will complete a training/refresher course on marine mammal monitoring procedures, given by a contract employee experienced in vessel-based seismic monitoring projects. The Ewing is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. The observer's eye level will be approximately 11 m (36 ft) above sea level when stationed on the bridge (the highest practical vantage point on the vessel), allowing for good visibility within a 210° arc for each observer. Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated safety zones. The observer(s) will continue to maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the safety radius. Airgun operations will not resume until the animal is outside the safety radius. Once the safety zone is clear of marine mammals, the observer will advise that seismic surveys can re-commence. The “ramp-up” procedure will then be followed.

Observers will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. Use of two simultaneous observers whenever possible will decrease the potential that marine mammals near the source vessel will be missed. Bridge personnel will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements, and before the start of the seismic survey will be given proper instruction for observing and reporting marine mammals and sea turtles.

Observers will not normally be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this period and will immediately call for the airguns to be shut-down or powered-down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. A marine mammal observer will be on “standby” at night, in case bridge personnel see a marine mammal. If the airguns are started up at night, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals near the source vessel for 30 minutes prior to start up using night-vision devices. An image-intensifier night-vision device (NVD) will be available for use at night, although NMFS notes that past experience has shown that NVDs are of limited value for this purpose. If the complete safety radii are not visible for at least 30 minutes prior to ramp-up in either daylight or nighttime, ramp-up may not commence unless the seismic source has maintained an SPL of at least 180 dB during the interruption of seismic survey operations.

The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with 7 X 50 Fujinon reticle binoculars or with the naked eye during the daytime. At night, night vision equipment will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Bushnell Lytespeed 800 laser rangefinder with 4 optics or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation.

The vessel-based monitoring will provide data required to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels, to document any apparent disturbance reactions, and thus to estimate the numbers of mammals potentially taken by Level B harassment. It will also provide the information needed in order to shut down the airguns at times when mammals are present in or near the safety zones. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide (1) the basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power-down); (2) information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS; (3) data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted; (4) information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and (5) data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals seen at times with and without seismic activity.

When a marine mammal sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded: (1) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace; and (2) time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (shooting or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

All mammal observations and airgun shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a laptop computer when observers are off-duty. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other programs for further processing and archiving.

A draft report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic program in the Storegga slide area. The end of the Storegga slide program is predicted to occur on or about September 25, 2003. The report will cover the seismic surveys in the Storegga slide area and will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, sound measurement data, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. The draft report will be considered the final report unless comments and suggestions are provided by NMFS within 60 days of its receipt of the draft report.

As described previously (see 68 FR 17909, April 14, 2003) and in the LDEO application, animals subjected to sound levels ≥160 dB may alter their behavior or distribution, and therefore might be considered to be taken by Level B harassment.

Based on summer marine mammal density survey data collected by Sigurjonsson and Gunnlaugsson (1989), LDEO used its best estimate of density to compute a best estimate of the number of marine mammals that may be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) (NMFS' current criterion for onset of Level B harassment), except for bottlenose whales. Northern bottlenose whales are migratory and most leave the proposed seismic survey area before the end of June (Benjaminsen 1972; Sigurjonsson and Gunnlaugsson 1990). Therefore, only a few, if any, bottlenose whales may be seen during the seismic survey in the study area during late August to September. For bottlenose whales, LDEO used 0.10x the observed average or maximum density to calculate the numbers that might be exposed to seismic sounds, but even this reduced number is likely a high estimate. For all other species, the average densities were then multiplied by the proposed survey effort (3109 km or 1678 n.mi) and twice the 160-dB safety radius around the 6-gun array to estimate the “best estimate” of the numbers of animals that might be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) during the proposed seismic survey program.

The estimates of takes by harassment are based on the number of marine mammals that might be found within the 160 dB isopleth radius and potentially disturbed by operations with the 6-airgun array planned for the project. If the 2-GI gun array is used for all or part of the survey, the numbers of marine mammals that might be affected by the proposed seismic survey would be lower than the estimates described below. The 160-dB radius for the 2-GI gun array is 520 m (1706 ft) or 19 percent of that of the 6-gun array. If only the 2-GI gun array is used, the numbers of animals that would encounter airgun sounds ≥160 dB re 1 (rms) would be about one-fifth of the number if only the 6-gun array were used.

Based on this method, Table 3 in LDEO (2003) gives the best estimates of densities for each species or species group of marine mammal that might be exposed to received levels >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and thus potentially taken by Level B harassment, during seismic surveys in the proposed study area of the Norwegian Sea. Of these, 86 animals would be endangered species, primarily fin (42), humpback (22), and sperm whales (18). Delphinidae would account for 75 percent of the overall estimate for potential taking by harassment, with white-beaked dolphins (298) believed to account for about 90 percent of all delphinids in the area of the proposed seismic survey, and with killer whales (137) and long-finned pilot whales (302) accounting for most of the remaining 10 percent.

Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 6 to 8 km (3.2 to 4.3 nm) and occasionally as far as 20-30 km (10.8-16.2 nm) from the source vessel. Some bowhead whales avoided waters within 30 km (16.2 nm) of the seismic operation. However, reactions at such long distances appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes, and even for bowheads may only apply during migration.

Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least those of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than are those of mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels. In fact, there are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.

Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” In the cases of mysticetes, these reactions are expected to involve small numbers of individual cetaceans because few mysticetes occur in the area where seismic surveys are proposed. LDEO's best estimate is that 42 fin whales, or 0.5 percent of the estimated fin whale population in and adjacent to the study area, will be exposed to sound levels >160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and potentially affected. Similarly, 22 humpback whales, or 0.8 percent, and 18 sperm whales, or 0.2 percent of their populations that occur in and adjacent to the proposed survey area, would receive seismic sounds >160 dB. Numbers and impact would be even smaller if the 2-GI gun array is used for a substantial fraction of the survey project.

Larger absolute numbers of odontocetes may be affected by the proposed activities, but the population sizes of the main species are large and the numbers potentially affected are small relative to the population sizes. The best estimate of the total number of odontocetes that might be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the proposed survey area in the Norwegian Sea is 878. Of these, 770 are Delphinidae, and of these about 200 might be exposed to ≥170 dB. These figures are <0.1 percent of the populations of these combined species that occur in the Northeast Atlantic. These potential takings of small numbers of marine mammals by short-term Level B harassment will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of cetaceans.

Very few if any pinnipeds are expected to be encountered during the proposed seismic survey in the Norwegian Sea. A maximum of 70 pinnipeds in the Storegga slide area may be affected by the proposed seismic surveys. If pinnipeds are encountered, the proposed seismic activities would have, at most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on individual seals or their populations. Responses of pinnipeds to acoustic disturbance are variable, but usually quite limited. Effects are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. These effects would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of pinnipeds.

Based on the information contained in the LDEO application, the NSF EA, the July 28, 2003, proposed authorization notice (68 FR 44291) and this document, NMFS has determined that conducting a seismic survey by the Ewing at the Storegga Slide in the Norwegian Sea in the fall of 2003 by LDEO would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses. This activity will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by affected species of marine mammals. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of seismic survey activities, this behavioral change is expected to result n no more than a negligible impact on the affected species. Also, while the number of actual incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required under the IHA. For these reasons therefore, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

NMFS has concluded consultation under section 7 of the ESA on NMFS' issuance of an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an oceanographic seismic survey in the Norwegian Sea by LDEO. The consultation concluded with a biological opinion that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of marine species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the equatorial Pacific Ocean; therefore, none will be affected. A conservation recommendation was made to ensure that the safety zone is clear of sea turtles prior to ramp up. This recommendation has been implemented through the IHA to LDEO. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

On May 1, 2003, the NSF made a determination, based on information contained within its EA that implementation of the subject action is not a major Federal action having significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Executive Order 12114. NSF determined therefore, that an environmental impact statement would not be prepared. On July 28, 2003 (68 FR 44291), NMFS noted that the NSF had prepared an EA for the Norwegian Sea survey and that this EA was available upon request. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS has reviewed the information contained in NSF's EA and determined that the NSF EA accurately and completely describes the proposed action alternative, reasonable additional alternatives, and the potential impacts on marine mammals, endangered species, and other marine life that could be impacted by the preferred alternative and the other alternatives. As a result, NMFS has determined that it is not necessary to issue either a new EA, supplemental EA or an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to LDEO for this activity. Therefore, based on this review and analysis, NMFS is adopting the NSF EA under 40 CFR 1506.3. A copy of the NSF EA for this activity is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

NMFS has issued an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a seismic survey by the Ewing at the Storegga Slide in the Norwegian Sea to LDEO for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this document and the IHA are undertaken.

The subject modification to Permit No. 1429, issued on June 26, 2003 (68 FR 38011) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

Permit No. 1429 authorizes the permit holder to take loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles to conduct sea turtle bycatch reduction research in the pelagic longline fishery of the western north Atlantic Ocean. Captured turtles are measured, flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, photographed and tissue sampled. Forty-five loggerheads are also being outfitted with a conventional satellite or a pop-up archival transmitting tag using the lanyard attachment method. The permit holder requests authorization to attach conventional satellite or pop-up archival transmitting tags to 15 leatherback sea turtles. The permit holder will use a hoist to bring the turtles on deck. The tags would be attached to the peduncle of each animal by lanyard and would provide information on the movements and post hooking survival of this species. This permit modification will be valid through the date of expiration of the permit on December 31, 2003.

This collection of information is required by the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a United Nations Treaty that was signed on June 19, 1970, by the 20 member states of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property, including the United States. The PCT became operational in June 1978 and is administered by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, Switzerland. The provisions of the PCT have been implemented by the United States in Part IV of Title 35 of the U.S. Code and Subpart C of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The purpose of the PCT is to simplify the filing of patent applications for the same invention in different countries. The PCT provides a standardized filing format and procedure that allows an applicant to file one international application in one location, in one language, and pay one initial set of fees. The international application receives an international filing date (priority date) that serves as the actual filing date for the designated countries.

The information in this collection is used by the public to submit a patent application under the PCT and by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to fulfill its obligation to process, search, and examine the application as directed by the treaty. The USPTO acts as the United States Receiving Office (RO/US) for international applications filed by residents and nationals of the United States. These applicants send most of their correspondence directly to the USPTO, but they may also file certain documents directly with the IB. The USPTO also serves as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA).

This collection currently includes 10 paper forms to assist the public with providing the required information for filing PCT applications and related documents. One additional form, Transmittal Letter to the United States Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US) Concerning a Filing Under 35 U.S.C. 371 (PTO-1390), is being added to the collection. Some of the items in this collection do not have any associated forms. The submission of biosequence listings and related tables for associated PCT applications is covered under the separate information collection 0651-0024 Requirements for Patent Applications Containing Nucleotide Sequence and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures. The PCT also permits electronic filing of international applications, as long as the confidentiality requirements are met. The USPTO does not currently accept electronic submissions for international applications, but an electronic application system that will be fully compliant with the PCT specifications for electronic filing is under development.

This collection was previously approved by OMB in December 2000 with terms of clearance instructing the USPTO to report the filing fees for this collection as part of its annual (non-hour) cost burden. In April 2001, OMB approved a change worksheet to add annual (non-hour) cost burden to this collection in the form of filing fees. OMB also approved another change worksheet in April 2001 to decrease the annual responses and burden hours for two requirements, Descriptions/claims/drawings/abstracts and Notices Effecting Later Elections (PCT/IB/328), in order to reflect the total burden for this collection more accurately.

In August 2001, OMB approved a change worksheet that moved the burden for two forms, Petition for Revival of an International Application for Patent Designating the U.S. Abandoned Unavoidably Under 37 CFR 1.137(a) (PTO/SB/61/PCT) and Petition for Revival of an International Application for Patent Designating the U.S. Abandoned Unintentionally Under 37 CFR 1.137(b) (PTO/SB/64/PCT), into this collection from collection 0651-0031 Patent Processing (Updating). The Application Data Sheet, which was already an approved requirement in collection 0651-0032 Initial Patent Application, was also added to 0651-0021 due to a rule change permitting some PCT applications to include an Application Data Sheet. In April 2003, OMB corrected the total annual (non-hour) cost figure listed for this collection in the USPTO's inventory so that the annualized costs would be listed properly in thousands of dollars.

By mail or hand delivery to the USPTO. Some communications related to PCT applications may also be submitted to the USPTO by facsimile.

OMB Number: 0651-0021.

Form Number(s): PCT RO/101/134/144, PTO-1382, PTO-1390, PCT/IPEA/401, PCT/IB/328, PTO/SB/61/PCT, PTO/SB/64/PCT, PCT/Model of power of attorney, PCT/Model of general power of attorney.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; businesses or other for-profits; not-for-profit institutions; farms; the Federal Government; and State, local, or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 379,065 responses per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take the public from 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to 8 hours to gather the necessary information; prepare the appropriate form, petition, or other request; and submit the information to the USPTO.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 367,842 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $92,696,184 per year. The USPTO expects that the information in this collection will be prepared by attorneys. Using the professional rate of $252 per hour for associate attorneys in private firms, the USPTO estimates that the respondent cost burden for submitting the information in this collection will be $92,696,184 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-hour Respondent Cost Burden: $149,320,674 per year. There are no capital start-up costs, maintenance costs, or recordkeeping costs associated with this information collection. However, this collection does have annual (non-hour) costs in the form of translation costs, filing fees, and postage costs.

Under the terms of the PCT, the USPTO may require documents submitted for a PCT application to be translated into English when necessary. This requirement carries additional costs for the party to contract for a translation of the documents in question. Depending on the particular circumstances, the documents to be translated can vary greatly in size. Firms that perform translation services do not have set fees for these services. The cost of translating a document is dependent upon the length of the document, the complexity of the document, whether the document is technical, and the languages that the document has to be translated to and from. Due to these variables, many firms require customers to submit the documents in question to the firm so that they can be reviewed and a price quote prepared. There are translation firms that deal specifically with translations of intellectual property. Due to all of these factors, however, the USPTO cannot precisely estimate the costs that parties may incur for these translations. Based on experience, the USPTO believes that on average the documents to be translated will be 10 pages in length and that it will cost $150 per page for the translation, for an average translation cost of $1,500 per document. The USPTO estimates that it receives approximately 16,000 English translations per year. Multiplying the 16,000 translation submissions by $1,500 results in a total cost of $24,000,000 per year. Therefore, the USPTO estimates a total non-hour cost burden of $24,000,000 per year for English translations of non-English language documents for PCT applications.

The total estimated annual filing fees for this collection are calculated in the accompanying chart. The fees listed in the chart represent an estimate of the average fees for filing the appropriate items associated with the requirements for an international application. The USPTO estimates that the total filing costs associated with this collection will be $125,180,420 per year.

Customers may incur postage costs when submitting the information in this collection to the USPTO by mail. The USPTO estimates that the average first-class postage cost for a mailed submission will be 37 cents and that up to 379,065 submissions will be mailed to the USPTO per year. The total estimated postage cost for this collection is $140,254 per year.

The total non-hour respondent cost burden for this collection in the form of translation costs, filing fees, and postage costs is $149,320,674 per year.

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

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

The Project has the potential to result in effects to the human environment in and around Fort Bliss and the El Paso City and County area. The study area for the environmental analysis is the eastern half of El Paso County, which includes Fort Bliss and most of El Paso City, as well as southern portions of Doña Ana and Otero Counties, New Mexico. The objective of the DEIS is to provide a planning and decision-making too, serve as a public information service, and a reference fir mitigation tracking.

Alternatives that will be evaluated include locations for the Project and support facilities, desalination methodologies, and disposal options for the brine water resulting from the desalination process.

Issue of potential significance: The Hueco Bolson aquifer is a major source of water for Fort Bliss and the El Paso Region. This extensive underground water resource, located in large part under Fort Bliss training lands, contains significant quantities of brackish water. Brackish water is water designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as containing dissolved solids (salts) above the drinking water standards. The Project is proposed for the purpose of extending the life of fresh groundwater supplies by desalinating this brackish water for use by the City of El Paso and Fort Bliss. The Project would help meet existing and projected demands for potable water and extend the life of the Hueco Bolson aquifer.

The EIS will include analyses of environmental impacts from the following: (1) Alternative sites for the desalination plant and support facilities; (2) construction by the City of El Paso of the desalination plant and support facilities on Fort Bliss at one of three proposed locations; (3) alternative methodologies for desalination; (4) alternate methodologies for brine disposal, including reinjection and evaporation; and (5) effects of pumping brackish water out of the Hueco Bolson.

A public meeting in the vicinity of the installation and the general proposed location of the desalination plant will be held to facilitate input to the EIS process by citizens and organizations. The date and time of this meeting will be announced in the general media and will be at a time and location convenient to the public. To ensure comments are fully considered in the Draft EIS, comments and suggestions should be received no later than 15 days following the meeting. Comments and questions may also be e-mailed to desaleis@bliss.army.mil. Additional information may also be obtained at the following web site: www.bliss.army.mil.

1. Project Site and Background Information. Pier S is an approximately 170-acre marine terminal site in the Terminal Island Harbor Planning District of the Port. The site was formerly used as an active oil and gas production field from the 1930s until 1999. From 1951 to 1969, a portion of the site was leased by the United Pacific Resources Corporation (UPRC) to the now defunct TCL Corporation for the disposal of oil and gas drilling waste in shallow impoundments or “sumps.” Testing conducted in the 1980s indicated that TCL Corporation disposed of materials other than those permitted under lease agreement.

As a continuing effort to remediate contaminated soils and allow for expanding port uses, the Port and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement in September 1997 to investigate and remediate contamination. Several phases of subsurface investigations conducted between 1991 and 1997 characterized subsurface contamination. The total volume of sump material on site was estimated to be approximately 180,000 cubic yards. Chemical analyses of soil and shallow groundwater identified organic and inorganic contaminants.

In 1998 and 1999, an EIR for a marine container terminal on Pier S was prepared. The Port's Board of Harbor Commissioners certified the EIR in March 1999, approving the Pier S marine container terminal. Project components included: relocation of oil facilities and utilities; site remediation; site preparation; dike realignment; wharf construction; and other terminal facilities. The relocation of oil facilities and utilities, site remediation, which included investigation and remediation of approximately 25 acres of sump material and contaminated groundwater, and site preparation, which included raising the existing ground surface to approximately 15 feet Mean Lower Low Water by placing approximately 4.5 million cubic yards of material on site, have all been completed. The dike realignment, wharf construction, and terminal facilities project components were evaluated in this EIR.

2. Proposed Action. The proposed dredge and fill activities would take place at Pier S and would involve dike realignment and wharf construction activities. Approximately 3,200 feet of concrete pile-supported wharf would be constructed as part of this project. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to straighten the shoreline and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines to accommodate the passage of a 22 container wide vessel (approximately 188 feet in width) through the channel. Widening of the Cerritos Channel would create approximately 10.7 acres of new water surface area. Wharf excavation would include removing approximately 1,200,000 cubic yards of material to be disposed of as described below, driving approximately 1,950 concrete piles (up to 110 feet in length), and reconstructing the shoreline with up to 500,000 tons of imported quarry run and armor rock. In addition to wharf excavation, approximately 500,000 cubic yards of material that may or may not be suitable for unconfined aquatic disposal would be dredged from the Cerritos Channel for ship berthing. Material would be deposited at agency-approved, in-water and/or upland disposal sites.

Wharf construction may include rail access, automobile import/export, or a multi-use storage area. The majority of the backlands of the Pier S terminal (up to 100 acres) would be developed for container storage, and could be utilized without a DA permit. Both wheeled and grounded operations would be served by various terminal equipment including trucks, yard tractors, reach stackers, top-picks, straddle carriers, and rubber-tired gantry cranes. The terminal would include buildings, facilities, and other structures needed to support container terminal operations and administration. Building construction is anticipated to include, but not be limited to, fourteen structures. Two truck gates (main gate and secondary gate) with sign bridges, raised pedestals, scales, and infrastructure required to mount and operate optical character recognition equipment would be constructed at the southwest (main gate) and southeast (secondary gate) corners of the terminal. A pedestrian footbridge may also be constructed over the main gate complex. Truck access to the terminal would be through the main gate complex from New Dock Street and through the secondary gate from Pier T Avenue. The terminal may include an intermodal railyard facility, consisting of eight tracks totaling approximately 13,750 lineal feet. The facility would have the capacity to accommodate two twenty-car unit trains (each car is 309 feet long and has five, articulated wells in which containers can be stacked two high).

3. Issues. There are several potential environmental issues that will be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include:

1. Geological issues including dredging and stabilization of fill areas.

2. Potential impacts on marine biological resources, including endangered species.

3. Marine water circulation and water and sediment quality.

4. Impacts on air quality.

5. Traffic, including navigation issues, and transportation related impacts.

6. Potential noise impacts.

7. Impacts on public utilities and services.

8. Impact on aesthetic resources.

9. Potential impacts on public health and safety.

10. Environmental justice issues.

11. Cumulative impacts.

4. Alternatives. Alternatives initially being considered for the proposed project development include the following:

a. Marine Container Terminal with Rail Access (preferred).

b. Marine Container Terminal without Rail Access.

c. Landfill Alternative—construction of a new marine terminal by creating a new landfill in the harbor.

d. Non-containerized use of terminal (lumber, autos).

e. Reduced Wharf and Reduced Dredging Alternative.

f. Non-shipping use-park, cruise terminal, commercial development, empty container storage.

g. No Federal action alternative—construction and use of only upland portions of the site.

5. Scoping Process. The Corps and the Port will jointly conduct a scoping meeting for the proposed project. English and Spanish translation services will be provided at the meeting. The public scoping meeting will be held to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the appropriate scope of the Draft EIS/EIR. Participation in the public meeting by federal, state and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons are encouraged.

Parties interested in being added to the Corps' electronic mail notification list for the Pier S marine terminal project or other projects in the Port of Long Beach can register at: http://www.spl.usace.army.mil/regulatory/register.html. This list will be used in the future to notify the public about scheduled hearings and availability of future public notices.

The Corps of Engineers will also be consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Additionally, the EIS/EIR will assess the consistency of the proposed Action with the Coastal Zone Management Act and potential water quality impacts pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

The public scoping meeting for the Draft EIS/EIR will be held on September 25th, 2003, at 6 p.m, at the Port of Long Beach administration building. The Corps and the Port will separately transmit local notices of the meeting prior to the event. Written comments will be received until October 10th, 2003.

6. Availability of the Draft EIS/EIR. The Draft EIS/EIR is expected to be published and circulated sometime between Winter 2003 and Spring 2004, and a new public notice and public hearing will be held after its publication.

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

Type of Review: Reinstatement.

Title: Private School Universe Survey.

Frequency: Biennially.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 28,800.

 Burden Hours: 9,600.

Abstract: The Private School Universe Survey is collected every two years to create a universe of private K-12 schools. Information includes types of schools, length of school year and school day, and numbers of students.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2299. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651, or to the e-mail address Vivan.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Katrina Ingalls at her e-mail address Katrina.Ingalls@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Student Exchange Questionnaire.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 200. Burden Hours: 100.

Abstract: The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) proposes to establish a post-experience student exchange questionnaire to ensure that the appropriate information and data is collected regarding student experience abroad.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2285. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651, or to the e-mail address Vivan.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to eligible applicants who primarily operate out of and will conduct the project in one of the following Region III States: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia or the District of Columbia. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0171. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

3. By mail or in person. Contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

EPA's, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, Pesticides/Asbestos Programs & Enforcement Branch, Region III, is requesting proposals for its Urban Initiative Grant. The goals of the Urban Initiative Grant Program are to: (1) Detect any diversion of highly toxic pesticides from the agriculture sector into urban areas for illegal use indoors; (2) identify any ongoing misuse of agricultural pesticides in urban and residential communities; and (3) prevent future diversion and structural application of pesticide misuse through compliance assistance and education. This program is included in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under number 66.716.

1. Amount of funding available. A total of approximately $60,000 in Federal funds is available to award for projects in Region III. The number of awards will depend on individual proposal cost; the final aggregate amount of Federal funding for all proposals; and the total amount of Federal funding available. Should additional funding become available for award, the Agency may award additional grants based on this solicitation and in accordance with the final selection process, without further notice of competition.

2. Funding type. The funding for selected award projects is in the form of a grant awarded under FIFRA.

3. Right to reject all initial proposals. The Agency reserves the right to reject all proposals and make no awards.

4. Matching/cost share requirements. There are no cost share requirements for these projects. However, matching funds are encouraged.

5. Project period time frame. The project period time frame should not exceed 2 years.

6. Eligible applicants. Grant funds are available to non-profit groups, including commodity groups/associations and farmers' groups, State agencies, Tribal governments, cooperative extensions, universities, and institutes of higher learning. Ineligible groups are encouraged to work with an eligible organization to submit proposals. Implementation of all projects must occur within one of the following EPA Region III States: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia or the District of Columbia. EPA will consider only one proposal by an applicant.

7. Proposal submittal. All proposals should be mailed or hand delivered to: Fatima El Abdaoui, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, Mail code (3WC32), 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029.

8. Due dates. EPA will consider all proposals which are postmarked by the U.S. Postal Service, hand delivered, or electronically delivered to the Agency, or include official delivery service documentation indicating EPA acceptance from a delivery service, on or before the deadline published in the request for initial proposals. This due date is October 3, 2003. Proposals received after the due date will not be considered for funding.

9. Statutory and regulatory authorities. Urban Initiative Grants will be awarded under the authority of section 20 of FIFRA, as amended, for public education, training, monitoring, demonstration and studies. The regulations governing the award and administration of these grants can be found at 40 CFR part 30 for institutions of higher education, colleges and universities, and non-profit organizations; and 40 CFR part 31 for States and local governments.

10. Allowable costs. EPA grant funds may only be used for the purposes set forth in the grant agreement, and must be consistent with the statutory authority for the award. Grant funds may not be used for matching funds for other Federal grants, lobbying, or intervention in Federal regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings. In addition, Federal funds may not be used to sue the Federal government or any other government entity. All costs identified in the budget must conform to applicable Federal Cost Principles contained in OMB Circular A-87; A-122; and A-21, as appropriate.

11. Federal requirements. An applicant whose proposal is selected for Federal funding must complete additional forms prior to award (see 40 CFR 30.12 and 31.10). In addition, successful applicants will be required to certify that they have not been debarred or suspended from participation in Federal assistance awards in accordance with 40 CFR part 32.

12. Intergovernmental review. Applicants must comply with the Intergovernmental Review Process and/or consultation provisions of Executive Order 12372 or section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act, if applicable, which are contained in 40 CFR part 29. Further information regarding this requirement will be provided if your proposal is selected for funding.

13. Pre-application assistance. None planned.

Proposals must be typewritten, double spaced in 12 point or larger print using 8.5 x 11 inch paper with minimum 1 inch horizontal and vertical margins. Pages must be numbered in order starting with the cover page and continuing through the appendices. One original and one electronic copy (e-mail or disk) is required. All proposals must include:

1. Completed Standard Form SF 424*, Application for Federal Assistance. Please include organization fax number and e-mail address.

2. Completed Section B--Budget Categories, on page 1 of Standard Form SF 424A*, (See Unit III.10.--Allowable Cost).

*Blank forms may be located at http://www.epa.gov/region03/grants/appforms.htm or by contacting Fatima El Abdaoui at telephone number (215) 814-2129.

3. Detailed itemization of the amounts budgeted by individual Object Class Categories (See Unit III.10.--Allowable Cost).

4. Statement regarding whether this proposal is a continuation of a previously funded project. If so, please provide the assistance number and status of the current grant/cooperative agreement.

5. Executive Summary. The Executive Summary shall be a stand alone document, not to exceed one page, containing the specifics of what is proposed and what you expect to accomplish regarding measuring or movement toward achieving project goals. This summary should identify the measurable environmental results you expect including potential human health and ecological benefits.

6. Table of contents. A one page table listing the different parts of your proposal and the page number on which each part begins.

7. Proposal narrative. Includes Parts I-VI (Parts I through VI listed below are not to exceed 10 pages).

• Part I--Project title. Self explanatory.

• Part II--Objectives. A numbered list (1, 2, etc.) of concisely written project objectives, in most cases, each objective can be stated in a single sentence.

• Part III--Justification. For each objective listed in Part II, discuss the potential outcome in terms of environmental, human health, pesticide risk and/or use reduction or pollution prevention. If appropriate, the target pest(s) and use area(s) should be explicitly stated. This section should be numbered with a justification corresponding to each objective.

• Part IV--Literature review. Briefly, describe relevant information currently available. This should also include information on projects currently in progress that are relevant to or provide the basis for either the experimental design or the validation of a new approach to pest management.

• Part V--Approach and methods. Describe in detail how the program will be carried out. Describe how the system or approach will support the program goals.

• Part VI--Impact assessment. Please state how you will evaluate the success of the program in terms of measurable environmental results. How and with what measures will humans or ecosystems be better protected as a result of the program.

8. Proposal appendices. These appendices must be included in the grant proposal. Additional appendices are not permitted.

• Literature cited. List cited key literature references alphabetically by author.

• Timetable. A timetable that includes what will be accomplished under each of the objectives during the project and when completion of each objective is anticipated.

• Major participants. This appendix should list all farmers, farm organizations, researchers, educators, and conservationists and others having a major role in the proposal. Provide name, organizational affiliation or occupation (such as farmer) and a description of the role each will play in the project. A brief resume (not to exceed two pages) should be submitted for each major researcher or other educator.

9. Electronic copy. The electronic copy should be e-mailed to El-Abdaoui.Fatima@epa.gov or submitted on a 3.5 disk, IBM compatible, readable in Word Perfect WP6/7/8 for Windows. The electronic copy should be consolidated into a single file. Original copy and disk should be sent to: Fatima El Abdaoui, Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Waste & Chemicals Management Division, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code (3WC32), Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029. Disks will be checked for computer viruses. Proposals that are submitted with viruses will be disqualified. To be considered, both the paper and electronic copy must be received by the due date.

To be eligible for consideration, applicants must meet all of the following criteria. Failure to meet the following criteria will result in the automatic disqualification of the proposal for funding consideration:

1. Be a applicant who is eligible to receive funding under this announcement.

2. The proposal must meet all format and content requirements contained in this notice.

3. The proposal must comply with the directions for submittal contained in this notice.

All proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria and weights (Total: 100 points) :

1. Qualification and experience of the applicant relative to the proposed project activity. (Weighting: 30 points)

2. Project proposal is consistent with the goals of the Urban Initiative Grants. (Weighting: 30 points)

3. Provisions for a quantitative or qualitative evaluation of the project success at achieving stated goals. (Weighting: 20 points)

4. Likelihood that the project can be replicated in other areas by other organizations to their benefit. (Weighting: 20 points)

Applicants will be screened to ensure that they meet all eligibility criteria and will be disqualified if they do not meet the criteria. All proposals will be reviewed, evaluated, and ranked by a selected panel of EPA reviewers based on the evaluation criteria listed in Unit VI.

The funding decision will be made from the group of top rated proposals based on the following additional factors:

• Region III's environmental priorities which include preventing pollution from one media to another and to strive towards the reduction or elimination of environmental contamination.

• The extent of anticipated environmental impact of the project in Region III.

1. Selection official. The final selection of initial proposals will be made by the Region III, Director, Waste & Chemicals Management Division.

2. Notification. The Region III EPA Office will mail acknowledgments to applicants upon receipt of the proposal. Once proposals have been reviewed, evaluated, and ranked, applicants will be notified regarding the outcome of the competition. A listing of the successful proposals will be posted on the Region III website address (http://epa.gov/region03) at the conclusion of the competition. This website may also contain additional information about this announcement including information concerning deadline extensions or other modifications.

The procedures for dispute resolution at 40 CFR 30.63 and 40 CFR 31.70 apply.

Applicants should clearly mark information contained in their proposal which they consider confidential business information. EPA reserves the right to make final confidentially decisions in accordance with Agency regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. If no such claim accompanies the proposal when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant.

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

Summary: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which comprises seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee, in part to provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC, which is administratively located under the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office, is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC and CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

Background: The CASAC NAAMS Subcommittee is charged with providing advice, information and recommendations to the Agency on the technical bases and design aspects of the National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy. The NAAMS Subcommittee held a public meeting in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, on July 8-9, 2003 (68 FR 34945, June 11, 2003) to review the NAAMS document. The Subcommittee will report to the Administrator of EPA through the CASAC.

The CASAC PM Review Panel is charged in part with providing advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and NAAQS for particulate matter, under sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act. The PM Review Panel reports directly to the Administrator of EPA. This teleconference is a follow-on to the Panel's review of the EPA Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter (Fourth External Review Draft), which review took place in a public meeting held in Research Triangle Park on August 25-26, 2003 (68 FR 47060, August 7, 2003), and specifically to discuss the restructuring of Chapter 9 (Integrative Synthesis) of that document.

Availability of Additional Meeting Materials: The draft agenda for the CASAC and CASAC PM Review Panel teleconference will be posted on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab (under the “Agendas” subheading) in advance of the meeting. The draft report of the CASAC NAAMS Subcommittee, and any other materials that may be available, will also be posted on the SAB Web site during this time-frame.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, for teleconference meetings, opportunities for oral comment will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total for all speakers. The deadline for getting on the public speaker list for this teleconference is given above. Speakers who attend the teleconference in person should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office will accept written comments until the date of the teleconference (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the teleconference in person are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Access. Individuals requiring special accommodation to access this teleconference, or who wish to attend this teleconference in person, should contact Mr. Butterfield at the telephone or e-mail address provided above at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Action: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on Thursday October 2, to hold a consultation on EPA's strategy for developing water-quality criteria for suspended and bedded sediments. In addition, EPEC members will discuss possible EPEC activities for fiscal year 2004. The meeting is open to the public; however, seating is limited and available on a first come basis.

Availability of the Meeting Materials: Any meeting materials will be made available from the EPA's Office of Water (OW) and the Office of Research Development (ORD). The proposed agenda for the meeting will be posted approximately 10 calendar days prior to the meeting at the SAB's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/epecsabspanel.htm. Links to available meeting materials will also be posted at this location. For questions and information concerning the agenda, please contact Dr. L. Joseph Bachman (see contact information above).

The Ecological Processes and Effects Committee (EPEC) of the EPA Science Advisory Board was asked by the Health and Ecological Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, to provide a consultation on potential approaches on a strategy for developing water-quality criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS). A request for nominations for consultant panel members to provide additional expertise to EPEC appeared in the Federal Register on July 30, 2003 (68 FR 44758-44760). That request contained a more detailed description of the regulatory context of the SABS issue and the scientific approaches being considered in the strategy development.

In 1976, EPA issued a water quality criteria recommendation under the Clean Water Act for solids and turbidity. For a variety of reasons, the States seldom use this criterion. It is questionable whether this criterion would achieve intended protection for all different designated uses for water bodies. SABS occurs naturally in streams in a wide range of concentrations—levels that might be perfectly normal in one water body could be indicative of impairment in another.

Although most States currently have water quality criteria that can be applied to manage SABS, these are typically based on turbidity, suspended solids or settleable solids, and their effectiveness for dealing with all water quality impairments caused by SABS, especially as benchmarks for aquatic life protection based on natural levels, is questionable. In recent consultations with State representatives, the need for new water quality criteria for SABS or methodologies for deriving them on a site-specific basis was identified as one of the highest priorities for the water quality criteria program. As a result, the EPA Office of Water has concluded that to better manage SABS in all types of water bodies and for all designated uses, State and Tribal water quality managers need new and updated water quality criteria and information for SABS.

Charge: While many questions and much research remain, EPA seeks the opportunity for a consultation with the Science Advisory Board to gain advice and recommendations on the best potential approaches to developing water quality criteria for suspended and bedded sediments as will be described in the draft discussion paper entitled Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS)—Potential Approaches. The Office of Water is also seeking recommendations on additional criteria development approaches for different types of water body uses, other than aquatic life, and is also seeking advice on any potential criteria derivation methodology not included in the discussion paper.

More Specific Consultation Questions:

(1) Is it a legitimate premise that SABS in natural amounts (background levels) are beneficial to ecosystems and therefore water quality criteria should attempt to simulate background levels or natural regimes?

(2) Can SABS criteria be stratified by water body type or by some other scheme? If by water body-type, by what level of classification—lotic and lacustrine? Rivers and streams, wetlands, lakes/reservoirs and estuaries/coastal areas? Other? If some other classification scheme is necessary, what type and how much resolution must it have?

(3) Should a water quality criterion for SABS include components that address turbidity, suspended solids, and deposited solids.

(4) Can biological assessments and biocriteria play a role in SABS criteria? If so, what role?

(5) Should EPA reconsider the inclusion of organic particulate material in its definition of suspended and bedded sediments?

(6) Which of the EPA proposed criteria methods do you believe have the greatest potential? Why? Which ones should EPA pursue further?

(7) Do any of the recent efforts of the States or other Countries hold promise for a national criteria method?

If SABS criteria are established to protect aquatic life in water bodies, is it reasonable to assume that these criteria will be stringent enough to also protect other uses of the water body (recreation, industrial water intake, drinking water source, etc.)

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office (SAB) to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA SAB expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Interested parties should contact the DFO at least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Speakers may attend the meeting and provide comment up to the meeting time. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the review panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to Dr. L. Joseph Bachman at the contact information provided in this notice in the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98/XP/2000 format). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Access—Individuals requiring any additional special accommodation at this meeting should contact the DFO indicated above for this FR notice, at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Summary: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the EC of the U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) will hold a public meeting to discuss the following topics:

(a) Review a Report Prepared by an SAB Subcommittee—The Executive Committee will review a report entitled Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens: An EPA Peer Review Report. This report was prepared by the SAB EC's ad hoc panel, the Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Susceptibility from Early-Life Review Panel (SGACSRP).

(b) SAB Operating Plan for FY2004—The Board will complete its planning for its FY2004 activities that will include an Annual Meeting, proposed projects submitted by Agency offices and regions, and two original studies proposed by the SAB. These projects are all being considered for inclusion in the SAB's FY2004 Operating Plan (see below for availability of these project summaries). Special emphasis will be given on planning the scientific themes that will be the focus of the Board's Annual Meeting that is scheduled to take place from December 10-12, 2003, and in preparing for the Board's annual review of the EPA Science and Technology budget.

A meeting agenda will be posted on the SAB Web site (www.epa.gov/sab/whatsnew.htm) prior to the meeting. Any additional topics developed for this meeting will be reflected in the agenda.

The SAB was established by 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide independent scientific and technical advice, consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. General information about the EPA Science Advisory Board, may be found on the SAB Web site (http://www.epa.gov/sab).

Requests for Comment: Requests for oral comments must be in writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and received by Mr. Miller no later than noon Eastern Standard Time on September 24, 2003. Written comments should also be sent to Mr. Miller no later than noon Eastern Standard Time on September 24, 2003. Submission of written comments by e-mail to Mr. Miller will maximize the time available for review by the EC.

Availability of Review Materials: All preliminary meeting materials will be posted on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab/whatsnew.htm prior to the meeting.

General Guidance on Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of ten minutes (unless otherwise indicated above). For teleconference meetings, opportunities for oral comment will usually be limited to no more than three minutes per speaker and no more than fifteen minutes total. Deadlines for being included on the public speaker list for a meeting are given above. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the face-to-face meetings. Written Comments: Although the SAB accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the committee for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to Mr. Miller at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format). Those providing written comments and who attend face-to-face meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Access—Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, including wheelchair access to the conference room, should contact Mr. Miller at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0697.

Title: Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 3,600.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.25-2 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 15,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $750,000.

Needs and Uses: This Commission is consolidating two information collections into one combined collection. They are 3060-0697 and 3060-0765. Both of these collections contain requirements in Parts 22 and 90 to facilitate future development of paging systems. The Commission will retain 3060-0697 as the active OMB control number and cancel 3060-0765 after OMB approves the revised request. This collection is necessary to (1) lessen the administrative burden of licensees; (2) determine the partitioned service areas and geographic area licensee's remaining service area of parties to an agreement; (3) determine whether geographic area licensee's and parties to agreements have met the applicable coverage requirements for their service areas; (4) to determine whether the applicant is eligible to receive bidding credit as a small business; (5) determine the real parties interest of any joint bidding agreements; (6) determine the appropriate unjust enrichment compensation to be remitted to the government; and (7) establish a regulatory scheme for the common carrier paging (CCP) and private carrier paging (PCP) services which will promote efficient licensing and competition in the commercial mobile radio marketplace.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0865.

Title: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Universal Licensing System Recordkeeping and Third Party Disclosure Requirements.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 62,787.

Estimated Time Per Response: .166-4 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 77,164 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Universal Licensing System (ULS) establishes streamlined set of rules that minimizes filing requirements, eliminates redundant or unnecessary submission requirements and assures ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data. The recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements contained in this collection are a result of the elimination of a number of filing requirements. The ULS forms contain a number of certifications. However, applicants must maintain records to document compliance with the requirements for which they provide certifications. In some instances, third party coordinations are required. The Commission is seeking extension of this information collection (no change) in order to obtain the full three year clearance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0132.

Title: Supplemental Information—72-76 MHz Operational Fixed Stations.

Form No.: FCC Form 1068-A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 300.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 150 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $4,500.

Needs and Uses: FCC rules require that the applicant agrees to eliminate any harmful interference caused by the operation to TV reception on either channel 4 or 5 that might develop. This form is required by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; International Treaties and FCC rules (47 CFR Section 90.257). The form is being revised to include the FCC Registration Number information as well as updated information on the Privacy Act statement. FCC staff will use the data to determine if the information submitted will meet FCC rule requirements for the assignment of frequencies in the 72-76 MHz band.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0853.

Title: Receipt of Service Confirmation Form; Adjustment of Funding Commitment; and Certification by Administrative Authority to Billed Entity of Compliance with the Children's Internet Protection Act—Universal Service for Schools and Libraries.

Form No.: FCC Forms 479, 486, 486-T, and 500.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 40,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.5-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 75,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Following a district court decision that portions of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) were unconstitutional, the Commission modified FCC Forms 479 and 486 to remove certain language from the certifications for libraries (language requiring compliance with the parts of CIPA the district court found unconstitutional). The Supreme Court reversed the district court decision and the Commission must revise the forms to enable libraries to certify their compliance with CIPA. Specifically, the Commission has made a few small changes to the forms in item 6.b and 11 of the Form 486 and item 6 of the Form 479, and will add new FCC Form 486-T for libraries unwilling to make a CIPA certification for funding year 2003. FCC Form 500 remains unchanged. Additionally, the Commission is requesting contact information to conform to the contact information requested in other Schools and Libraries Universal Service forms.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0292.

Title: Part 69—Access Charges.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,485 respondents; 5,832 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: .75-5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual, monthly, semi-annual, biennial and on occasion reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 27,702 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Part 69 of the Commission's rules and regulations establishes the rules for access charges for interstate or foreign access provided by telephone companies. Local telephone companies and states are required to submit information to the Commission and/or the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). The information is used to compute charges in tariffs for access service (or origination and termination) and to compute revenue pool distributions. The Commission will submit this information collection to OMB as an extension (no change) in order to obtain the full three year clearance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0816.

Title: Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301.

Form No.: FCC Form 477.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 255 respondents; 510 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 59 hours.

Frequency of Response: Semi-annual reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 29,924 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 477 seeks together information on the development of local competition and deployment of broadband service also known as advanced telecommunications services. The data is necessary to evaluate the status of developing competition in local exchange telecommunications markets and to evaluate the status of broadband deployment. The information will be used by Commission staff to advise the Commission about the efficiency of Commission policies and rules adopted to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0340.

Title: Section 73.51, Determining Operating Power.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 4,867.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 to 3.0 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.

Total annual burden: 1,448 hours.

Total annual costs: None.

Needs and Uses: When it is not possible to use the direct method of power determination due to technical reasons, the indirect method of determining antenna input power might be used on a temporary basis. 47 CFR Section 73.51(d) requires that a notation be made in the station log indicating the dates of commencement and termination of measurement using the indirect method of power determination. 47 CFR Section 73.51(e) requires that AM stations determining the antenna input power by the indirect method must determine the value F (efficiency factor) applicable to each mode of operation and must maintain a record thereof with a notation of its derivation. FCC staff use this information in field investigations to monitor licensees' compliance with the FCC's technical rules and to ensure that licensee is operating in accordance with its station authorization. Station personnel use the value F (efficiency factor) in the event that measurement by the indirect method of power is necessary.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0790.

Title: Section 68.110(c), Availability of Inside Wiring Information.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Section 68.110(c) requires telephone companies to provide building owners with all available information regarding carrier-installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point, including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records. The information must be provided to the telephone company upon request of the building owner or agent thereof. The information is needed so that building owners may be able to contract with an installer of their choice for maintenance and installation service, or elect to contract with the telephone company to modify existing wiring or assist with the installation of additional inside wiring.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0791.

Title: Accounting for Judgments and Other Costs Associated with Litigation, CC Docket No. 93-240.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time Per Response: 36 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 36 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: In CC Docket No. 93-240, the Commission considered the issue of the accounting rules and ratemaking policies that should apply to litigation costs incurred by carriers subject to Part 32 of its rules and regulations. The Commission concluded that there should be special rules to govern the accounting treatment of federal antitrust judgments and settlements, in excess of the avoided costs of litigation, but not for litigation expenses. The Commission further concluded that these special rules should not apply to costs arising in other kinds of litigation. A carrier must make a showing to receive recognition of its avoided costs of litigation. This provision safeguards consumers against rates that are unreasonably high and guarantees carriers that they will not be required to charge rates that are so low as to be confiscatory. Carriers under the Commission's jurisdiction must be allowed to recover the reasonable costs of providing service to ratepayers, including reasonable and prudent expenses and a fair return on investment. This fundamental requirement is unchanged by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0933.

Title: Community Broadband Deployment Database Reporting Form.

Form No.: FCC Form 460.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions, federal government, state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 150.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 37 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Pursuant to Section 410(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the FCC convened a Federal-State Joint Conference on Advanced Telecommunications Services to provide a forum for cooperative dialogue and information exchange between and among state and federal jurisdictions regarding the deployment of advanced telecommunications services. As part of this ongoing effort, a searchable on-line database of community broadband demand aggregation and deployment efforts has been established. The information will be used by the Commission to prepare reports that help inform consumers and policy makers at the state and federal levels of the status of deployment of broadband services. We will use this information to better inform our understanding of broadband deployment in conjunction with our congressionally required Section 706 reports. Absent this information, the Commission would lack an essential tool for assisting it in determining the effectiveness of its policies and fulfilling its statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

In FR Doc. 03-21751, appearing on page 51270 in the Federal Register of August 26, 2003, the following correction is made:

1. On page 51270, in the first column, the DATES section is corrected to read “DATES: The agency encourages interested parties to submit information by November 3, 2003.”

All seminars are open to the public, but registration is required. For more information or to register, please call 301-975-8933 or visit http://www.dhs.gov and click on the “Threats & Protection” link at the top of the page.

The seminars will be held at the following dates and locations:

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the seminars, contact the registration number provided above.

Members of the media who would like to cover this event must present a valid press credential. For further information, contact Ms. Michelle Petrovich, Director of Communications, Office of Science and Technology, Department of Homeland Security, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC 20598, michelle.petrovich@dhs.gov, at 202-772-9886.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus dorcas) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one female brown hyena (Parahyaena brunnea) taken from the wild in the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests permits to export, re-export, and re-import captive-born tigers (Panthera tigris) to worldwide locations for the purpose of enhancement of the species through conservation education. The permit numbers and animals are: PRT-074389—Weber, 074390—Pancho, 074391—Petra, 074392—Gandhi, 074393—Tasha, 074394—Kiara, 074395—Chardon, 074396—Rufus, 074397—Princesa, and 074398—Isis. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a three-year period and the import of any potential progeny born while overseas.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permit(s) subject to certain conditions set forth therein. For each permit for an endangered species, the Service found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.). Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications should be submitted to the Director (address above).

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus dorcas) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus dorcas) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus dorcas) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.

The applicant requests renewal of the permit to export and re-import non-living museum specimens of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals previously accessioned into the applicant's collection for scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

Applicant: Saint Louis Zoological Park, St. Louis, MO.

The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from Galapagos hawk (Buteo galapagoensis) located on the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a five-year period.

Background

Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating property owners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefitting species listed under the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by assuring property owners they will not be subject to increased property use restrictions if their efforts attract listed species to their property or increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c).

James W. Crosswhite, owner of the 394-acre EC Bar Ranch, plans to implement conservation measures on 2.5 miles of Nutrioso Creek, located one mile north of Nutrioso, in Apache County, Arizona. The conservation measures will improve riverine, riparian, and upland habitat through establishment of native riparian vegetation. These measures have been shown to be effective in improving water quality, reducing sedimentation, and increasing stream bank stability. The measures that will be implemented include: planting 10,000 to 21,000 riparian trees, harvesting of cuttings of riparian vegetation in two to four years, planting of grasses and shrubs along the flood plain terrace, and repairing old and installing new livestock and elk fence exclosures.

The Agreement is expected to provide a net conservation benefit for two federally listed species; the southwestern willow flycatcher and the Little Colorado spinedace. The baseline condition for the southwestern willow flycatcher is zero. This is because there is currently no habitat for this species in the project area. The Safe Harbor Policy states that the baseline can be described using measurements of available suitable habitat components. Because data from fish surveys can vary due to the monitoring methods used as well as fluctuations in natural conditions, actual population levels will not be used to quantify baseline conditions for the Little Colorado spinedace. Instead, the baseline conditions will use the number of woody riparian trees that are three feet or greater in height that are present either as individuals or as clumps along the 2.5 miles of Nutrioso Creek on the EC Bar Ranch at the signing of this Agreement. Currently there are approximately 100 individual or clumps of woody riparian trees consisting of coyote willow, shiny willow, strapleaf willow, narrowleaf cottonwood, and thin-leafed alder in the project area that are three feet or greater in height.

The Agreement will provide protection to the Applicant against further regulation under the Endangered Species Act in the event that any of the covered species should be taken on his land as a result of implementation of the proposed conservation measures.

The Service will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the permit application meets the issuance criteria of 50 CFR 17. If, upon completion of the 30-day comment period, the Service determines that the criteria are met, the Service will sign the Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10 (a)(1)(A) of the Act to James W. Crosswhite for take of southwestern willow flycatcher and Little Colorado spinedace incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of threatened or endangered species. However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to take threatened and 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 and 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened species.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

This notice advises the public that the Service intends to gather information necessary to determine impacts and alternatives for an EIS related to the issuance of an incidental take permit to Pima County, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and the implementation of the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP), which will provide measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the incidental take of federally listed species.

Pima County, Arizona, is home to over 800,000 residents, and the population is expected to reach 1.2 million by the year 2020. The Pima County Board of Supervisors is responsible for the protection of those lands in Pima County that are of environmental, cultural, or historic importance. Given Pima County's rapid growth rate, the Board of Supervisors has recognized the need to balance economic, environmental, and human interests by implementing a regional, ecosystem-based multi-species conservation program.

In October of 1998, Pima County developed a draft Sonoran Desert Conservation Concept Plan (SDCP). Pima County adopted the SDCP in concept in March 1999 to frame future regional land-use conservation planning and formed an 84-member Steering Committee and numerous technical teams.

Pima County also agreed to pursue an ecosystem-based approach to developing the SDCP for interim and long-term compliance with applicable endangered species and environmental laws and to implement conservation and protection measures for species and habitat covered in the SDCP. In December 2001, the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted the Pima County Comprehensive Plan Update, which incorporates aspects of the SDCP.

On June 17, 2003, the recommendations of the Steering Committee were presented to the Pima County Board of Supervisors for formulation of the preferred alternative for the MSCP.

The purpose of and need for the proposed Pima County MSCP are: (1) to ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals that are indigenous to Pima County, through maintaining or improving the habitat conditions and ecosystems necessary for their survival; and (2) to provide the framework for a combination of actions to protect and enhance the natural environment through comprehensive, long-range planning. This will ensure that the County's natural and urban environments can not only coexist, but can also develop an interdependent relationship with one another. This relationship will guide already approved public bond investments and conservation and preservation actions, define Federal program and funding priorities, and establish a regional preference for the expenditure of State funds to preserve and protect State Trust lands threatened by urbanization.

Section 9 of the Act prohibits the “taking” of threatened and endangered species. The Service may, however, under limited circumstances, issue permits that allow the incidental take of federally listed and candidate species, incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. The term “take” under the Act means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Regulations define “harm” as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The proposed permit would allow approved incidental take that is consistent with the conservation guidelines of the Pima County MSCP.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing incidental take permits to non-federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are met:

1. The taking will be incidental;

2. The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;

3. The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the Plan will be provided;

4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and

5. Any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the Plan.

The Pima County MSCP considers the Act's section 10(a)(1)(B) requirements and is consistent with Pima County's larger conservation and land-use vision.

We anticipate that Pima County will request permit coverage for a period of 20 to 50 years. Implementation of the Pima County MSCP will result in the establishment of a conservation lands system that is expected to provide for the conservation of covered species and their habitats in perpetuity. Research and monitoring in combination with adaptive management will be used to facilitate accomplishment of these goals.

The proposed action is the issuance of an incidental take permit for listed and sensitive species in Pima County, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Pima County will develop and implement the Pima County MSCP, which will serve as a habitat conservation plan, as required by section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The Pima County MSCP will provide measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the taking on listed and sensitive species and their habitats. The biological goal of the Pima County MSCP is to ensure the long-term survival of the full spectrum of plants and animals that are indigenous to Pima County through maintaining or improving the habitat conditions and ecosystem functions necessary for their survival and to ensure that any incidental take of listed species will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of those species.

The purpos of the scoping meeting to be held on October 4, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of Pima County Public Works, Room C in the Basement, 201 North Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona is to brief the public on the background of the Pima County MSCP, alternative proposals under consideration for the draft EIS, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's role and steps that we will take to develop the draft EIS for this habitat conservation planning effort. At the scoping meeting, there will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions, to provide oral comments and also to provide written comments. Written comments may also be sent to the Fish and Wildlife Service by mail (see Addresses section above).

Activities proposed for coverage under the incidental take permit include lawful activities that would occur consistent with the Pima County MSCP conservation guidelines and include, but are not limited to, maintenance of county operations, implementation of capital improvement projects, and issuance of land-use related permits, including those for residential and commercial development.

Pima County is expected to apply for an incidental take permit for 55 vulnerable species that would be protected within their Conservation Lands System map. The 55 species include the following federally listed species: the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana Chiricahuensis), desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva), Nichol Turk's head cactus (Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. nicholli), and Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina). In addition, Pima County will seek to address and cover the Gila chub (Gila intermedia), a species proposed for listing, and the Acuna cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) and yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus spp. Occidentalis), both of which are candidates for listing. Pima County is also seeking to address and cover at least 43 other rare and/or sensitive species that occur in the County. Unlisted species that are considered as if they were listed, and that the Service finds are adequately conserved by the Pima County MSCP, will be automatically permitted for incidental take should they be listed as federally threatened or endangered species in the future. Numerous other listed and sensitive species for which Pima County is not seeking permit coverage will also benefit from the conservation measures provided in the Pima County MSCP through protection of similar or overlapping habitat conditions and ecosystem functions.

The proposed action and alternatives that will be developed in the EIS will be assessed against the No Action/No Project alternative, which assumes that some or all of the current and future projects proposed in Pima County would be implemented individually, one at a time, and be in compliance with the Act. The No Action/No Project alternative implies that the impacts from these potential projects on sensitive species and habitats would be evaluated and mitigated on a project-by-project basis, as is currently the case. For any activities involving take of listed species due to non-federal projects/actions, individual Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits would be required. Without a coordinated, comprehensive ecosystem-based conservation approach for the region, listed species may not be adequately addressed by individual project-specific mitigation requirements, unlisted candidate and sensitive species would not receive proactive action intended to preclude the need to list them in the future, and project-specific mitigation would be piecemeal and less cost effective in helping Federal and non-federal agencies work toward recovery of listed species. Current independent conservation actions would continue, although some of these are not yet funded.

Other alternatives that may be considered in the EIS include issuance of an incidental take permit for only the 9 currently listed species, plus those species that would be adequately addressed by the conservation measures enacted for those 9 species; issuance of an incidental take permit for an undetermined number of listed and unlisted species within the 55 identified vulnerable species; and issuance of an incidental take permit for the species within the 55 identified vulnerable species that are currently listed as threatened and endangered or are candidates or proposed for listing. In addition, alternatives may consider varying levels of take anticipated and amount and location of mitigation.

The primary issue to be addressed during the scoping and planning process for the MSCP and EIS is how to resolve potential conflicts between development or land management practices and listed and sensitive species in Pima County. We have identified a preliminary list of probable environmental issues and effects associated with the proposed action. Other issues may be identified during the development of the Pima County MSCP and through the public scoping process. Until a firm proposal and alternatives with specific actions and locations are developed, it is difficult to predict more specific impacts. The preliminary list is as follows:

Urban land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial development. Transportation, Water resources, including watershed function and water quality. Agriculture, air resources, cultural and historic resources, recreation. Ranching practices and livestock grazing, mineral resources, utility rights-of-way, fire Management, social and economic resources, environmental justice

We will conduct an environmental review that analyzes the proposed action, as well as a range of reasonable alternatives and the associated impacts of each. The EIS will be the basis for the Service's evaluation of impacts to the species and the range of alternatives to be addressed. The EIS is expected to provide biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats and an analysis of the socioeconomic effects of the proposed action.

This notice is being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that a range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed action are identified. The review of this project will be conducted according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), other appropriate Federal laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, and Service procedures for compliance with those regulations.

After the environmental review is complete, we will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft EIS and Pima County's permit application, which will include the Pima County MSCP.

The draft EIS is expected to be completed and available to the public by December 2003.

Notice is hereby given that on the dates below, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Service issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth therein.

The Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council was formed in January 1993 to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, about sport fishing and boating issues. The Council represents the interests of the public and private sectors of the sport fishing and boating communities and is organized to enhance partnerships among industry, constituency groups, and government. The 18-member Council includes the Director of the Service and the president of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, who both serve in ex officio capacities. Other Council members are Directors from State agencies responsible for managing recreational fish and wildlife resources and individuals who represent the interests of saltwater and freshwater recreational fishing, recreational boating, the recreational fishing and boating industries, recreational fisheries resource conservation, aquatic resource outreach and education, and tourism. The Council will convene to discuss: (1) The Council's continuing role in providing input to the Fish and Wildlife Service on the Service's strategic vision for its Fisheries Program; (2) the Council's work in its role as a facilitator of discussions with Federal and State agencies and other sportfishing and boating interests concerning a variety of national boating and fisheries management issues; and (3) the Council's role in providing the Interior Secretary with information about the implementation of the Strategic Plan for the National Outreach and Communications Program. The Interior Secretary approved the Strategic Plan in February 1999, as well as the five-year, $36-million federally funded outreach campaign authorized by the 1998 Sportfishing and Boating Safety Act that is now being implemented by the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, a private, nonprofit organization.

We are inviting the public to comment on our preliminary (i.e., draft) determination of Plan adequacy. Section 3405(e) of the CVPIA (Title 34 Pub. L. 102-575), requires the “Secretary of the Interior to establish and administer an office on Central Valley Project water conservation best management practices that shall * * * develop criteria for evaluating the adequacy of all water conservation plans developed by project contractors, including those plans required by section 210 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982.” Also, according to Section 3405(e)(1), these criteria must be developed “* * * with the purpose of promoting the highest level of water use efficiency reasonably achievable by project contractors using best available cost-effective technology and best management practices.” These criteria state that all parties (Contractors) that contract with Reclamation for water supplies (municipal and industrial contracts over 2,000 acre-feet and agricultural contracts over 2,000 irrigable acres) must prepare Plans that contain the following information:

Reclamation will evaluate Plans based on these criteria. A copy of these Plans will be available for review at Reclamation's Mid-Pacific (MP) Regional Office located in Sacramento, California, and the local area office. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that Reclamation withhold their home address from public disclosure, and we will honor such request to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which Reclamation would elect to withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations, businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses available for public disclosure in their entirety. If you wish to review a copy of these Plans, please contact Mr. White to find the office nearest you.

The Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services (WPRS) program allows for the targeting of reemployment services to those most in need of services. The ETA 9048 and ETA 9049 are the only means of tracking the activities in the WPRS program. The ETA 9048 reports on the numbers and flows of claimants at the various stages of the WPRS system from initial profiling through the completion of specific reemployment services. This allows for evaluation and monitoring of the program. The ETA 9049 gives a limited, but inexpensive, look at the reemployment experience of profiled claimants who were referred to services by examining the state's existing wage record files to see in which quarter the referred individuals became employed, what wages they are earning and if they have changed industries.

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.

This collection continues to be needed to evaluate and monitor the WPRS program.

Type of Review: Extension without change.

Agency: Employment and Training Administration.

Title: Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Activity, and Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Outcomes.

OMB Number: 1205-0353.

Agency Number: ETA 9048 and ETA 9049.

Affected Public: State Governments.

Total Respondents: 53.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Total Responses: 424.

Average Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 106 hours.

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

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

The purpose of the TSP system is to provide a legal basis for telecommunications vendors to provide priority provisioning and restoration of telecommunications service supporting national security or emergency preparedness functions. The information gathered via the TSP system forms is the minimum necessary for the NCS to effectively manage the TSP system.

Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed TSO by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they desire, to the aforementioned specified address. Comments received on the proposed TSO may be examined, before the closing date, in Room 815, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. All communications received on or before the closing date will be considered by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service before issuing the final TSO.

In response to a recommendation the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) streamline the aircraft seat certification processes, we issued a proposed Technical Standard Order (TSO)—C39c, Aircraft Seats and Berths, dated July 12, 2003. The purpose of the proposed TSO-C39c, was to improve the consistent application and interpretation in certifying the 9g static requirement for aircraft seats, and those aircraft seats that must meet the 9g static and 16g dynamic requirements of TSO-C127 and TSO-C127a (TSO-C127/127a).

After considering the comments received, based on our July 12, 2003, request, we decided the FAA and the public would not benefit by combining the static requirements of TSO-C39c with the static requirements of TSO-C127a in this proposed revision. Therefore, proposed TSO-C39c will reference the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Aerospace Standard (AS) 8049, Performance Standards for Seats in Civil Rotorcraft, Transport Aircraft, and General Aviation Aircraft, Rev. A., resulting in the TSO applying only to 9g transport category airplane seats certified by static testing. Note however, the applicability of TSO-C39b, referencing the National Aircraft Standard (NAS) 809, Specification—Aircraft Seats and Berths, will apply to approval of aircraft berths and 9g seats in normal and utility (Type II), acrobatic (Type III), and rotorcraft (Type IV) only.

Although this proposal splits the TSO-C39 by revisions based on the seat's aircraft applicability, we believe it will resolve more issues than other options would introduce. Therefore, based on the public comments received, we determined the technical and procedural issues of standardizing the static requirements of TSO-C39b and TSO-C127/127a for transport airplanes is achievable. We also determined standardizing would provide little benefit and potentially higher cost for manufacturers of aircraft seats used in non-transport category airplanes. We accomplish this by referencing the proper industry standard, NAS 809 or SAE AS8049, based on seat “Type” used in TSO-C39b and TSO-C39c respectively.

A copy of the proposed TSO may be obtained via the Internet at, http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/TSOA.htm, or by contacting the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Title of Collection: Port Facility Conveyance Information.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

OMB Control Number: 2133-0524.

Form Numbers: None.

Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

Summary of Collection of Information: Public Law 103-160, which is included in 40 U.S.C. 554 authorizes the Department of Transportation to convey to public entities surplus Federal property needed for the development or operation of a port facility. The information collection will allow MARAD to approve the conveyance of property and administer the port facility conveyance program.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collection is necessary for MARAD to determine whether (1) the community is committed to the redevelopment plan; (2) the plan is in the best interests of the public, and (3) the property is being used in accordance with the terms of the conveyance and applicable statutes and regulations.

Description of Respondents: Eligible state and local public entities.

Annual Responses: Six respondents.

Annual Burden: 768 burden hours.

Comments: Comments should refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document. Written comments may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be submitted by electronic means via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. Specifically address whether this information collection is necessary for proper performance of the functions of the agency and will have practical utility, accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to minimize this burden, and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT (or EST), Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.

Title: Special Order for Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems.

OMB Clearance Number—2127-0633.

Expiration Date of Approval—December 31, 2003.

Summary of Collection of Information—The information requested from the vehicle manufacturers includes a list of all vehicle models available for sale or lease in the USA that indicates the motor vehicle manufacturers' actual or planned TPMS for each vehicle model for model years (MY) 2001 to 2008. The information requested from TPMS suppliers includes current and future production capability of TPMSs for motor vehicles available for sale in the USA.

The tire pressure monitoring system data will be collected from:

(1) Vehicle manufacturers that sell light vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds (except motorcycles, low-speed vehicles, and trailers) in the United States.

(2) TPMS suppliers that manufacture for sale TPMSs for the above vehicles.

This information will be provided by the respondents in a prescribed electronic readily available format, such as Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel, for ease of searching, storing, and evaluation.

For both groups of manufacturers, the company that historically reports phase-in compliance information to the agency will collect the data from their respective subsidiaries or affiliates. This comports with the manner in which each manufacturer complies with other phase-in requirements.

This information will be used by NHTSA to determine the lead-time and phase-in schedule needed by vehicle manufacturers to comply with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) concerning TPMSs.

NHTSA estimates that the requested information is readily available from records already kept and maintained by the potential respondents. NHTSA believes that the burden incurred by vehicle manufacturers will be limited to a review of actual production or planned production previously determined by the respondent to determine the type of TPMS that was or will be installed in the vehicles. For TPMS suppliers, the burden should be less, as they will state current capacity and estimate future capacity to supply vehicle manufacturers. Also, this is a one-time request with no recurring costs. Taking these factors into account, NHTSA estimates that 65 burden-hours of time per vehicle manufacturer are sufficient for even the largest manufacturers with several makes and models. For TPMS suppliers, the burden is less since the suppliers are not as complex as vehicle manufacturers. As such, NHTSA estimates that 30 burden-hours per TPMS supplier are sufficient for even the largest supplier. It is estimated that this collection affects approximately 27 respondents. The estimates of the burden-hours on the respondents is as follows:

There are no annual or recurring costs to respondents associated with this one-time data collection. The only cost incurred by the Federal Government, beyond normal overhead costs associated with the daily activities of NHTSA's Office of Rulemaking, is 20 hours for agency personnel to analyze the data received as a result of this collection. Each hour is estimated to cost $40.00 for a total cost of $800 ($40.00 × 20).