Title: District of Columbia Plant Health Certificate.

OMB Number: 0579-0166.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for facilitating the interstate movement of agricultural products and commodities in ways that will reduce the risk of disseminating plant pests and noxious weeds.

The regulations in 7 CFR part 302, “District of Columbia; Movement of Plants and Plant Products,” set out procedures for the inspection and certification of plants and plant products moving interstate from the District of Columbia. The regulations provide that, whenever inspection and documentation of plants or plant products are required by Federal or State laws or regulations prior to the interstate movement of those plants or plant products, APHIS will provide those services. APHIS, rather than the District of Columbia, provides those services because the District of Columbia, unlike most States, has no official plant protection service. The form APHIS uses to certify the plant pest status of plants or plant products to be moved interstate from the District of Columbia is the District of Columbia Plant Health Certificate.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of this form for an additional 3 years in connection with our program to prevent the interstate spread of plant pests, diseases, and noxious weeds in the United States.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.2 hours per response.

Respondents: Shippers, growers of plants and plant materials.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 4.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 50.

Estimated annual number of responses: 200.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 40 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Title: Importation of Fruits and Vegetables.

OMB Number: 0579-0158.

Type of Request: Extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The United States Department of Agriculture is responsible for preventing plant pests from entering the United States, preventing the spread of pests not widely distributed within the United States, and eradicating plant pests when feasible. Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, among other things, is responsible for carrying out this mission.

The regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

Before entering the United States, certain fruits and vegetables from various foreign countries are subject to inspection and disinfection at their port of first arrival to ensure that no plant pests are inadvertently brought into the United States. These precautions, along with other requirements, ensure that these articles can be imported into the United States with minimal risk of introducing exotic plant pests such as fruit flies.

Allowing these fruits and vegetables to be imported necessitates the use of certain information collection activities including the completion of import permits, phytosanitary inspection certificates, and fruit fly monitoring records.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years in connection with our efforts to prevent an introduction of fruit flies or other plant pests into the United States.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.2807 hours per response.

Respondents: U.S. importers of fruits and vegetables; plant health officials of exporting countries.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 150.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 76.

Estimated annual number of responses: 11,400.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3,200 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is announcing a series of educational symposia on the care and maintenance of exotic big cats. The symposia will give Animal Care an opportunity to disseminate information on various topics that are key to the successful management and handling of exotic big cats. The symposia will be held in various geographical locations to facilitate attendance by regulated parties that maintain these animals.

The first symposium was held on Wednesday, March 26, 2003, at the Ramada Plaza Hotel, Fort Worth, TX, and the second symposium was at Sam's Town Hotel, Las Vegas, NV, on April 30, 2003. The next two symposia will be held on November 19, 2003, at the Greater Columbus Convention Center, Columbus, OH, and on January 7, 2004, at the Holiday Inn Airport and Marina, Sarasota, FL. We plan to hold similar symposia at some time during 2004 in another location in the Midwest and in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

The symposia have been developed to provide current information and ideas on a variety of topics. Each symposium will follow the same agenda, with possible minor modifications. The symposia will start with general sessions, followed by breakout sessions allowing more interaction between speakers and attendees. The agenda for these symposia is:

Welcome.

Nutrition.

Veterinary Care and Tranquilization.

Transportation.

New Training Methods.

Explaining APHIS Regulations.

Nutrition/Zootrition.

Heat Budgets and Shade (avoiding overheating and overcooling).

Training.

Veterinary Care Issues.

Fixed Exhibit Enclosure Design.

Notices of these symposia are being sent to current Animal Welfare Act licensees with exotic big cats. This notice is also available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac, the Animal Care Web site. Copies of a brochure containing the information in this announcement can also be requested by calling the Animal Care headquarters office at (301) 734-7833 or by e-mailing a request to ACE@aphis.usda.gov.

Please note that these symposia are being held to provide and disseminate information on the care and maintenance of big exotic cats under the Animal Welfare Act. There will be no opportunity at these symposia to submit formal comments on proposed rules or other regulatory initiatives.

Preregistration is requested by calling the Animal Care headquarters office at (301) 734-7833 or by e-mailing Animal Care at ACE@aphis.usda.gov and providing your name, number of attendees, phone number, and e-mail address or other contact address. This information is needed so we may inform registrants in a timely manner if any changes are made to the schedules of the symposia. Please preregister for the Columbus symposium by October 15, 2003, and for the Sarasota symposium by December 15, 2003.

All attendees are responsible for their own travel and lodging. No rooms have been reserved for attendees at the symposium hotels or any other hotels.

The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III and 9 CFR chapter I, subchapters D and G, require inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine of certain animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles intended for importation into, or exportation from, the United States. With some exceptions, when these services must be provided by an APHIS employee on a Sunday or on a holiday, or at any other time outside the APHIS employee's regular duty hours, the Government charges an hourly overtime fee for the services in accordance with 7 CFR part 354 and 9 CFR part 97.

In a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2002 (67 FR 48519-48525, Docket No. 00-087-2), and effective August 11, 2002, we established, for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 and beyond, reimbursable overtime rates for Sunday, holiday, or other overtime work performed by APHIS employees for any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody, or control of animals, poultry, animal byproducts, germ plasm, organisms, vectors, plants, plant products, or other regulated commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine. In this document we are providing notice to the public of the reimbursable overtime fees for fiscal year 2004 (October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004).

Under the regulations in 7 CFR 354.1(a) and 9 CFR 97.1(a), any person, firm, or corporation having ownership, custody, or control of plants, plant products, animals, animal byproducts, or other commodities or articles subject to inspection, laboratory testing, certification, or quarantine who requires the services of an APHIS employee on a Sunday or holiday, or at any other time outside the regular tour of duty of that employee, shall sufficiently in advance of the period of Sunday, holiday, or overtime service request the APHIS inspector in charge to furnish the service during the overtime or Sunday or holiday period, and shall, for fiscal year 2004, pay the Government at the rate listed in the following table:

As specified in 7 CFR 354.1(a)(1)(iii) and 9 CFR 97.1(a)(3), the overtime rates to be charged in fiscal year 2004 to owners or operators of aircraft at airports of entry or other places of inspection as a consequence of the operation of the aircraft, for work performed outside of the regularly established hours of service will be as follows:

A minimum charge of 2 hours shall be made for any Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime duty performed by an employee on a day when no work was scheduled for him or her, or which is performed by an employee on his or her regular workday beginning either at least 1 hour before his or her scheduled tour of duty or which is not in direct continuation of the employee's regular tour of duty. In addition, each such period of Sunday or holiday or unscheduled overtime work to which the 2-hour minimum charge provision applies may include a commuted traveltime period (see 7 CFR 354.1(a)(2) and 9 CFR 97.1(b)).

APHIS charges user fees for import- and export-related veterinary services. The regulations in 9 CFR part 130 list user fees for import- and export-related services provided by APHIS for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors.

These user fees are authorized by § 2509(c)(1) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, as amended (21 U.S.C. 136a). APHIS is authorized to establish and collect fees that will cover the cost of providing import- and export-related services for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors.

On August 28, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR 51997-52010, Docket No. 97-058-2) a final rule that amended the regulations in 9 CFR part 130 by adjusting our user fees for import- and export-related services that we provide for animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors and by setting user fees for these services for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 and beyond. (In that final rule, we did not specify an end date for user fees that become effective on October 1, 2003 [the beginning of fiscal year 2004] because we will continue to charge the fiscal year 2004 user fees until new user fees are in effect.) Additionally, on August 1, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 39628-39632, Docket No. 99-060-2) another final rule that amended the regulations by updating some of the user fees in 9 CFR part 130. When we proposed to establish the user fees for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 and beyond, we stated that, prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, we would publish a notice to remind the public of the user fees for that fiscal year. This document provides notice to the public of the user fees for fiscal year 2004 (October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004) and beyond. The specific services and user fees are described below.

We provide standard and nonstandard housing, care, feed, and handling for individual animals and certain birds  1 quarantined in APHIS-owned or -operated animal quarantine facilities, including APHIS Animal Import Centers. As specified in § 130.2(a), the daily user fee for each animal or bird quarantined in APHIS-owned or -operated animal quarantine facilities receiving standard housing, care, feed, and handling for fiscal year 2004 and beyond will be as follows:

Certain conditions or traits, such as aggression, may necessitate special requirements for certain birds or poultry. Birds and poultry receiving nonstandard housing, care, feed, or handling to meet special requirements may receive those services while quarantined in an APHIS-owned or -operated quarantine facility at the request of an importer or as required by an APHIS representative. As specified in § 130.2(b), the daily user fee for each bird or poultry receiving nonstandard housing, care, or handling while quarantined in an APHIS-owned or -operated animal quarantine facility for fiscal year 2004 and beyond is $5.75 for birds weighing 250 grams or less, and doves, pigeons, and quail; $13 for birds weighing 251 to 1,000 grams and poultry such as chickens, ducks, grouse, guinea fowl, partridge, pea fowl, and pheasants; and $25 for birds over 1,000 grams and large poultry and large waterfowl, including, but not limited to game cocks, geese, swans, and turkeys. As specified in § 130.2(c), importers of animals or birds that require a diet other than standard feed must either provide feed or pay APHIS for feed on an actual cost basis, including the cost of delivery to the APHIS-owned or -operated animal import center or quarantine facility.

We accept requests from importers to exclusively occupy a space at an APHIS animal import center. As specified in § 130.3(a)(1), the monthly user fee for exclusive use of space at the APHIS animal import center in Newburgh, NY, for fiscal year 2004 and beyond is $59,254 to occupy a space 5,396 square feet in size, $97,764 for a space 8,903 square feet in size, and $9,938 for a space 905 square feet in size. The fees listed in § 130.3(a)(1) cover all costs of quarantine  2 except feed. The importer either provides the feed or pays for it on an actual cost basis, including the cost of delivery.

We process applications for permits to import and transport certain animals, animal products, organisms, vectors, and germ plasm. 3 As specified in § 130.4, the user fees for processing import permit applications for certain animals, animal products, organisms, vectors, and germ plasm during fiscal year 2004 and beyond will be as follows:

We inspect live animals presented for importation or entry into the United States through a land border port along the United States-Mexico border. As specified in § 130.6(a), the user fees for inspection of live animals at land border ports along the United States-Mexico border for fiscal year 2004 and beyond will be as listed in the following table:

We also inspect live animals presented for importation into or entry into the United States through a land border port along the United States-Canada border. As specified in § 130.7(a), user fees for import or entry services for live animals at land border ports along the United States-Canada border for fiscal year 2004 and beyond will be as follows:

We provide a variety of other services related to the importation into or exportation from the United States of animals, animal products, birds, germ plasm, organisms, and vectors. As specified in § 130.8(a), user fees for those import-or export-related services during fiscal year 2004 and beyond are as follows:

We inspect lots of pet birds  4 of U.S. origin returning to the United States. As specified in § 130.10(a), user fees for the inspection of pet birds of U.S. origin returning to the United States, except pet birds of U.S. origin returning from Canada, during fiscal year 2004 and beyond are $108 per lot of birds which have been out of the United States for 60 days or less, and $257 per lot of pet birds which have been out of the United States for more than 60 days.

We also provide housing, care, feed, and handling for pet birds quarantined in APHIS-owned or -supervised quarantine facilities. The daily user fee to quarantine pet birds applies per isolette and varies based on the number of pet birds determined by an APHIS representative to be appropriate per isolette. All the birds quarantined in one isolette are covered by one fee, which is assessed daily for the duration of the quarantine. As specified in § 130.10(b), the daily user fee for each pet bird quarantined in an APHIS-owned or supervised quarantine facility for fiscal year 2004 and beyond is $9.25 for one pet bird quarantined in one isolette, $11 for two pet birds quarantined in one isolette, $13 for three pet birds quarantined in one isolette, $15 for four pet birds quarantined in one isolette, and $18 for five pet birds quarantined in one isolette.

We inspect and approve various import and export facilities and establishments. 5 As specified in § 130.11, the user fees for inspecting and approving import and export facilities and establishments during fiscal year 2004 and beyond will be as listed in the following table:

We endorse export health certificates for animals, birds, or animal products. 6 As specified in § 130.20(a), the user fees for each export health certificate endorsed for animals, birds, or animal products that do not require the verification of tests or vaccinations, regardless of the number of animals, birds, or animal products covered by the certificate, will be $32 for animal and nonanimal products; $30 for hatching eggs; $30 for poultry, including slaughter poultry; $33 for ruminants, except slaughter ruminants moving to Canada or Mexico;  7 $35 for slaughter animals (except poultry but including ruminants) moving to Canada or Mexico; and $24 for other endorsements or certifications during fiscal year 2004 and beyond.

The proposed project area is located within sections 4,5,6,7,8,9 & 18, T.2S., R.17W., and sections 1, 12 and 13, T.2S., R.18W.

The purpose and need for the proposed action is to move toward the desired conditions as described in the Beaverhead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The proposed action is located on lands classified as “available and suitable for timber production” (LRMP, p. III-48 and III-63). Congress has recognized the importance of sustainable commodity use in laws including the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act, the National Forest Managment Act, and the 1872 Mining Act. There is a need to emphasize long-term production of commodities for local and regional economies, communities, and people in an environmentally sound manner (LRMP, Record of Decision, p.19). Most of the trees killed as a result of the fire are expected to fall to the ground and contribute to heavy fuel build-up over the next two decades. There is a need to break up the continuity of fuel accumulation to prevent the dead trees from becoming part of a future, long-term fuels problem. Specifically, the purpose and need is to:

• Recover and utilize timber from the trees killed as a result of the Sheep Creek Fire providing a supply of wood products to the forest products industry and ultimately to the public, and

• Break up fuel continuity and decrease fuel loads in order to decrease risks that future fires will pose to human health and safety, improvements and resources.

To address these needs the proposed action has the following components:

• Approximately 600 to 1,000 acres would be salvage harvested within the Sheep Creek Fire perimeter. Trees that are dead as a result of the fire would be salvaged by conventional ground-based and cable logging methods. An estimated 3 to 6 million board feet of merchantable timber would be recovered by the harvesting operations. As much as practicable, slash associated with harvest operations would be piled and burned on the landings.

• Where concentrations of fuels exist within proposed treatment areas, techanical or other methods of fuel treatment will occur where practicable.

• Approximately 2.5 miles of temporary road would be constructed to access proposed harvest units; the temporary roads would be reclaimed when this project is completed.

The salvage timber harvest and fuel treatments following harvest would reduce fuel loading in accordance with Beaverhead National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP p. II-29, II-35), and Beaverhead-Deerlodge Fire Management Plan.

Operational design elements would be included to ensure compliance and consistency with direction found in the LRMP, and state and federal law, regulation and direction.

Implementation of these activities would occur as soon as possible following completion of the environmental analysis. It is proposed that the environmental analysis be completed by spring of 2004 with a signed decision document issued by 6/18/2004.

Thomas K. Reilly, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Supervisor, 420 Barrett Street, Dillon, MT 59725-3572.

The decisions to be made include the location and scheduling of the proposed salvage harvest activities, harvest methods and associated slash treatment and silvicultural treatments; the estimated timber volume to make available from the project area; the estimated amount of temporary road construction needed; and mitigation mesures and monitoring requirements.

Public participation is important to this analysis. Part of the goal of public involvement is to identify additional issues and to refine the general, tentaive issues. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest has developed a listing of individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in being informed of and providing input to vegetation management and fuel redcution projects. This list of individuals and organizations include private citizens, businesses, various organizations, Native American groups, and federal, state and county agencies. All of these contacts will be sent the intial scoping document.

The following list of preliminary issues was developed for the project area by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team). This list was developed after review of issues from previous post fire management projects, including previous public involvement, and specific internal agency scoping. General categories have been used to focus key topics. This list will be amended and/or expanded after review of the Sheep Creek Fire Salvage project public comments. During the analysis, alternatives to the proposed action will be developed responding to the final list of issues. In response to the issues, the alternatives developed may include different levels of activity and may include different prescriptions.

• Timber sale value.

• Potential reduction of big game “security cover” within harvest units may result in a need for a nonsignificant site specific Forest plan amendment for elk effective cover standards.

• Loss of future potential Lynx denning habitat by removal of heavy fuels.

• Potential for introduction and spread of noxious weeds from logging and log hauling.

• Potential soil disturbance.

• Residual fuel loads exceeding desired thresholds within treatment units.

• Potential for introduction of sediment to streams impacting fish species.

• Loss of habitat for snag dependent and cavity nesting species.

This amended notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the draft environmental impact statement, including the identification of the range of alternatives to be considered. While public participation is strictly optional at this stage, the Forest Service believes that it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the subsequent environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).

Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45 day draft environmental impact statement comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments also may address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. In addressing these points, reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations which implement the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3.

The meeting is open to the public. Council discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Council members. However, persons who wish to bring resource projects or other Resource Advisory Committee matters to the attention of the Council may file written statements with the Council staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by October 17, 2003 will have the opportunity to address the Council at those sessions.

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

The International Trade Administration, Service Industries, Tourism & Finance, Office of Travel & Tourism Industries, offers trade fair guidance and assistance to trade fair organizers, trade fair operators, and other travel and trade oriented groups. These fairs open doors to promising trade markets around the world. These trade fairs provide an opportunity for showcasing quality exhibitors and products from around the world. The “Application for Designation of a Fair” is a questionnaire that is prepared and signed by an organizer to begin the certification process. It asks the fair organizer to provide details as to the date, place, and sponsor of the fair, as well as license, permit, and corporate backers, and countries participating. To apply for the U.S. Department of Commerce certification, the fair organizer must have all of the components of the application in order. Then, with the approval, the organizer is able to bring their products into the U.S. in accordance with Customs laws. Articles which may be brought in, include, but are not limited to, actual exhibit items, pamphlets, brochures, and explanatory material in reasonable quantities relating to the foreign exhibits at a trade fair, and material for use in constructing, installing, or maintaining foreign exhibits at a trade fair.

The request is mailed, faxed, or e-mailed from to Department of Commerce, Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, to the Trade Fair Chairperson.

OMB Number: 0625-0228.

Form Number: ITA-4135P.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 220.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 110.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2200.

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 too enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

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

The Department published the antidumping duty orders on steel wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine on October 29, 2002. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine , 67 Fed. Reg. 65,945, and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Carbon and Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Canada , 67 Fed. Reg. 65,944. The Department published the countervailing duty orders on steel wire rod from Brazil and Canada on October 22, 2002. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Brazil and Canada , 67 Fed. Reg. 64,871. On July 24, 2003, petitioners requested that the Department change the technical description of certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod (hereafter, tire cord wire rod). This request arises, petitioners aver, because the original definition of the excluded tire cord wire rod was drawn too narrowly and, thus, captures within the scope certain products petitioners no longer wish to have subject to the orders.

On August 21, 2003, the Department published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances review of the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod products. See Initiation Notice . In the Initiation Notice , we indicated interested parties could submit comments for consideration in the Department's preliminary results not later than 14 days after publication of the initiation of the review, and submit responses to those comments no later than 5 days following the submission of comments. On August 22, 2003, petitioners filed comments that stated the Initiation Notice contains an error in language with respect to the effective date of liquidation of entries because the Initiation Notice does not match the intent of petitioners.

The Initiation Notice stated:

If, as a result of this review, we revoke the order, in part, we intend to instruct the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties, as applicable, and to refund any estimated antidumping duties collected for all unliquidated entries of the tire cord wire rod products meeting the specifications indicated above, as of July 24, 2003, the date this changed circumstances review request was filed by Petitioners, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4).

Initiation Notice , 68 Fed. Reg. 50,513, at 50,515. Petitioners claim this language could be read to mean that all unliquidated entries existing as of July 24, 2003 will be subject to the terms of the changed scope. The phrase “as of July 24, 2003” could also be read to mean that entries made prior to July 24, 2003 that were subject to the original scope would now be excluded by the new scope exclusion language. Petitioners state such a result is contrary to the plain language of petitioners' request and not the intent of the Department's Initiation Notice . Petitioners did not otherwise comment on the scope of the orders. No other interested party commented on the Initiation Notice .

The merchandise covered by these orders is certain hot-rolled products of carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of approximately round cross section, 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm, in solid cross-sectional diameter.

Specifically excluded are steel products possessing the above-noted physical characteristics and meeting the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool steel; c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing steel; and (e) concrete reinforcing bars and rods. Also excluded are (f) free machining steel products (i.e., products that contain by weight one or more of the following elements: 0.03 percent or more of lead, 0.05 percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of tellurium).

Also excluded from the scope are 1080 grade tire cord quality wire rod and 1080 grade tire bead quality wire rod. This grade 1080 tire cord quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod measuring 5.0 mm or more but not more than 6.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.15 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.30 mm or less with 3 or fewer breaks per ton, and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.006 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium.

This grade 1080 tire bead quality rod is defined as: (i) grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod measuring 5.5 mm or more but not more than 7.0 mm in cross-sectional diameter; (ii) with an average partial decarburization of no more than 70 microns in depth (maximum individual 200 microns); (iii) having no inclusions greater than 20 microns; (iv) having a carbon segregation per heat average of 3.0 or better using European Method NFA 04-114; (v) having a surface quality with no surface defects of a length greater than 0.2 mm; (vi) capable of being drawn to a diameter of 0.78 mm or larger with 0.5 or fewer breaks per ton; and (vii) containing by weight the following elements in the proportions shown: (1) 0.78 percent or more of carbon, (2) less than 0.01 percent of soluble aluminum, (3) 0.040 percent or less, in the aggregate, of phosphorus and sulfur, (4) 0.008 percent or less of nitrogen, and (5) either not more than 0.15 percent, in the aggregate, of copper, nickel and chromium (if chromium is not specified), or not more than 0.10 percent in the aggregate of copper and nickel and a chromium content of 0.24 to 0.30 percent (if chromium is specified).

The designation of the products as “tire cord quality” or “tire bead quality” indicates the acceptability of the product for use in the production of tire cord, tire bead, or wire for use in other rubber reinforcement applications such as hose wire. These quality designations are presumed to indicate that these products are being used in tire cord, tire bead, and other rubber reinforcement applications, and such merchandise intended for the tire cord, tire bead, or other rubber reinforcement applications is not included in the scope. However, should petitioners or other interested parties provide a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that there exists a pattern of importation of such products for other than those applications, end-use certification for the importation of such products may be required. Under such circumstances, only the importers of record would normally be required to certify the end use of the imported merchandise.

All products meeting the physical description of subject merchandise that are not specifically excluded are included in this scope.

The products under investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 7213.91.3010, 7213.91.3090, 7213.91.4510, 7213.91.4590, 7213.91.6010, 7213.91.6090, 7213.99.0031, 7213.99.0038, 7213.99.0090, 7227.20.0010, 7227.20.0020, 7227.20.0090, 7227.20.0095, 7227.90.6051, 7227.90.6053, 7227.90.6058, and 7227.90.6059 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The products subject to this changed circumstances antidumping duty and countervailing duty administrative review are certain grade 1080 tire cord steel wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead steel wire rod. Point (iii) of the existing definition of these products reads: “having no inclusions greater than 20 microns.” Petitioners suggest amending this to read “having no non-deformable inclusions greater than 20 microns and no deformable inclusions greater than 35 microns. ” Letter from petitioners dated July 24, 2003, at 5 (emphases in original).

Petitioners would then insert an explanatory paragraph after the existing definition of tire cord wire rod reading:

For purposes of the grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and the grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, an inclusion will be considered to be deformable if its ratio of length (measured along the axis - that is, the direction of rolling - of the rod) over thickness (measured on the same inclusion in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod) is equal to or greater than three. The size of an inclusion for purposes of the 20 microns and 35 microns limitations is the measurement of the largest dimension observed on a longitudinal section measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis of the rod.

Letter from petitioners dated August 6, 2003, at 6; original emphasis deleted.

Pursuant to sections 751(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department may revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Tariff Act (i.e., a changed circumstances review). Section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act requires a changed circumstances review to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 782(h)(1) of the Tariff Act gives the Department the authority to revoke an order if producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the continuation of the order. Section 351.222(g) of the Department's regulations provides that the Department will conduct a changed circumstances administrative review under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it concludes that (i) producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part, or (ii) if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. Since the Department did not receive any comments during the comment period opposing the exclusion of certain grade 1080 tire cord quality wire rod and grade 1080 tire bead quality wire rod, as defined in the “Scope of Changed Circumstances Review” above, from the antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders, we preliminarily conclude that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which these orders pertain lack interest in the relief provided by the order. Unless the Department receives opposition from domestic producers who's production totals more than 15 percent of the domestic like product, the Department will partially revoke the orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod in its final results of review. Therefore, the Department is preliminarily revoking the orders on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, in part, for all entries after the date of the petitioners' request with regard to the products which meet the specifications above.

The Department has considered interested parties' comments concerning the effective date of liquidation of entries. As a result, we intend to instruct Customs to liquidate all entries of subject products entered for consumption on or after July 24, 2003, the effective date of the revocation, in part, of these orders, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g)(4).

Interested parties wishing to comment on these preliminary results may submit briefs to the Department no later than 16 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Parties will have five days subsequent to this due date to submit rebuttal comments, limited to the issues raised in those comments. Parties who submit comments or rebuttal comments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument (no longer than five pages, including footnotes). Any requests for hearing must be filed within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

All written comments must be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303, with the exception that only three (3) copies for each case need be served on the Department. Any comments must also be served on all interested parties on the Department's service list. The Department will issue its final results of review as soon as practicable following the above comment period, but not later than 270 days after the date on which the changed circumstances review is initiated, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e), and will publish these results in the Federal Register . While the changed circumstances review is underway, the current requirement for a cash deposit of estimated antidumping or countervailing duties on all subject merchandise, including the merchandise that is the subject of this changed circumstances review, will continue unless and until these orders are revoked, in part, pursuant to the final results of this changed circumstances review or an administrative review.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.216 and 351.222 of the Department's regulations.

On September 9, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a petition filed in proper form by California Steel and Tube; Hannibal Industries, Inc.; Leavitt Tube Company, LLC; Maruichi American Corporation; Northwest Pipe Company; Searing Industries, Inc.; Vest Inc.; and Western Tube and Conduit Corporation (collectively, the petitioners). See Letter from Schagrin Associates to Secretary Evans of the Department and Secretary Abbott of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties: Light-Walled Rectangular Pipe and Tube from Mexico and Turkey” (September 9, 2003) (Petition). The petitioners are domestic producers of light-walled rectangular (LWR) pipe and tube products. In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of LWR pipe and tube from Mexico and Turkey are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or are threatening to materially injure an industry in the United States.

The Department issued a questionnaire to the petitioners on September 12, 2003, to clarify certain aspects of the Petition. The petitioners responded with the requested supplemental information on September 22, 2003. On September 23, 2003, two Mexican producers, and two U.S. importers of Mexican LWR pipe and tube (collectively, the Mexican industry), filed a submission in which they argued that the petitioners have not adequately established that they represent over 50 percent of the U.S. domestic industry. The Department issued a second questionnaire to the petitioners on September 24, 2003. The petitioners, on September 26, 2003, responded to the Department's second questionnaire and, in addition, provided rebuttal comments concerning the Mexican industry's allegations. On September 26 and 29, 2003, the Mexican industry responded to the petitioners' September 22, 2003 rebuttal comments and reiterated the arguments made in its September 23, 2003 submission, respectively.

After reviewing the contents of the Petition and the two amendments provided by the petitioners, the Department finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the investigations they are presently seeking. See , “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions,” below.

After the publication of the preliminary results of this administrative review, 1 the Department invited interested parties to comment on its preliminary findings. No comments were received.

The merchandise covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this administrative review is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTSUS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

The POR is July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002.

To determine whether sales of silicon metal from Brazil to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the constructed export price to NV. Our calculations followed the methodologies described in the Preliminary Results .

The Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation as described in 19 C.F.R. 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia , that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) a certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV in the current review period and that the company will not sell at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in each of the three years forming the basis of the revocation request; and (3) an agreement to reinstatement in the order or suspended investigation, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order (or suspended investigation), if the Secretary concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 C.F.R. 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider the following in determining whether to revoke the order in part: (1) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping; and (3) whether the producer or exporter requesting revocation in part has agreed in writing to the immediate reinstatement of the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the exporter or producer, subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 C.F.R. 351.222(b)(2); see also Silicon Metal from Brazil; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of Order in Part , 67 FR 77225, 77226 (December 17, 2002).

In the preliminary results, we determined that CBCC has met the requirements for revocation. See Preliminary Results , 68 FR at 44286-87 (July 28, 2003). We received no comments from either the petitioners or CBCC on this revocation determination. Therefore, we continue to find that CBCC has met the requirements for revocation. Specifically, we find that (1) CBCC has demonstrated three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV; (2) CBCC's aggregate sales to the United States were made in commercial quantities during each of those three years ( see Preliminary Results , 68 FR at 44287 (July 28, 2003)), and (3) the continued application of the antidumping order is not necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, for the final results, we find that CBCC qualifies for revocation of the order on silicon metal from Brazil, under 19 C.F.R. 351.222(b)(2).

As a result of this review, we determine that the following percentage weighted-average margin exists for the period July 1, 2001, through June 30, 2002:

This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that are produced and exported by CBCC, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 1, 2002. The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and will instruct the BCBP to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will further instruct the BCBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on entries made on or after July 1, 2002.

The Department will determine, and the BCBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the BCBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct the BCBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of silicon metal from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) cash deposits for CBCC will no longer be required; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 91.06 percent, the “all others” rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. The required cash deposits shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 351.402(f)(2) 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 orders (APOs) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

The mission of the DARP is to restore natural resource injuries caused by releases of hazardous substances or oil under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ), the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. ), and support restoration of physical injuries to National Marine Sanctuary resources under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. ). The DARP consists of three component organizations: the Damage Assessment Center (DAC) within the National Ocean Service; the Restoration Center within the National Marine Fisheries Service; and the Office of the General Counsel for Natural Resources (GCNR). The DARP conducts Natural Resource Damage Assessments (NRDAs) as a basis for recovering damages from responsible parties, and uses the funds recovered to restore injured natural resources.

Consistent with Federal accounting requirements, the DARP is required to account for and report the full costs of its programs and activities. Further, the DARP is authorized by law to recover reasonable costs of damage assessment and restoration activities under CERCLA, OPA, and the NMSA.Within the constraints of these legal provisions and their regulatory applications, the DARP has the discretion to develop indirect cost rates for its component organizations and formulate policies on the recovery of indirect cost rates subject to its requirements.

In December 1998, the DARP hired the public accounting firm Rubino & McGeehin, Chartered (R&M), to: Evaluate the cost accounting system and allocation practices; recommend the appropriate indirect cost allocation methodology; and determine the indirect cost rates for the three organizations that comprise the DARP. A Federal Register notice on R&M's effort, their assessment of the DARP's cost accounting system and practice, and their determination regarding the most appropriate indirect cost methodology and rates for FYs 1993 through 1999 was published on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76611). The notice and report by R&M can also be found on the DARP Web site at: www.darp.noaa.gov.

R&M continued its assessment of DARP's indirect cost rate system and structure for FYs 2000 and 2001. A second federal notice specifying the DARP indirect rates for FYs 2000 and 2001 was published on December 2, 2002 (67 FR 71537).

In October 2002, DARP hired the accounting firm of Cotton and Company LLP (Cotton) to review and certify DARP costs incurred on cases for purposes of cost recovery and to develop indirect rates for FY 2002 and subsequent years. As in the prior years, Cotton concluded that the cost accounting system and allocation practices of the DARP component organizations are consistent with Federal accounting requirements. Consistent with R&M's previous analyses, Cotton also determined that the most appropriate indirect allocation method continues to be the Direct Labor Cost Base for all three DARP component organizations. The Direct Labor Cost Base is computed by allocating total indirect cost over the sum of direct labor dollars plus the application of NOAA's leave surcharge and benefits rates to direct labor. Direct labor costs for contractors from the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) also were included in the direct labor base because Cotton determined that these costs have the same relationship to the indirect cost pool as NOAA direct labor costs. ORISE provides on-site support to DARP in the areas of injury assessment, natural resource economics, restoration planning and implementation, and policy analysis. Cotton's reports on the FY 2002 DARP indirect rates can also be found on the DARP Web site at: www.darp.noaa.gov.

The DARP will apply the indirect cost rates for FY 2002 as recommended by Cotton for each of the DARP component organizations as provided in the following table:

These rates are based on the Direct Labor Cost Base allocation methodology.

The FY 2002 rates will be applied to all damage assessment and restoration case costs incurred between October 1, 2002, and September 30, 2003. DARP will use the FY 2002 indirect cost rates for future fiscal years until subsequent year-specific rates can be developed.

For cases that have settled and for cost claims paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, the DARP will not re-open any resolved matters for the purpose of applying the revised rates in this policy for these fiscal years. For cases not settled and cost claims not paid prior to the effective date of the fiscal year in question, costs will be recalculated using the revised rates in this policy for these fiscal years. Where a responsible party has agreed to pay costs using previous year's indirect rates, but has not yet made the payment because the settlement documents are not finalized, the costs will not be recalculated.

The DARP indirect cost rate policies and procedures published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76611), and on December 2, 2002 (67 FR 71537), remain in effect except as updated by this notice.

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

Southwest Fisheries Science Center (File No. 774-1714) requests a permit to take marine mammals and sea turtles during stock assessment research activities. The application consists of three projects: Project I (Pinniped Studies) is to conduct population assessments for northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), California sea lions ( Zalophus californianus ), Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) and harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ) via aerial and ground/vessel surveys and photogrammetry to determine abundance, distribution patterns, length frequencies, breeding densities. Scat and spew will be collected from California sea lions to determine the diet of this species. This research is part of an ongoing program to assess the status of pinniped species and identify fishery-marine mammal conflicts. Each of the pinniped species requested interacts with fisheries off California. Project II (Cetacean Studies) is to determine the abundance, distribution, movement patterns, and stock structure of cetaceans in U.S. territorial and international waters. These studies are conducted through vessel surveys, aerial surveys, helicopter and small plane photogrammetry, photo-identification (from vessels and small boats), biological sample collection, and tagging and tracking of individual animals. Cetacean abundance data will be used to set limits (PBRs) of allowable human-caused mortality under the MMPA and to monitor trends in abundance through time. Genetic and other analyses of biological samples collected will be used to determine stock structure for the appropriate management of these species. Tagging and tracking activities will help address outstanding needs for data on movements and dive time correction factors for abundance estimation procedures. Project II activities also include the salvage and import/export of cetacean parts, specimens and biological samples. Project III (Sea Turtle Studies) is to determine the abundance, distribution, movement patterns, stock structure and diet of marine turtles in U.S. territorial and international waters. Project III studies will occur opportunistically to research activities conducted under Project II. Sea Turtle data opportunistically collected during cetacean surveys will be useful in determining movements and distribution of turtle species in the ETP, especially for olive ridley turtles. The research activities proposed in this application will provide information on movements and distribution from tag re-sights, genetic analyses of tissue biopsy and blood samples, and continued analyses of sea turtle distribution from sightings data. NMFS recovery plans for these species stress the need for a clarification of stock identity issues and determination of habitat needs and primary foraging areas. Project III also entails the salvage, import and export of marine turtle parts, specimens and biological samples.

In addition to import/export/re-export authorization for biological samples collected during the research activities, the Applicant requests authorization to import/export/re-export parts, salvaged specimens and biological samples or salvaged parts and specimens collected by other researchers under their own authorization.

782-1719 - National Marine Mammal Laboratory submitted a complete application on May 21, 2003 to take various cetacean species during stock assessment research activities. The application was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2003 (68 FR 33477). The applicant has submitted a supplemental request to that application to take endangered marine mammals in the Antarctic.

Written comments or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

Documents for both applications may be reviewed in the following locations:

Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426;

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7235; fax (907)586-7012;

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4020; fax (562)980-4027; and

Assistant Administrator, Pacific Islands Regional Office, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941.

The Plasma Physics Junior Faculty Development Program was started in Fiscal Year 1997. A principal goal of this program is to identify exceptionally talented plasma faculty members early in their careers and assist and facilitate the development of their research programs. Eligibility for awards under this notice is, therefore, restricted to tenure-track regular academic faculty investigators who are conducting experimental or theoretical plasma physics research. Those Junior Faculty members presently holding career development awards will not be considered under this announcement.

Applications from Junior Faculty involved in any areas of plasma physics research, not only magnetic fusion, are welcomed and encouraged. Emphasis is to be placed on basic plasma science research. For applications to be considered for funding, certification of the status of the applicant as a tenure-track regular academic faculty member by the head of the applicant's academic department or other university/college certifying official will be required before the grant is awarded. Awards made under this program will help to maintain the vitality of university plasma physics research and assure continued excellence in the teaching of plasma physics and related disciplines.

It is anticipated that annual funding levels up to $150,000 per award may be made available for grants under this notice during Fiscal Year 2004, contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. Funding for equipment above this level will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The number of awards during Fiscal Year 2004 will depend on the number of meritorious applications and the availability of appropriated funds. Multiple-year funding of grant awards is expected, with funding provided on an annual basis subject to availability of funds. The usual duration of these grants is three years and they will not be renewed under the Plasma Physics Junior Faculty Development Program after the project period is completed. It is anticipated that at the end of the grant period, grantees will submit new grant applications to continue their research to the Department of Energy or other Federal funding agencies. For the Office of Science, these applications should follow the usual application process.

Applications will be subjected to scientific merit review and will be evaluated against the following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance as set forth in 10 CFR part 605:

1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project;

2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach;

3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources; and

4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

An additional review criterion will address educational aspects of the proposed work including the involvement of graduate and undergraduate students. These aspects should be discussed in the application.

General information about development and submission of applications, eligibility, limitations, evaluations and selection processes, and other policies and procedures are contained in the Application Guide for the Office of Science Financial Assistance Program and 10 CFR part 605, which is available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/grants/grants.html. DOE is under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the preparation or submission of applications if an award is not made.

The information collected under the requirements of FERC Form 121 “Application for Determination of the Maximum Lawful Price Under the Natural Gas Policy Act” (OMB Control No. 1902-0038) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of Section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3413. In Order No. 616, (July 14, 2000) the Commission reinstated provisions for making well category determinations under Section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act for certain categories of high cost gas.

When the determinations are made, natural gas producers can claim tax credits as provided for under section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 29 tax credit). Section 29 as amended by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990, allows taxpayers to claim a tax credit for certain qualified fuels which (1) are produced from wells drilled after December 31, 1979, and before January 1, 1993, and (2) sold before January 1, 2003. The qualified fuels include high cost gas as defined in NGPA section 107(c)(2)-(4) (gas produced from geopressured brine, coals seams and Devonian shale), as well as some gas the Commission defined as tight formation gas pursuant to NGPA section 107(c)(5). In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in True Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (True Oil) (170 F.3d 1294) (10th Cir. 1999), held that, in order to obtain the tax credit, there must be a formal determination under the procedures provided for by section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. Section 503 of the NGPA, set forth procedures used for determining whether gas qualified as section 107(c) “high-cost natural gas.” Under that section the agency having regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the production of natural gas in question (a jurisdictional agency) makes the initial determination, and submits it to the Commission. The Commission can affirm, reverse, remand, make a preliminary finding either on, or simply takes no action regarding the agency's determination. If the Commission takes no action within 45 days after receipt of the agency's determination, the determination is final. Judicial review is available under Section 503 only if the Commission remands or reverses the determination. In Order No. 616, the Commission limited its actions to reviewing determinations by jurisdictional agencies for qualifying recompletions in already designated tight formations. Well determinations for recompletions in coal seams and Devonian shale are also accepted. The Commission estimated that there are probably at least 4,131 recompletions that were performed during the years 2000-2003 for which a determination may be sought under the Commission's regulations. FERC Form 121 (Form) is used by a natural gas producer as an application for a determination. Form 121 identifies the producer filing the application, the type of determination the producer is seeking (determination is for occluded natural gas produced from coal seams, Devonian shale or tight formation gas) and information identifying the well and the completion location of the well. An application is initially submitted to the jurisdictional agency and then sent forward to the Commission for review. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 270.

ACTION: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

Estimated cost burden to respondents: 1,033 hours/2,080 hours per year × $117,041 per year = $58,127. The cost per respondent is equal to $14.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including:

(1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

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

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-537 “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition, and Abandonment” (OMB Control No. 1902-0060) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432, and the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (15 U.S.C. 717-717w). Under the NGA, natural gas pipeline companies must obtain Commission authorization to undertake the construction or extension of any facilities, or to acquire or operate any such facilities or extensions in accordance with Section 7(c) of the NGA. A natural gas company must also obtain Commission approval under section 7(b) of the NGA prior to abandoning any jurisdictional facility or service. Under the NGPA interstate and intrastate pipelines must also obtain authorization for certain transportation arrangements.

The information collected is necessary to certificate interstate pipelines engaged in the transportation and sale of natural gas, and the construction, acquisition, and operation of facilities to be used in those activities, to authorize the abandonment of facilities and services and to authorize certain NGPA transactions. If a certificate is granted, the natural gas company can construct, acquire, or operate facilities plus engage in interstate transportation or sale of natural gas. Conversely, approval of an abandonment application permits the pipeline to cease service and/or discontinue the operation of such facilities. Authorization under NGPA section 311(a) allows the interstate or intrastate pipeline applicants to render certain transportation services.

The data required to be submitted consists of identification of the company and responsible officials, factors considered in the location of the facilities and the impact on the area for environmental considerations. Also to be submitted are flow diagrams showing design capacity of engineering design verification and safety determination, and gas reserves data for appraisal of the feasibility of the project. Market data presenting the economic basis for the proposed action are included when appropriate as cost of the proposed facilities, plans for refinancing, and estimated revenues and expenses related to the proposed facility for financial and accounting evaluation. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR parts 157.5-.11; 157.13-.20; 157.22; 157.53; 157.201-.209; 157.211; 157.214-.218; 284.8; 284.11; 284.126; 284.221; 284.223-.224; 284.227.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

Estimated cost burden to respondents: 210,234 hours/2,080 hours per year × $117,041 per year = $11,829,807. The cost per respondent is equal to $155,655.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

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

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-568 “Well Category Determinations” (OMB Control No. 1902-0112) is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), 15 U.S.C. 3413. In Order No. 616, (July 14, 2000) (65 FR 45859) the Commission reinstated provisions for making well category determinations under section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act for certain categories of high cost gas.

When a determination is made, a natural gas producer can claim tax credits as provided for under Section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code (Section 29 tax credits). Section 29 as amended by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990, allows taxpayers to claim a tax credit for certain qualified fuels which (1) are produced from wells drilled after December 31, 1979, and before January 1, 1993, and (2) sold before January 1, 2003. The qualified fuels include high cost gas as defined n NGPA section 107(c)(2)-(4) (gas produced from geopressured brine, coal seams and Devonian shale), as well as some gas the Commission defined as tight formation gas pursuant to NGPA section 107(c)(5). In 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in True Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (True Oil) (170 F.3d 1294)(10th Cir. 1999), held that, in order to obtain the tax credit, there must be a formal determination under the procedures provided for by section 503 of the Natural Gas Policy Act. Section 503 of the NGPA, set forth procedures used for determining whether gas qualified as section 107(c) “high-cost natural gas.” Under that section the agency having regulatory jurisdiction with respect to the production of natural gas in question (jurisdictional agency) makes the initial determination, and submits it to the Commission. The Commission can affirm, reverse, remand, make a preliminary finding either on, or simply takes no action regarding the agency's determination. If the Commission takes no action within 45 days after receipt of the agency's determination, the determination is final. Judicial review is available under Section 503 only if the Commission remands or reverses the determination. In Order No. 616, the Commission limited its actions to reviewing determinations by jurisdictional agencies for qualifying recompletions in already designated tight formations. Well determinations for recompletions in coal seams and Devonian shale are also accepted. The Commission estimated there are probably at least 4,131 recompletions that were performed during the years 2000-2003 for which a determination may be sought under the Commission's regulations. A natural gas producer files an application (FERC Form 121) for a determination. In addition to the application, the applicant will also submit supporting documentation that includes the following: A completion report which illustrates the type of natural gas production treatment ( i.e. perforation, acidization, fracturing etc.); logs defining the coal seams; or superimposed indications of the shale base line using gamma rays; or a map that identifies the geographic location of the well and the geographic location of post January 1, 1993 recompletions' completion location in the designated tight formation; and/or a location plat identifying the geographic location of the well and a list of tracts of land that comprise designated tight formations and an affidavit. FERC-568 covers the reporting requirements for this supporting documentation. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 270.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

Estimated cost burden to respondents: 24,786 hours / 2,080 hours per year × $117,041 per year = $ 1,394,701. The cost per respondent is equal to $ 338.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

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

The information collected under the requirements of FERC-577, “Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statement” (OMB No. 1902-0128) is a filing requirement of the environmental assessment of pipeline and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility construction projects. The filing collects information from all Natural Gas Act (NGA) jurisdictional pipeline companies as well as companies whose Natural Gas Policy Act (NGPA) are reviewed by the Commission.

The information collected under FERC-577 is used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (Pub. L. 91-190) (42 U.S.C. 4332). NEPA requires that all Federal agencies must include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment, a detailed statement on: the environmental impact on the proposed actions; any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; alternatives to the proposed action; the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The Commission uses the pipeline's data to evaluate the environmental aspects of construction proposals and may be used in the Commission staff's independent preparation of Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements. The staff examines and projects potential effects on soils, geology, water resources, land use, recreation, aesthetics, air and noise quality, vegetation, wildlife, cultural resources and pipeline and liquefied natural gas safety. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR parts 2; 157; 284; 375 and 380.

Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the current expiration date with no changes to the existing collection of data.

Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated as:

Estimated Burden: 233,226 total burden hours, 76 respondents, 1,259 responses annually, and 185.2 hours per response (average).

Estimated cost burden to respondents is $13,123,5620; ( i.e. , 233,226 hours divided by 2,080 hours per full time employee per year multiplied by $117,041 per year equals $13,123,560)(rounded off). The cost per respondent is equal to $172,678.

The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.

The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than any one particular function or activity.

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

A. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OW-2002-0036. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

B. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listing 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 identification number.

EPA has prepared a final administrative determination describing the Agency's interpretation of the term “cyanides” (found in 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4) as that interpretation applies to ferric ferrocyanide. 40 CFR 401.15 contains the list of toxic pollutants, 40 CFR 302.4 provides the designation of hazardous substances, and Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 contains the list of hazardous substances and reportable quantities. This final administrative determination responds to a referral from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. By order dated October 19, 1995, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts stayed the proceedings in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Electric Co. (No. 94-2286) and referred the question of whether ferric ferrocyanide qualifies as one of the “cyanides” within the meaning of 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4 to EPA. This District Court order followed a U.S. Court of Appeals decision in which the First Circuit determined that it was appropriate to refer this question to EPA for an “administrative determination.” Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Electric Co. , 67 F.3d 981 (1st Cir. 1995).

This determination is not a legislative rule; notice and comment is not required. However, in reaching this determination, EPA provided an opportunity for public comment through a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of the Agency's preliminary determination (January 25, 2001, 66 FR 7759). EPA originally requested public comments on the preliminary determination by March 12, 2001 and then extended the comment period twice at the request of the litigants in the Blackstone case. After the close of the comment period for the preliminary determination, EPA found additional (and potentially relevant) historical documents and scientific articles, and reopened the comment period for comment on these new materials on November 4, 2002 (November 4, 2002, 67 FR 67183; corrected November 12, 2002, 67 FR 68725). The comment period for the additional materials ended January 3, 2003. In April 2003, EPA conducted a peer review of the preliminary determination in accordance with EPA's Peer Review policies, which are described in EPA's Science Policy Council Handbook—Peer Review, 2nd Edition (EPA 100-B-00-001, December 2001; the “Peer-review Handbook”).

EPA considered all comments and materials received, including those submitted by the peer reviewers, the litigants in the Blackstone case, Massachusetts, and other stakeholders. EPA has placed all comments, responses to comments, and all information used by the Agency in support of this administrative determination in the public docket. EPA also prepared, and included in the public docket, a final administrative determination document (EPA-821-R-03-014) that summarizes the Agency's analysis and rationale. EPA has determined that ferric ferrocyanide is one of the “cyanides” within the meaning of 40 CFR 401.15, 40 CFR 302.4, and Table 302.4.

The guidance document will be issued as a memorandum from EPA headquarters to the Regional offices. It will be available on the Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/correctiveaction.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-2003-0024. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270.

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 view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

All interested parties are invited to submit written comments on this determination and may request a public hearing. All comments will be considered, and, if necessary, EPA will issue a response. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by November 5, 2003, a public hearing will be held. A request for public hearing shall include the following: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such a hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request; or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0483.

Title: Section 73.687, Transmission System Requirements.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 6.

Estimated time per response: 1.0 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total annual burden: 6 hours.

Total annual costs: $0.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.687(e)(3) requires TV broadcast stations operating on Channels 14 and 69 to take special precautions to avoid interference to adjacent spectrum land mobile operations. This requirement applies to all new Channel 14 and 69 TV broadcast stations and those authorized to change channel, increase effective radiated power (ERP), change directional antenna characteristics such that ERP increases in any azimuth direction or change location, involving an existing or proposed channel 14 or 69 assignment. Section 73.687(e)(4) requires these stations to submit evidence to the FCC that no interference is being caused before they will be permitted to transmit programming on the new facilities. FCC uses the data to ensure proper precautions have been taken to protect land mobile stations from interference. It will also both increase and improve service to the public by broadcasters and land mobile services operating in certain parts of the spectrum.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0397.

Title: Special Temporary Authority—Section 15.7(a).

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 2.

Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours.

Frequency of Response: One time filing requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 12 hours.

Total Estimated Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: In exceptional situations, the FCC will issue a special temporary authorization to operate a radio frequency device not conforming to the subject rules. An applicant must show that the proposed operation is in the public interest but cannot be feasibly conducted under the applicable rules.

OMB Approval Number: 3060-0758.

Title: Amendment of Part 5 of the Commission's Rules to Revise the Experimental Radio Service Regulations, ET Docket No. 96-256.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 428.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.1 to 2.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 681 hours.

Total Estimated Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR part 5 of the FCC's Rules governing the Experimental Radio Service: (1) Pursuant to Section 5.75, if a blanket license is granted, licensees are required to notify the Commission of the specific details of each individual experiment, including location, number of base and mobile units, power, emission designator, and any other pertinent technical information not specified by the blanket license; (2) pursuant to Section 5.85(d), when applicants are using public safety frequencies to perform experiments of a public safety nature, the license may be conditioned to require coordination between the experimental licensee and appropriate frequency coordinator and/or all public safety licensees in its area of operation; (3) pursuant to Section 5.85(e), the Commission may, at its discretion, condition any experimental license or special temporary authority (STA) on the requirement that before commencing operation, the new licensee coordinate its proposed facility with other licensees that may receive interference as a result of the new licensee's operations; and (4) pursuant to Section 5.93(b), unless otherwise stated in the instrument of authorization, a license granted for the purpose of limited market studies requires the licensee to inform anyone participating in the experiment that the service or device is granted under an experimental authorization and is strictly temporary. In all cases, it is the responsibility of the licensee to coordinate with other users.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0819.

Title: Lifeline Assistance (Lifeline) Connection Assistance (Link-Up) Reporting Worksheet and Instructions (47 CFR 54.400-54.417).

Form No: FCC Form 497.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,500 respondents; 18,000 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.5 hours × 12 submissions.

Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and monthly reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 63,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Eligible telecommunications carriers are permitted to receive universal service support reimbursement for offering certain services to qualifying low-income customers. The telecommunications carriers must file FCC Form 497 to solicit reimbursement. Applicants are encouraged to submit the filings to the administrator quarterly. For those that file quarterly, they are required to file three separate forms for each quarter—one for each month within the quarter. Collection of this data is necessary for the administrator to accurately provide settlements for the low-income programs according to Commission rules.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0893.

Title: Universal Licensing Service (ULS) Pre-Auction Database Corrections.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit, individual or household, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 4,442 respondents, 21,000 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50 hours (30 minutes).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 10,500 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Use: This collection is necessary to ensure that the ULS database is as accurate as possible. It involves the correction of licensing data errors detected through integrity reports obtained by searching the ULS database. This data must be corrected to prepare for specific auctions of certain radio services that have been placed in the ULS but have not yet been auctioned. This data aids in spectrum management and provides for an efficient graphical user interface for each potential auction participant.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0270.

Title: Section 90.443, Content of Station Records.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities, individual or household, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 57,410.

Estimated Time Per Response: .083 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 4,765 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Use: The rule specifies the records required to be maintained by station licensees. These records indicate maintenance performed on the licensee's equipment, and instances of tower light checks and failures, if any, and corrective action taken. The maintenance records could be used by the licensee or Commission filed personnel to note any recurring equipment problems or conditions that may lead to degraded equipment performance and/or interference generation. The records regarding tower lighting are required to ensure that the licensee is aware of tower light condition and proper operation, in order to prevent and/or correct any hazards to air navigation.

Continuously accelerating technological changes in telecommunications design, manufacturing, and deployment require that the Commission be promptly informed of those changes to fulfill its statutory mandate effectively. The Council was established by the Federal Communications Commission to provide a means by which a diverse array of recognized technical experts from different areas such as manufacturing, academia, communications services providers, the research community, etc., can provide advice to the FCC on innovation in the communications industry. At this third meeting under the Council's new charter, the Council will focus on Voice services over IP. Members of the public may attend the meeting. The Federal Communications Commission will attempt to accommodate as many persons as possible. Admittance, however, will be limited to the seating available. Unless so requested by the Council's Chair, there will be no public oral participation, but the public may submit written comments to Jeffery Goldthorp, the Federal Communications Commission's Designated Federal Officer for the Technological Advisory Council, before the meeting. Mr. Goldthorp's e-mail address is Jeffery.Goldthorp@fcc.gov . Mail delivery address is: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 7-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Continuous Marketing Applications: Pilot 2—Scientific Feedback and Interactions During Development of Fast Track Products Under PDUFA.” In conjunction with the June 2002 reauthorization of PDUFA, FDA agreed to meet specific performance goals (PDUFA Goals). The PDUFA Goals include two pilot programs to explore the continuous marketing application (CMA) concept. The CMA concept builds on the current practice of interaction between FDA and applicants during drug development and application review and proposes opportunities for improvement.

In the Federal Register of June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35901), FDA announced the availability of a draft version of this guidance. FDA received a number of comments when it issued the draft version of this guidance. We have considered the comments on the draft guidance carefully and have made some changes to address those comments. Among other things, we have revised the guidance to clarify the eligibility requirements and selection process for Pilot 2 and provide for public availability of additional information during the program.

Under the CMA Pilot 2 program, certain drug and biologic products that have been designated as Fast Track (i.e., products intended to treat a serious and/or life-threatening disease for which there is an unmet medical need) are eligible to be considered for participation in Pilot 2. Pilot 2 is an exploratory program and FDA will evaluate its impact on the investigational phase of drug development. Under the pilot program, a maximum of one Fast Track product per review division in CDER and CBER will be selected to participate. This guidance provides information regarding the selection of applications for Pilot 2, the formation of agreements between FDA and applicants on the investigational new drug application communication process, and other procedural aspects of Pilot 2. See DATES for when FDA will begin accepting applications for participation in Pilot 2.

This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection(s) of information in this guidance was approved under OMB control number 0910-0518, and will expire on March, 31, 2004. In the notice announcing the availability of the draft version of this guidance (68 FR 35901), FDA published a notice of the proposed collection of information related to the draft guidance. The Federal Register notice also requested comments on the burden estimated for the guidance. In the Federal Register of September 9, 2003 (68 FR 53174), the agency announced that it was submitting the collection of information to OMB for review and clearance under the PRA. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 80 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection.

This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on the guidance at any time. Two copies of mailed comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet can obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm .

FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Continuous Marketing Applications: Pilot 1—Reviewable Units for Fast Track Products Under PDUFA.” In conjunction with the June 2002 reauthorization of PDUFA, FDA agreed to meet specific performance goals (PDUFA Goals). The PDUFA Goals include two pilot programs to explore the continuous marketing application (CMA) concept. The CMA concept builds on the current practice of interaction between FDA and applicants during drug development and application review and proposes opportunities for improvement.

In the Federal Register of June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35903), FDA announced the availability of a draft version of this guidance. FDA received a number of comments on the draft guidance. We have considered the comments carefully and have made some changes to address those comments. Among other things, we have revised the guidance to further describe the selection of marketing applications for inclusion in Pilot 1, clarify the content and submission process for reviewable units, and provide for public availability of additional information during the program.

Under the CMA pilot program, Pilot 1, applicants submitting new drug applications or biological licensing applications for products that have been designated as Fast Track drug or biological products (i.e., products intended to treat a serious and/or life-threatening disease for which there is an unmet medical need) may be eligible to submit portions of their marketing applications (reviewable units) in advance of the complete marketing application. FDA has agreed to complete reviews of reviewable units within a specified time and to provide early feedback for those presubmissions in the form of discipline review letters.

This guidance provides information on how the agency will implement Pilot 1. As described in the guidance, Pilot 1 is an exploratory program that will allow FDA to evaluate the added value, costs, and impact of early review and feedback on parts of applications (reviewable units) in advance of submission of the complete application.

This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on the implementation of the Pilot 1 program for reviewable units of certain Fast Track drug and biological products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on the guidance at any time. Two copies of mailed comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Persons with access to the Internet can obtain the guidance at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/guidelines.htm .

On July 25, 2003, FEMA made a finding of reasonable assurance that appropriate measures to protect the health and safety of communities surrounding the Indian Point Energy Center can be taken and are capable of being implemented. A link to the full text of the document transmitting the finding to George Pataki, Governor of New York, is available at http://www.fema.gov.

The Malpai Borderlands Group (Applicants) plan to implement conservation measures on approximately 1 million acres (404,700 hectares) in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico. The conservation measures will improve and maintain livestock tanks and other artificial waters and use them to establish Chiricahua leopard frog populations. The Agreement as currently written is expected to provide a net conservation benefit to the Chiricahua leopard frog. The Agreement will provide protection to the Applicants against further regulation under the Endangered Species Act in the event that the Chiricahua leopard frog naturally or artificially establishes populations in the area as a result of implementation of the proposed conservation measures.

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.

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the measures needed for recovery.

The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species, unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Draft Recovery Plan for Coastal Plants of the Northern San Francisco Peninsula was available for comment from December 4, 2001, through September 9, 2002. We sent 1,574 copies of the draft plan to affected or interested parties. About 430 comment letters were received and reviewed by us, including 5 responses from peer reviewers.

Substantive technical comments resulted in several changes to the plan. Many of these came from the National Park Service and the Presidio Trust who have been working to recover the two focus species for several years. Their comments provided helpful information about the costs and time needs for several of the actions recommended in the plan. Substantive comments regarding implementation of the plan did not necessarily result in changes to the recovery plan, but will be used to assist the work of participating Federal and other entities during the course of implementing recovery actions.

San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita are restricted to the San Francisco peninsula in San Francisco County and the northern part of San Mateo County, California. San Francisco lessingia, an annual herb in the aster family, is restricted to coastal sand deposits. Raven's manzanita, a rare evergreen creeping shrub in the heath family, was historically restricted to a few scattered serpentine outcrops. Habitat loss, adverse alteration of ecological processes, and invasion of non-native plant species threaten San Francisco lessingia. Raven's manzanita has also been threatened by habitat loss. The primary current threats to Raven's manzanita include invasion of non-native vegetation; fungal pathogens; and tussock moth caterpillars, the larvae of moths from the family Lymantriidae, that eat the plants' leaves.

The plan also makes reference to several other federally listed species which are ecologically associated with San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita, but which are treated comprehensively in other recovery plans. These species are beach layia ( Layia carnosa ), Presidio clarkia ( Clarkia franciscana ), Marin dwarf-flax ( Hesperolinon congestum ), Myrtle's silverspot butterfly ( Speyere zerene myrtleae ), and bay checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha bayensis ). In addition, 16 plant species of concern and 17 plant species of local or regional conservation significance are considered in this recovery plan.

The recovery plan stresses re-establishing dynamic, persistent populations of San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within plant communities which have been restored to be as “self-sustaining” as possible within urban wildland reserves. Because the species has been reduced to small remnant areas of habitat, specific recovery actions for San Francisco lessingia focus on the restoration and management of larger, dynamic mosaics of coastal dune areas supporting shifting populations within the species' narrow historic range. Recovery of Raven's manzanita will include, but will not be limited to, the strategy of the 1984 Raven's Manzanita Recovery Plan, which emphasized the stabilization of the single remaining genetic individual. The plan also seeks to re-establish multiple sexually reproducing populations of Raven's manzanita in association with its historically associated species of local serpentine outcrops.

The objectives of this recovery plan are to delist San Francisco lessingia and to downlist Raven's manzanita through implementation of a variety of recovery measures including: (1) Protection and restoration of a series of ecological reserves (often with mixed recreational and conservation park land uses); (2) promotion of population increases of San Francisco lessingia and Raven's manzanita within these sites, and reintroduction of them to restored sites; (3) management of protected sites, especially the extensive eradication or suppression of invasive dominant non-native vegetation; (4) research; and (5) public participation, outreach, and information.

The allotment of Indian lands—dividing tribal lands into small parcels and allocating those parcels to individual Indians—became federal policy in 1887 with the enactment of the General Allotment Act. By the 1930s, however, it was widely accepted that the policy was a failure and, in 1934 it was ended with passage of the first Indian Reorganization Act. Interests in these alloted lands started to “fractionate” as interests divided among the heirs of the original allottees, expanding rapidly with every generation.

Today, there are approximately four million owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually-owned trust lands, and these four million interests could expand to 11 million interests by 2030. Moreover, there are an estimated 1.4 million fractional interests of 2 percent or less involving 58,000 tracks of individually-owed trust and restricted lands. There are not single pieces of property with ownership interests that are less than 0.000002 percent of the whole interest.

Addressing this issue is critical to improving the management of trust assets. The Department of the Interior, the Department in which the BIA and OST are located, is bound by its trust obligations to maintain ownership records, and in some cases to collect and distribute income for each Indian owner's interest, regardless of size. Reduction of fractional interests will increase the likelihood of more productive economic use of the land, reduce record keeping and large numbers of small dollar financial transactions, and decrease the number of interests subject to probate.

Starting in 2004, the BIA will oversee the National Indian Land Consolidation Program. The Department has established an internal working group that has actively met with tribal organizations, such as the Indian Land Working Group and the National Congress of American Indians, to discuss fractionation, the problems associated with fractionation, and possible solutions to problems. Since the Department is actively working with tribal organizations, the Department will not be convening another fractionation working group.

The Electronic Data Systems Corporation, in its January 2002 Trust Reform Report, recommended that the Department develop an accurate, current state model to include business processes, internal controls, and associated information technology. The Department worked extensively on documenting the “As-Is” business processes currently employed in managing Indian trust assets. Through this “As-Is” business process, the Department established a comprehensive understanding of current trust business operations, identified needs and opportunities for improvement, and was able to understand the variances among geographic regions, and their causes.

The development of the initial “To-Be” model takes into consideration those recommendations and lessons learned from the “As-Is” process. The Department is in the process of comparing these processes to the initial “To Be” model processes to determine how existing processes can be improved. Finally, the Department will integrate the final “To-Be” model processes with universal support and operational functions, and these reengineered business processes will be documented with appropriate polices, procedures, guidelines and handbooks.

The Department has identified a reengineering core team for the purpose of engaging appropriate Interior bureaus, agencies and offices, and Tribes in the reengineering effort at different levels. The Department recognizes that Tribal assistance is critical to the identification of trust business process alternatives and opportunities for improvement. The core team is divided into a technical group (Tier 1) and a review and validation group (Tier 2). Because the activities of these core teams will involve consultations with tribes and tribal organizations, the Department will not be convening a new working group.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposes to take 66 acres of land into trust on behalf of the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians (Tribe), on which the Tribe, through a development agreement with Park Place Entertainment Corporation, proposes to build a resort and casino complex to be called the Mohawk Mountain Resort and Casino. The property is located along the east side of Anawana Lake Road (C.R. 103) in the Town of Thompson, Sullivan County, New York, approximately 3 miles north of the Village of Monticello. The project design contemplates a 750 room hotel and 450,000 square foot casino and support area, a 2,000 seat theater and several restaurants spread across the 66 acres to be taken into trust, with a 5,040 stall parking garage on an adjacent 141 acre parcel.

The Tribe prepared and submitted to the BIA an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the proposed action in December 2002. Upon consideration of the EA, and of project changes made after the EA was prepared, the BIA found that an EIS would be required for the proposed action. The EA will, however, serve as a part of the scoping process for the EIS. In addition, the project is undergoing review pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, which has included public hearings held by the Town of Thompson to receive public comments on the EA. The comments from these hearings will also serve as a part of the scoping process for the EIS.

Issues identified to date to be addressed in the EIS include, but are not limited to the following:

• Traffic—concerns that traffic jams may result from the project and that emergency services may be compromised.

• Noise—concerns that sounds from the resort and casino will travel offsite and adversely affect nearby residences, wildlife and/or livestock.

• Water Supply/Water Quality—concerns that the project will have an adequate water supply and will not adversely affect water quality in Anawana Lake or its tributaries.

• Wetlands—the minimization and/or avoidance of wetland impacts.

Wildlife—concerns regarding the project's impact on fish and wildlife and their habitats, including threatened and endangered species.

• Sewage Disposal—concerns regarding the handling of sewage effluent.

• Land Use/Community Character—concerns regarding how the project might affect the character of surrounding lands and communities.

• Socio-economics—concerns regarding how the project might affect local business and property values.

• Air Quality “ concerns regarding the additive air impacts of project-induced traffic.

• Cumulative Effects “ concerns regarding the cumulative environmental impacts of the project when considered together with other reasonably foreseeable development projects in the region.

• Alternatives to the preferred alternative.

The range of issues and alternatives addressed in the EIS may be further expanded based on comments received in response to this notice, or to the scoping meeting announced in this notice.

Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing address shown in the ADDRESSES section, during regular business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.

As published in the Federal Register of June 25, 2003, (68 FR 37857), the Bureau of Indian Affairs announced the availability of funds for tribal courts (including Courts of Indian Offenses) and qualified tribal applicants that assume responsibility to assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs with certain Supervised Individual Indian Money (IIM) Accounts, more specifically those referenced in subparts B and C of 25 CFR part 115 (2003 ed.). The deadline for submittal of application under this NOFA was July 25, 2003. We are extending this deadline to provide an opportunity for those tribal governments that want to apply for funds to compile the relevant information regarding Supervised IIM Accounts that are under the control and management of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Requests were received from tribal governments stating that the initial publication time was simply too short. Therefore, the application deadline date is extended from July 25, 2003, to November 5, 2003.

Applications are due November 5, 2003 and must be postmarked by midnight on this date. Applications will be considered as meeting the deadline if they are received on or before the deadline date, or sent on or before the deadline date. Applicants may hand deliver applications to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section by close-of-business (5 p.m. EST) on the deadline date. Applications will be accepted by facsimile until the close-of-business (5 p.m. EST) on the deadline date, provided the original application is postmarked by midnight the day after the due date. No applications can be transmitted by e-mail (electronic mail). Applicants are responsible for ensuring proper delivery of the application and are encouraged to contact Ralph Gonzales at (202) 513-7629 to confirm receipt.

The application packet information was included with the June 25, 2003, NOFA, and was also forwarded to the Tribal Government Services or Tribal Operations officers in the respective BIA Regional Offices. Interested applicants may contact Ralph Gonzales at the number provided above, or the Division of Tribal Government Services, (202) 513-7641, for information on application packets.

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended), the NPS has prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that considers six alternatives to establish quotas and operating requirements for four types of motorized vessels—cruise ships and tour, charter, and private vessels—within Glacier Bay proper and/or Dundas Bay in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve.

Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve is located in Southeast Alaska, approximately 65 miles (105 kilometers) west of Juneau. Accessible by boat and airplane, it is a popular destination due to its spectacular scenery, tidewater glaciers, wilderness, and wildlife. Vessel quotas and operating requirements have been in effect since 1979. The need for the actions considered in this FEIS stems from legislation enacted in 2001, wherein the U.S. Congress directed the Park Service to identify and analyze the possible effects of the 1996 increases in the number of vessel entries issued for Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and set the maximum level of vessel entries, consistent with the purposes and values of the park. In this EIS, the Park Service is addressing the continuing demand for motorized vessel access into the park in a manner that assures continuing protection of park resources and values, while providing for a range of high-quality opportunities for visitors to the park.

The six alternatives evaluated in this EIS include five action alternatives and a no action alternative. Daily quotas, seasonal entries, seasonal-use days, quota season, and/or operating requirements differ among the alternatives. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would set vessel quotas and operating requirements for Glacier Bay proper. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would set quotas and operating requirements for Dundas Bay as well.

• Alternative 1 , the no action alternative, would maintain the current vessel quotas, quota season (June 1 through August 31), and operating requirements ( see 36 Code of Federal Regulations 13.65).

• Alternative 2 would set vessel quotas in accordance with those in place in 1995 and maintain the current quota season and operating requirements.

• Alternative 3 would maintain the current vessel quotas and quota season, with one exception: it would include a provision to increase the seasonal quota for cruise ships to a maximum of two per day every day, based on the results of studies and monitoring. It would maintain the current operating requirements.

• Alternative 4 , the environmentally preferred alternative, would maintain the current daily quota for cruise ships and decrease the daily vessel quotas for tour, charter, and private vessels in Glacier Bay. Seasonal entry quotas would not apply. This alternative would decrease the number of seasonal use days for cruise ships and tour and charter vessels and increase the number of seasonal use days for private vessels in Glacier Bay. The quota season would be May 1 through September 30 (note: the year-round daily vessel quota for cruise ships and tour vessels would be maintained). Vessel quotas would be initiated for charter vessels for Dundas Bay during a May 1 through September 30 quota season. Neither cruise ships nor tour vessels would be permitted in Dundas Bay. No quotas would be imposed for private vessels. Operating requirements would be modified.

• Alternative 5 would maintain the current daily quotas and quota season for all four vessel types in Glacier Bay. Seasonal entry quotas would not apply. It would maintain the number of seasonal-use days for cruise ships, tour vessels, and charter vessels in Glacier Bay during the current June 1 through August 31 quota season, but decrease the number of seasonal-use days for cruise ships during May and September. It would increase the number of seasonal-use days for private vessels during the June through August quota season. Quotas would be initiated for tour and charter vessels in Dundas Bay, and the quota season would June 1 through August 31. Cruise ships would not be permitted in Dundas Bay and tour vessels would not be permitted in the upper bay (wilderness waters) on a year-round basis. No quotas would be imposed for private vessels in Dundas Bay. Operating requirements would be modified.

• Alternative 6 , the NPS preferred alternative, would maintain the current daily vessel quotas for Glacier Bay. Seasonal entry quotas would not apply. This alternative would maintain the current seasonal use day quota for cruise ships during the current quota season (June-August), but provide for possible increases to a maximum of two ships per day each day, based on the results of studies and monitoring. It would establish a seasonal use day quota for cruise ships for May and September, with a provision to increase the number of seasonal use days to up to two per day each day, based on the results of studies and monitoring. It would maintain the current number of seasonal use days for tour and charter vessels and increase the number of seasonal use days for private vessels during the current quota season. Quotas would be initiated for tour and charter vessels in Dundas Bay, and the quota season would be June 1 through August 31. Cruise ships would not be permitted in Dundas Bay and tour vessels would not be permitted in the upper bay (wilderness waters) on a year-round basis. No quotas would be imposed for private vessels in Dundas Bay. Operating requirements would be modified.

The responsible official for a Record of Decision on the proposed action is the NPS regional director in Alaska.

I. Background

Section 503 of ERISA provides that, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, each employee benefit plan shall provide notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied. This notice must set forth the specific reasons for the denial and must be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. Plans must also afford a reasonable opportunity for a participant or beneficiary whose claim has been denied to obtain a full and fair review of the denial by the appropriate named fiduciary.

The Department first issued regulations pertaining to claims procedures in 1977. These procedures were subsequently amended by a Notice of Final Rulemaking published on November 21, 2000 (65 FR 70246). The regulatory provisions pursuant to ERISA section 503 are codified at 29 CFR 2560.503-1. These regulations require the establishment of reasonable claims procedures, and describe the timing and content of notices and disclosures that will be deemed to constitute part of a reasonable claims procedure.

The Department of Labor (Department) is particularly interested in comments that:

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

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

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

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

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of this ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2003. After considering comments received in response to this notice, the Department intends to submit the ICR to OMB for continuing approval. No change to the existing ICR is proposed or made at this time.

Agency: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.

Title: Employee Benefit Plan Claims Procedures under ERISA.

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

OMB Number: 1210-0053.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

Respondents: 6,700,000.

Responses: 118,000,000.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 333,000.

Estimated Total Burden Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $90,000,000.

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

The SCSEP is authorized by Public Law 106-105, Title V of the Older Americans Act (OAA) Amendments of 2000, “Community Service Employment for Older Americans.” The information collected for the SCSEP is used to administer this program of approximately $445 million which serves nearly 100,000 people each year. The Department uses three reports to administer this program. These reports are; a quarterly report of program performance data, the Quarterly Progress Report (ETA 5140), a quarterly report of financial information, The Financial Status Report (SF 269), and an Equitable Distribution Report (ETA 8705) showing the distribution of program positions by county within each State. In addition a notice, in the form of a poster, is included in the package as a required at OAA section 502(b)(1)(P) (allowable political activities).

The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the collection of appropriate information on SCSEP activities;

• 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 collected information; and

• Minimize the collection burden for those who do the reporting, including the use of appropriate electronic, mechanical or other technology.

This collection of program and financial information continues to be needed to assure that the requirements of Title V of the Older Americans Act are met. The extension of these forms will allow coverage while the new reporting system and performance measures are developed.

Type of Review: Extension (Without Significant Change).

Agency: Employment and Training Administration.

Title: The Senior Community Service Employment Program Reporting Package.

OMB No.: 1205-0040.

Form No.: ETA 8705, ETA 5140, SF 269, 424 and 424A.

Record Keeping: Agencies maintain records for 3 years after the grant period end.

Affected Public: Non-profit organizations state and local governments.

Total Respondents: 69.

Frequency: Annually or Quarterly as needed.

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

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; they will also become a matter of public record.