Pursuant to the PA, 5 U.S.C. 552a, USDA hereby takes the following action:

I. Three systems of records maintained by CSREES are being revised for the following reasons:

1. USDA/CSREES-1, “Current Research Information System.” The purposes of this revision to the system of records are to (1) change the designation from USDA/CSRS-1 to USDA/CSREES-1; (2) reflect organizational changes; (3) identify changes to system location, categories of individuals covered by the system, purpose, record storage, retrievability, safeguards, notification procedures, and record access procedures; (4) delete three routine uses no longer necessary or compatible with the purpose for which information was collected; and (5) add a new routine use.

2. USDA/CSREES-2, “International Programs Recruitment Roster.” The purposes of this revision to the system of records are to (1) change the designation from USDA/ES-1 to USDA/CSREES-2; (2) reflect organizational changes; (3) identify changes to system name and location, categories of records in the system, addresses for system manager and notification procedures, retention and disposal, and delete one routine use that is not a required routine use.

3. USDA/CSREES-3, “State Cooperative Extension Service Employees.” The purposes of this revision to the system of records are to (1) change the designation from USDA/ES-3 to USDA/CSREES-3; (2) reflect organizational changes; (3) identify changes to system location, categories of records in the system, safeguards, system manager address, and storage; and (4) add three routine uses.

II. One System of Records is being added as follows:

1. USDA/CSREES-4, “CSREES Grants System.” The purpose of this new system of records is to enable program offices to reference reviewers and maintain appropriate files and supporting material in processing, evaluating, and managing applications for grants or other support, including completing awards and distributing funds.

III. One System of Records is being deleted as follows:

1. USDA/ES-2, “Cooperative Extension Personnel Records System.” This system is being deleted because these records are no longer relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the Agency and the records are no longer maintained by USDA.

A Privacy Act Systems Report relating to the proposed changes and new system required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as implemented by OMB Circular A-130, was sent to the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget; the Chairwoman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate; and the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, U.S. House of Representatives.

The purpose of this system of records is to document the research activities of the USDA/State agricultural research system for various reporting purposes as well as to provide ready access to research information.

The revisions to the system of records are to change the designation from USDA/CSRS-1 to USDA/CSREES-1; reflect organizational changes; identify changes to system location, categories of individuals covered by the system, purpose, record storage, retrievability, safeguards, notification procedures, and record access procedures; delete three routine uses no longer necessary or compatible with the purpose for which information was collected, and add a new routine use.

The authorities for maintaining this system of records are 7 U.S.C. 361 a-i; 7 U.S.C. 3222; 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 7621; 7 U.S.C. 7626; 7 U.S.C. 3152; 7 U.S.C. 3241; 7 U.S.C. 5811; and 7 U.S.C. 343.

Use of this system, as established, should not result in infringement of any individual's right to privacy.

Access to technical records are maintained on the CRIS Web site ( http://cris.csrees.usda.gov ) and available to anyone. Financial records will be in a safeguarded environment with access only by authorized personnel.

The system provides for one new routine use release, as follows:

Routine use 1 permits disclosure of the technical records in this system to the general public in order to inform them of agricultural related research, plan future research activities, avoid costly duplication of research, and establish valuable contacts within the research community.

The revised system of records will not be exempt from any provisions of the Privacy Act.

Background Information

During August and September of 2003, the Snow Talon Fire burned 37,706 acres, with 34,362 of these acres on National Forest Lands. Approximately 26,500 acres burned with high severity (as defined in the USFS Burned Area Emergency Response Handbook FSH 2509.13, Amendment No. 2509.13-95-7 ).

The purpose of this project is to salvage timber in response to the Snow Talon Fire. The immediate need is to recover the value of the burned commercial timber products before they decay and have no commercial viability ( Helena National Forest Land and Resource Plan [Forest Plan] II-1, Goal #11 and Goal #16). The proposed commercial timber salvage harvest would provide economic opportunities for rural communities and is consistent with Forest Plan goals to provide a sustained timber yield that is responsive to local industry and national needs ( Forest Plan Forest-Wide Goal #11). Management Area direction for the majority of the proposed for harvest areas designates goals emphasizing cost-effective timber production while protecting the soil productivity ( Forest Plan Management Areas T-1, T-3, T-4). While some of the actions proposed will help restore resources affected by the fire, the intent of including these actions with this salvage harvest project is to mitigate for the effects of salvage activities. Jammer trail reclamation is included in the proposed action to mitigate for the overall effects of salvage activities to soils. It is not the intent of this project to fully address all the effects of the Snow Talon Fire. Currently, a restoration team is addressing long-term restoration needs through a variety of other projects.

The Helena National Forest proposes to harvest 20 to 25 million board feet of commercial timber over approximately 2700 acres. The following yarding methods, by percentage of proposed harvest acreage, would be utilized: 55% helicopter, 20% skyline, 25% tractor. To facilitate harvest, approximately 1/2 mile of temporary roads and 30 helicopter landing areas are proposed and would be rehabilitated following harvest. Two temporary bridges would also be needed, and would be removed following harvest and rehabilitation activities. Only dead or dying trees would be removed; however, a few green trees may have to be cut to meet safety requirements in helicopter landing areas and skyline corridors. To minimize impacts to burned soils, the proposed action specifies that all tractor and skyline logging would occur under winter conditions (either 4 inches of frozen soil and/or 6 inches of packed snow). Reclamation of 105 acres of jammer trails originally constructed for logging in the 1960s is included in the proposed action to mitigate for harvest activities by improving soil quality. BMPs that promote long-term water quality, maintain existing road systems, and minimize erosion are also proposed. BMP activities would include, but not be limited to, improving road drainage features, installing and replacing ditch-relief culverts, gravelling portions of the road system, re-vegetation, and other practices to minimize erosion. The proposed action does not include timber harvest or temporary road construction in IRAs, RNAs, or RHCAs.

Thomas J. Clifford, Forest Supervisor—2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602.

The decision framework refers to the scope of the decision that will be issued at the conclusion of this analysis by the responsible official. The responsible official's decision will be based on information disclosed in the environmental document, information contained in the Project Analysis File, comments submitted during the scoping of the proposed action and the comment period, comment responses, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.

The responsible official may decide whether or not to

• Select the proposed action,

• Select an alternative to the proposed action, or

• Select portions from the developed range of alternatives and combine them in a logical package.

In selecting one of the above options, the terms and conditions of the selection will be fully displayed and understood. Within the parameters of this decision space, it will also be determined if a Helena Land and Resource Management Plan amendment would be necessary. The responsible official will take into consideration relationships of alternatives to the identified significant issues.

Proposed Action scoping period—Scoping begins the day this notice is published in the Federal Register and ends January 15, 2004. A scoping document will be mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies, tribal governements, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. The scoping document will also be posted on the Helena National Forest Web site on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/ . A public open-house scoping meeting is tentatively scheduled from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m., December 17, 2003 in Lincoln, Montana. Draft Environmental Impact Statement release, 45-day comment period and public meetings—begins in March 2004.

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision—June 2004.

The Snow Talon Interdisciplinary Team has identified the following preliminary issues to be addressed in the EIS:

• Copper Creek is the most heavily used yearlong recreational areas on the Lincoln Ranger District, both for non-commercial and permitted commercial recreational activities. Public safety concerns may necessitate delays and/or temporary closures of portions of the Copper Creek drainage to public use when proposed activities are occurring.

• The analysis area provides habitat for the grizzly bear and lynx, which are both species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The analysis area is within the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grizzly bear recovery area.

• Copper Creek provides critical spawning habitat for upper Blackfoot River fluvial bull trout, a species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

• Other animal and plant species listed as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service and the State of Montana are known to be present in the Copper Creek area.

Alternatives being considered at this time are this proposed action and the no action alternative (not to conduct a salvage harvest).

In order to proceed, the proposed action may require the following permits:

• State of Montana Floodplain Development Permit.

• Short-Term Exemption from Montana's Surface Water Quality Standard (3A Authorization).

• State of Montana Stream Protection Act 124 Permit.

• Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the EIS. Scoping comments addressing this proposed action are due to the Forest Service by January 15, 2004. Concerns or issues should display points of dispute or debate relevant to the proposed action. Identifying significant issues is key in the process of developing alternatives.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The 45-day comment period on the draft EIS will begin in March 2004 from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

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

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1503.3 in addressing these points.

The committee will meet jointly with the Lake Tahoe Basin Executives Committee via conference call. Items to be covered on the agenda include: (1) Recommendations for Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act Funding Proposals and (2) public comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend at the above address. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

Agenda items for the December 5 meeting include: (1) Report on the CA RAC meeting; (2) 2004 Chair election; (3) Forest Supervisor feedback on Cycle 3 approved projects; (4) Update on forest and fuels initiatives; (5) Discuss stewardship contracting legislation; (6) Update from the Plumas County FireSafe Council; and, (7) Future meeting schedule/logistics/agenda. Agenda items for the January 16 meeting include: (1) Review presentations from previously funded project proponents; (2) Continue discussion on monitoring and stewardship contracting; and, (3) Future meeting schedule/logistics/agenda. The meetings are open to the public and individuals may address the Committee after being recognized by the Chair. Other RAC information may be obtained at http://wwww.fs.fed.us/pay2states .

Section 393 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 carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Michigan will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Michigan regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.

In October 2003, the Department received timely requests from: (1) Shenyang Yinghao Machinery Co., Ltd. (“Shenyang Yinghao”); and (2) Longkou Jinzheng Machinery Co. (“Longkou Jinzheng”), in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC, which has an October semi-annual anniversary month.

Shenyang Yinghao identified itself as the exporter and producer of the subject merchandise for which it requested a new shipper review. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), and (iii)(A), Shenyang Yinghao certified that it did not export certain preserved mushrooms to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that it has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which did export certain preserved mushrooms during the POI. Shenyang Yinghao further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A), Shenyang Yinghao provided the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. Shenyang Yinghao submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise to the United States, and the volume and date of entry of that shipment.

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(b), and based on our analysis of the information and documentation provided with Shenyang Yinghao's new shipper review request, as well as our analysis of proprietary import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”), we find that Shenyang Yinghao has met the requirements under which the Department can initiate a new shipper review (for more details, see New Shipper Initiation Checklist for Shenyang Yinghao). Therefore, we are initiating a new shipper review for Shenyang Yinghao.

While Longkou Jinzheng identified itself as both an exporter and producer of brake rotors from the PRC in its new shipper review request, the certifications it provided in conjunction with its request under 19 CFR 357.214(b)(2) did not comport with this claim. Specifically, while Longkou Jinzheng did provide the certification required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), it also provided a similar certification for a company named Longkou City Zhengzhuang Foundry Plant. Longkou Jinzheng, however, failed to identify the role of this company with respect to the transaction for which Longkou Jinzheng requested the new shipper review, thereby confusing the identity of the exporter and producer relevant to this new shipper review request. In addition, Longkou Jinzheng also provided a third certification that appeared to reflect the requirement for a non-producing exporter under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) and (B), further confusing the identity of the producer. As a result, we were unable to determine the appropriate exporter/producer combination subject to this new shipper review request.

Consequently, based on our analysis of the information and documentation provided with Longkou Jinzheng's new shipper review request, we find that Longkou Jinzheng did not properly identify the exporter and producer of the subject merchandise and therefore does not meet the requirements under which the Department can initiate a new shipper review. Thus, we are not initiating a new shipper review for Longkou Jinzheng (for more details, see New Shipper Initiation Checklist for Longkou Jinzheng).

In cases involving non-market economies (“NMEs”), it is the Department's normal practice to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide de jure and de facto evidence of an absence of government control over the company's export activities ( see Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the PRC , 68 FR 57875 (October 7, 2003), see also Honey from the PRC , 68 FR 47537 (August 11, 2003)). Accordingly, we will issue a questionnaire to Shenyang Yinghao (including a complete separate rates section), allowing approximately 37 days for response. 1 If the response from the respondent provides sufficient indication that it is not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to its exports of brake rotors, the review will proceed. If the respondent does not demonstrate its eligibility for a separate rate, then it will be deemed to be affiliated with other companies that exported during the POI and that it did not establish entitlement to a separate rate, and the review of that respondent will be rescinded. See 19 CFR 351.214(f)(2).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on brake rotors from the PRC. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which the review is initiated.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the POR for a new shipper review, initiated in the month following the semi-annual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately proceeding the semi-annual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper review is:

We will instruct Customs to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise from the above-listed company. This action is in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(e). Because Shenyang Yinghao has certified that it both produces and exports the subject merchandise, the sale of which was the basis for its new shipper review request, we will apply the bonding privilege only to entries of subject merchandise for which it is both the producer and exporter.

Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.

This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act (19 USC 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

The CINMS Advisory Council was originally established in December 1998 and has a broad representation consisting of 21 members, including ten government agency representatives and eleven members from the general public. The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manager in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary program. Specifically, the Council's objectives are to provide advice on: (1) Protecting natural and cultural resources, and identifying and evaluating emergent or critical issues involving Sanctuary use or resources; (2) Identifying and realizing the Sanctuary's research objectives; (3) Identifying and realizing educational opportunities to increase the public knowledge and stewardship of the Sanctuary environment; and (4) Assisting to develop an informed constituency to increase awareness and understanding of the purpose and value of the Sanctuary and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

The notification of approval VMS units was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2003 (68 FR 64860). The notice contained an incorrect Code of Federal Regulations citation.

In FR Doc. 03-28663, in the issue of Monday, November 17, 2003 (68 FR 64860), make the following correction:

1. On page 64863, in the first column, under the heading C. INMARSAT-C Communications Providers, the second paragraph is corrected to read as follows:

“The final rule implementing the VMS was published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62374). This rule will not be effective until January 1, 2004. Pursuant to 50 CFR 660.359(d(2), OLE will provide an installation and activation checklist which the vessel owner must follow”.

The exclusive license will be royalty bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The exclusive licenses may be granted, unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, SBCCOM receives written evidence and argument to establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The following Patent Application Number, Title and File date are provided:

Patent Application: 09/886,613.

Title: “Material Compositions for Microbial and Chemical Protection.”

Filed: June 21, 2001.

Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Army Consolidated Commands are:

1. MG Raymond D. Barrett Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

2. Mr. Michael F. Bauman, Director, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center.

3. Mr. Laurence H. Burger, Director, Space and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

4. Mr. William H. Campbell, III, Director of Operations and Support, OASA (Financial Management and Comptroller).

5. Mr. William J. Cooper, Special Assistant for Transportation Engineering, Military Traffic Management Command.

6. LTG Joseph M. Cosumano, Jr., Commanding General, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

7. Dr. Charles N. Davidson, Director, U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency.

8. Ms. Jeannie A. Davis, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel and Installation Management (Civilian Personnel).

9. Dr. Henry C. Dubin, Chief Scientist, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

10. MG Ann Dunwoody, Commander, Military Traffic Management Command.

11. Mr. Thomas J. Edwards, Deputy to the Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command.

12. Mr. Jess F. Granone, Director, Space and Missile Defense Technical Center, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

13. Mr. Robert J. Jefferis, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

14. Ms. Vicky Jefferis, Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, Headquarters, Forces Command.

15. LTG Anthony R. Jones, DCG/Chief of Staff, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

16. MG Terry E. Juskowiak, Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command.

17. Ms. Jeanne Karstens, Deputy Chief of Staff for Resource Management, Headquarters, U.S. Army, Europe.

18. Mr. J. Stephen Koons, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Headquarters, Forces Command.

19. Mr. Darell G. Lance, Chief of Staff, U.S. Intelligence and Security Command.

20. Dr. Michael J. Lavan, Director, Advanced Technology Directorate, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

21. BG Robert P. Lennox, Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army Space Command/Deputy Commanding General for Operations, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

22. Mr. William R. Lucas, Jr., Deputy to the Commander, Military Traffic Management Command.

23. Mr. Mark J. Lumer, Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting/Contracting & Acquisition Office, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

24. Mr. Ronald G. Magee, Director of Operations, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center.

25. Mr. Maxie L. McFarland, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

26. Mr. Thomas V. Meeks, Technical Advisor-Sustaining Base/Quality of Life Affairs.

27. Mr. John C. Metzler, Jr., Director of Cemetery Operations, Arlington National Cemetery, Military District of Washington.

28. MG Robert W. Mixon, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff for Developments, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

29. Mr. Robert L. Moore, Deputy Director, Logistics and Security Assistance, Headquarters, U.S. European Command.

30. BG Roger A. Nadeau, Program Executive Officer, Combat Support/Combat Service Support.

31. Mr. Jerry V. Proctor, Deputy for Futures, U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca.

32. Mr. William C. Reeves, Jr., Director, Integration/Interoperability for Missile Defense/Director, IIMD RDA, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

33. Mr. Allan M. Resnick, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Combat Developments, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

34. Mr. Rodney Robertson, Director, Sensors Directorate, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

35. BG Mark Scheid, Deputy Commanding General/Director of Operations, Military Traffic Management Command.

36. Mr. Robert E. Seger, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Training Policy, Plans and Programs, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.

37. Ms. Donna K. Vargas, Director of Operations, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Analysis Center.

38. MG David P. Wherley, Jr., Commander, DC National Guard.

Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations, one or more Senior Executive Service performance review boards. The boards shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of senior executives' performance by supervisors and make recommendations to the appointing authority or rating official relative to the performance of these executives.

The members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Army, Chief of Staff of the Army, are:

1. Mr. Joseph R. Billman, Director of Program Development, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Office of the Chief of Staff of the Army.

2. Dr. Jeffrey J. Clarke, Chief Historian, U.S. Army Center of Military History.

3. Ms. Kathryn A. Condon, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3, Homeland Security, Training and Simulation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

4. MG William Santo Crupe, Commander, 143rd Transportation Command, Orlando, Florida, Office of the Chief, Army Reserve.

5. Mr. Thomas Dillon, Director, Counterintelligence, Foreign Disclosure, and Security, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-2.

6. Mr. James Gunlicks, Deputy Director of Training, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3.

7. Ms. Lois O. Hickey, Director for Army Personnel Transformation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1.

8. Mr. Robert N. Kittel, Special Assistant to The Judge Advocate General for Regulatory Law and Intellectual Property, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency.

9. MG Thomas J. Matthews, Vice Commander for Joint Warfighting Center (IMA) and Vice Director of Training, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Office of the Chief, Army Reserve.

10. Mr. John B. Nerger, Director, Facilities, Housing and Environment, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management.

11. Mr. Eric A. Orsini, Special Assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4.

12. Mr. Harold C. Pasini, Jr., Technical Director, U.S. Army Operational Test Command.

13. Mr. Dean E. Pfoltzer, Deputy Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8.

14. Mr. Brian M. Simmons, Deputy to the Commander and Technical Director, U.S. Army Developmental Test Command.

15. Dr. Zita M. Simutis, Director, Army Research Institute and Chief Psychologist, U.S. Army Research Institute.

16. Mr. Lewis S. Steenrod, Director of Modernization, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8.

This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss NOPP activities. The meeting will include discussions on ocean observations, current and future NOPP activities, and other current issues in the ocean sciences community.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: PEQIS Survey on Dual Enrollment Programs and Courses for High School Students.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 10,518.

 Burden Hours: 7,889.

Abstract: The Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) is for surveys that are quick turnaround, short and policy relevant. The surveys go to colleges, universities and other postsecondary institutions. This survey will go to 1,600 institutions to determine whether they offer dual enrollment for high school students in which these students can earn college credit while they are still enrolled in high school. Among the issues to be addressed are whether students are allowed to enroll in individual classes or whether institutions offer dual enrollment programs, where the classes are offered and who teaches them.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2419. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Vocational Technical Education Annual Performance and Financial Reports.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 54.

 Burden Hours: 5,400.

Abstract: The information contained in the Consolidated Annual Performance Report for Vocational Technical Education is needed to monitor State performance of the activities and services funded under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998. The respondents include eligible agencies in 54 states and insular areas. This revision clarifies instructions and definitions and eliminates the collection of some data elements.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2420. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Through this funding opportunity announcement, NETL expects to support applications in the Coal and Environmental Systems Program. Coal and Environmental Systems Program has the following five separate ( i.e. , stand alone) Program Areas of Interest:

Applicants must select and submit to only one Subtopic in a Program Area of Interest for each application submitted. Multiple applications are welcome, however, each application must have its own unique content and title on the subject line. Identical applications under more than one Subtopic will be rejected.

Once released, the funding opportunity announcement will be available for downloading from the IIPS Internet page. At this Internet site you will also be able to register with IIPS, enabling you to submit an application. The funding opportunity announcement will only be made available in IIPS, no hard (paper) copies of the funding opportunity announcement and related documents will be made available. Telephone requests, written requests, E-mail requests, or facsimile requests for a copy of the funding opportunity announcement package will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the funding opportunity announcement. The actual funding opportunity announcement document will allow for requests for explanation and/or interpretation.

On October 20, 1995, Western published the Final Program Rule (Final Rule) that became effective on November 20, 1995. As described in 10 CFR 905, subpart C of the Final Rule provides for project-specific resource pools and power allocations from these pools to eligible new customers and/or for other appropriate purposes as determined by Western. Under the Final Rule, resource pool increments shall be established by pro rata withdrawals, on 2 years' notice, from then-existing customers. Specifically, 10 CFR 905.32 (b) provides:

Western held public information and comment forums on April 8-10, 2003, to accept oral and written comments on the proposed procedures and call for applications. The formal comment period ended June 2, 2003. The Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures in this Federal Register notice explain in detail how Western intends to implement Subpart C-Power Marketing Initiative of the Energy Planning and Management Program Final Rule in the P-SMBP—ED.

Comment: Western received many comments supporting the general eligibility and allocation criteria, indicating that Western properly scoped the best use of the resource pool, and that allocations should be made to new preference entities and new Native American tribes.

Response: Western appreciates the response with respect to the proposed general eligibility and allocation criteria, proposed use of the resource pool, and intent to make allocations available to new preference entities and new Native American tribes.

Comment: Western received many comments that it should not allocate power for other appropriate purposes. Western also received a comment that any renewable resource program should be supported by Western's customers and that Western should not mandate a specific program for other appropriate purposes. One comment was specifically against allocating power to support renewable energy resources. Western received a comment that the preference entities purchasing Pick-Sloan power are in the best position to determine the best use of Pick-Sloan power in combination with their supplemental power supplier. Western received one comment that the consumer-owned electric utilities are best able to determine the needs and economics of developing renewable energy resources.

Response: Western believes renewable resources can best be supported by allowing existing customers to retain the power that may be available after allocating to new customers. This will allow all preference entities across the marketing area to leverage this power and use existing allocations to support renewable resources. Several customers are already demonstrating support of renewable resources through their investments in various wind projects across the P-SMBP—ED.

Comment: Western received many comments that all new customers should be subject to the same contractual provisions as existing Western customers. Specifically, all contracts should contain the provision which prohibits the resale of Federal power. Western also received comments that all new customers should be subject to future withdrawal provisions in the same manner as existing customers.

Response: Western agrees with this comment. All contracts with new customers will contain Western's existing general contract principles and will be subject to future resource pool withdrawals.

Comment: Western received many comments suggesting that power allocations should not be used for developing “cash registers” to generate profits, which may or may not flow back to retail customers in the region.

Response: Western agrees with this comment. It is contrary to Western's policy and undermines Reclamation Law to allow a customer to resell power at a profit to third parties.

Comment: Western received many comments that the same procedures should be followed that were used in the Post-2000 Resource Pool for new Native American tribes.

Response: Western agrees with this comment. Western intends to follow the framework of Post-2000 Resource Pool procedures for new Native American tribes as further clarified in this Federal Register notice.

Comment: Western received many comments that the resource pool should not be used for existing beneficiaries, directly or indirectly. Western also received many comments that all Federal power benefits should be considered when determining new allocations.

Response: The Proposed Post-2005 Allocation Procedures published in the Federal Register at 68 FR 10233 provide, in part, that “Qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED firm power allocation.” Western agrees with this comment that all Federal benefits received by an entity in the Upper Great Plains Region (UGPR) should be considered when making new allocations. The intent of the new resource pool was to allocate to new customers who are not currently receiving the benefit of Federal power unless otherwise provided for in the general eligibility criteria listed below. In the past, other regions of Western have allowed preference entities to receive power from more than one project when marketing areas overlap. Given the new customer load that exists in portions of the UGPR service territory, and consistent with the intent of the Program, the UGPR is not willing to establish this practice. An existing customer will not be eligible to receive power from a resource pool unless Western provides otherwise on a project-specific basis. In these final procedures, Western will change the general eligibility criteria to state: “Qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED allocation or other firm Federal power commitment. Qualified Native American applicants, who did not receive an allocation from the Post-2000 Resource Pool, are not subject to this requirement.”

Comment: Western received comment that allocations should be used for end users. Western also received one comment suggesting that full requirements should be offered to new preference entities, if available.

Response: Western plans to make allocations from the up to 1 percent resource pool to qualified applicants based upon the Post-1985 Marketing Plan Criteria and the Program Criteria, which do not allow for Western to allocate to customers for full requirements.

Comment: Western received comments that anything unallocated should go back to the existing customers following the contract provisions on a pro rata share.

Response: Western agrees with this comment. If power is reserved for new customers but not allocated, or resources are offered but not placed under contract, this power will be offered on a pro rata basis to customers that contributed to the resource pool by applying the extension formula in the contract. In these final procedures, Western will clarify the general allocation criteria to state: “The resource pool will be dissolved subsequent to the closing date of the last qualified applicant to execute their respective firm power contract. Firm power not under contract will be used in accordance with the Program.”

Comment: Western received a comment that did not support the up to 1 percent withdrawal.

Response: Western will withdraw up to 1 percent as determined in Subpart C, Power Marketing Initiative, 10 CFR 905.32(e)(1).

Comment: Western received a comment supporting increasing allocations awarded to the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes in the Post-2000 Resource Pool Allocation Process due to omissions in applications for power.

Response: If Western were to entertain requests for increases or adjustments to allocations, all customers would need to be afforded the opportunity to submit new applications. It is likely Western would receive significant modification requests. These would be extremely difficult to substantiate and likely not be supportable with the limited amount of power available from this resource pool. Therefore, Western will not support additional allocations for the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes.

Comment: Western received one comment that existing statutory obligations were not followed and that Western violated its trust responsibilities and refused to consider securing additional power for the Lower Brule Sioux and Flandreau Santee Sioux tribes.

Response: Under its statutory obligations, Western will allocate power to new customers that meet preference status. Western has discretion as defined by Reclamation Law to determine the eligibility of Indian tribes and other entities entitled to preference in allocating Federal power.

Comment: Western received one comment that suggests Western has no intention to follow criteria established in the sale of Federal hydropower.

Response: Within its statutory guidelines, Western has wide discretion as to whom and on what terms it will contract for the sale of Federal power. Power must be sold to preference entities in such a manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. Western will market this resource pool consistent with Reclamation Law and the procedures outlined in this Federal Register notice.

Comment: Western received one comment that suggested it is unlawful to adjust allocation guidelines for discrimination purposes. The statement “Native American tribes are not subject to this requirement” is discriminatory.

Response: Western will make Federal power available to preference entities that are public bodies and nonprofit entities entitled to priority in the purchase of Federal power under Reclamation Law. The Program changed Western's policy such that the Program allowed Western to allocate to Native American tribes. Western's change in policy is in keeping with the spirit of DOE's Indian policy and recognizes the special and unique relationship between the United States and the tribal governments.

Comment: Western received a comment that to maximize the political benefits they would like to see as many new retail customers as possible.

Response: It is not Western's intent to try to gain political benefits with this resource pool. It is Western's policy to promote widespread use of its hydropower resources. Western will market hydroelectric power on a wholesale basis to preference entities who qualify under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Process.

Western will allocate up to 1 percent (approximately 20 megawatts) of the P-SMBP—ED long-term firm hydroelectric resource available as of January 1, 2006, as firm power to eligible new preference customers. Firm power means capacity and associated energy allocated by Western and subject to the terms and conditions specified in the Western electric service contract.

Western will apply the following general eligibility criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures.

A. All qualified applicants must be preference entities as defined by section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. 485h(c), as amended and supplemented.

B. All qualified applicants must be located within the currently established P-SMBP—ED marketing area.

C. All qualified applicants must not be currently receiving benefits, directly or indirectly, from a current P-SMBP—ED allocation or other firm Federal power commitment. Qualified Native American applicants, who did not receive an allocation from the Post-2000 Resource Pool, are not subject to this requirement.

D. Qualified utility and non-utility applicants must be able to use the firm power directly or be able to sell it directly to retail customers.

E. Qualified utility applicants that desire to purchase power from Western for resale to consumers, including cooperatives, municipalities, public utility districts, and public power districts must have met utility status by January 1, 2003. Utility status means the entity has responsibility to meet load growth, has a distribution system, and is ready, willing, and able to purchase Federal power from Western on a wholesale basis.

F. Qualified Native American applicants must be a Native American tribe as defined in the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975, 25 U.S.C. 450b, as amended.

Western will apply the following general allocation criteria to applicants seeking an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures.

A. Allocations of firm power will be made in amounts as determined solely by Western in exercising its discretion under Reclamation Law.

B. An allottee will have the right to purchase such firm power only upon executing an electric service contract between Western and the allottee, and satisfying all conditions in that contract.

C. Firm power allocated under these procedures will be available only to new preference customers in the existing P-SMBP—ED marketing area. The marketing area of the P-SMBP—ED is Montana east of the Continental Divide, all of North Dakota and South Dakota, Nebraska east of the 101 ° meridian, Iowa west of the 94 1/2  ° meridian, and Minnesota west of a line on the 94 1/2  ° meridian from the southern boundary of the state to the 46° parallel and then northwesterly to the northern boundary of the state at the 96 1/2  ° meridian.

D. Allocations made to Native American tribes will be based on the actual load experienced in calendar year 2002. Western has the right to use estimated load values for calendar year 2002 should actual load data not be available. Western will adjust inconsistent estimates during the allocation process.

E. Allocations made to qualified utility and non-utility applicants will be based on actual loads in calendar year 2002. Western will apply the Post-1985 Marketing Plan and the Program criteria to these loads. Western will carry forward key principles and criteria established in the Post-2000 Resource Pool, except as modified here.

F. Energy provided with firm power will be based upon the customer's monthly system load pattern.

G. Any electric service contract offered to a new customer will be executed by the customer within 6 months of a contract offer by Western, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by Western.

H. The resource pool will be dissolved subsequent to the closing date of the last qualified applicant to execute their respective firm power contract. Firm power not under contract will be used in accordance with the Program.

I. The minimum allocation will be 100 kilowatts (kW).

J. The maximum allocation for qualified utility and non-utility applicants will be 5,000 kW.

K. Contract rates of delivery will be subject to adjustment in the future as provided for in the Program.

L. If unanticipated obstacles arise to delivering hydropower benefits to Native American tribes, Western retains the right to provide the economic benefits of its resources directly to these tribes.

Western will apply the following general contract principles to all applicants receiving an allocation of firm power under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures.

A. Western will reserve the right to reduce a customer's summer season contract rate of delivery by up to 5 percent for new project pumping requirements, by giving a minimum of 5 years' written notice in advance of such action.

B. Western, at its discretion and sole determination, reserves the right to adjust the contract rate of delivery on 5 years' written notice in response to changes in hydrology and river operations. Any such adjustments will only take place after a public process by Western.

C. Each allottee is ultimately responsible for obtaining its own third-party delivery arrangements, if necessary. Western may assist allottees in obtaining third-party transmission arrangements for delivering firm power allocated under these procedures to new customers.

D. Contracts entered into under the Post-2005 Resource Pool Allocation Procedures provide for Western to furnish firm electric service effective from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2020.

E. Contracts entered into as a result of these procedures will incorporate Western's standard provisions for power sales contracts, integrated resource planning and the general power contract provisions.

F. Contracts entered into will include provisions for a reduction of up to 1 percent of the current contracted rate of delivery effective January 1, 2011, in accordance with the Program.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. , requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking about rates or services for public property.

Western determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

DOE has determined this is not a significant regulatory action because it does not meet the criteria of Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; so, this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

The selection of an alternative for post-2004 operations is made under the authorities contained in the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352); the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388) as amended and supplemented by subsequent enactments, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts specifically applicable to the projects involved.

Western published its Notice of Intent to consider certain post-2004 operational alternatives in the Federal Register (68 FR 37484) on June 24, 2003. The notice described each alternative and the factors Western would use in making a decision on which alternative to select. On July 9, 2003, Western held a Public Information Forum where each alternative was described, and the evaluation factors that would be used by Western when making its proposed decision were presented. Navigant Consulting, Inc., (Navigant) presented results from its comparative economic benefits study performed on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and Western. Following the presentations, Western and Navigant staff answered questions from the attendees. A summary of the questions and answers at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum are at http://www.wapa.gov/sn/initiatives/post2004/opScenarios/July9P1responses.pdf . Western received additional questions after July 9, 2003, and posted responses at http://www.wapa.gov/sn/initiatives/post2004/opScenarios/pifq-as1.pdf .

Western held a Public Comment Forum in Folsom, California, on July 30, 2003, during which representatives from 12 entities commented on the proposed alternatives and decision-making factors. As individual stakeholders asked more detailed questions about Navigant's comparative economic benefit analysis, responses were prepared and posted to Western's external Web site throughout the comment period, which closed on August 8, 2003. Western received written comments from twenty-six (26) different entities. Western posted the comment letters at http://www.wapa.gov/sn/initiatives/post2004/opScenarios/Comments08-08-03/ on August 13, 2003.

Throughout the public comment period, Western received and considered comments from existing power and transmission customers, joint powers agencies, water districts, irrigation districts, the ISO, the California Electricity Oversight Board, the ISO's Market Surveillance Committee, an investor-owned utility, and an independent consumer group. The comments provided the unique perspective of each entity on the various alternatives, provided suggestions concerning the selection of an alternative, commented on the decision-making factors proposed by Western, and raised issues and concerns about implementing an operational alternative.

The criteria used by Western to reach its proposed decision are described in the June 24, 2003, Federal Register notice and were described in further detail at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum. The five criteria are flexibility, certainty, durability, operating transparency, and cost-effectiveness.

Flexibility preserves the ability of SNR to join a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) approved and certified Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) in the future and to adapt to ongoing changes in the electric utility industry. At the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum, Western stated that whatever alternative was chosen, Western must retain its ability to be able to adapt its operations to future changes in the electric utility industry to minimize business uncertainty and impacts to Western's customers.

Certainty assures cost-of-service rates remain stable and predictable. Western further defined certainty at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum as having stable rates and charges so Western and its customers will be able to continue engaging in long-term business planning and to undertake prudent long-term commitments under a reasonable risk management planning horizon.

Durability assures operating protocols are well established and subject to minimal changes over time. Western stated at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum that this definition also included business processes and observed that major changes in business processes can significantly impair the efficiency and the ability of individual organizations to respond effectively because of the need for increased staffing and resources.

Operating transparency minimizes operating impacts to third parties. Western defined this factor as the ability for Western to change the operation of the Federal system with minimal impacts to third parties.

Cost-effectiveness minimizes cost shifts and considers the relative cost and benefits to SNR's customers. Western stated at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum that cost effectiveness included the concept of ensuring that the overall cost of operation of the system and that the delivery of Federal power is kept as low as possible consistent with sound business principles.

Several comments indicated support for Western using the above criteria. Some comments also provided information concerning the relative weighting of the criteria that Western should use. The Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) commented that, given the relative instability of the electric utility industry, it is important for Western not to use costs as the only criteria for evaluating each post-2004 operational alternative. Comments from other public agencies such as the Calaveras Public Power Agency, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), the SMUD, the Silicon Valley Power (SVP), the Trinity Public Utilities District (TPUD), and the City of Redding, indicate a preference for selecting an alternative that is the most flexible, durable, and cost-effective. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) commented that Western should further define the above criteria and provide interested parties with the relative weighting Western would use in selecting the operational alternative.

The ISO commented:

The ISO and several other commentors also indicated concerns with grid reliability and complexity of operations and expressed a desire to include reliability as an additional evaluation category. Western did not receive any other suggested additions or changes to its proposed evaluation criteria.

The decision-making factors outline the business reasons Western must consider as it analyzes impacts associated with implementing each specific alternative. These business reasons include the ability to respond to industry changes, having a voice in its own future, providing customers with as stable an environment as possible as industry wide changes occur, and providing customers with products and services at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. Consequently, when making a decision on its future operations, it is not wise for Western to rely on a single factor. Thus, Western developed additional factors to allow it to continue meeting its statutory requirements and address its long-term strategic goals and objectives.

Western considered the request to include reliability as an additional evaluation category. Western decided not to include reliability as a separate evaluation category because, under existing Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) and North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) operating guidelines, Western must demonstrate negative impacts will either not occur or will be mitigated before a selected alternative is implemented. Because implementing an alternative must not decrease reliability under WECC/NERC operating guidelines, adopting this evaluation factor as an additional factor in this process is redundant.

Western assumes the ISO reference to Western's initial position that the decision on a post-2004 operational alternative would be based only on cost was the result of a meeting between Western and the ISO in December 2002. At the meeting, Western indicated that any decision related to its future operational configuration would have to be supported by a business case. Western did not intend by its comments that its decision on a post-2004 operational configuration would be based solely on cost.

In addition to the December 2002 meeting, Western participated with the ISO in a joint meeting with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the Southern California Edison Company, and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company in February 2003. On April 8, 2003, Western met with the ISO to discuss the ISO's Metered Subsystem (MSS) proposal. At the time of these meetings, Western had not yet fully developed all of the evaluation factors it intended to use in its decision-making process.

An oral request by a representative from the LLNL to further define the criteria and to identify the weighting Western would use in making a decision was received at the July 9, 2003, Public Information Forum and considered. Western provided its definition of each criterion at the Public Information Forum and requested written comments on the definitions and the relative importance of each factor. Western did not receive any written comments on any specific modifications to the definitions and their relative importance.

Throughout the comment period, Western did not receive any adverse comments to its proposed evaluation criteria, although it received several requests to consider reliability as a separate factor. Western received many written comments supporting the criteria. Western concludes that the evaluation criteria and their respective definitions are appropriate. Therefore, the evaluation criteria are now final. This decision is based on Western's evaluation of the comments and the fact that Western did not receive a single written comment recommending any changes to the definitions of the existing factors.

The ISO and a number of other commentors expressed concerns that forming a new control area in northern California could compromise the reliable operation of the electric power grid. Specifically, these commentors expressed reservations that under a control area option, this option could increase the complexity of operations and potentially affect reliability. Western views these two concerns as implementation issues, rather than evaluation issues associated with forming a control area, and would be ordinarily resolved as part of the WECC and NERC certification process for formation of a new control area.

For Western to implement its post-2004 Power Marketing Plan, significant investment in new business infrastructure and systems is necessary. This new investment in business infrastructure and systems is independent of Western's selection of a post-2004 operational alternative. Since 1967, Western has operated as a separate, but integrated, subsystem of the PG&E system under the terms and conditions of Contract 14-06-200-2948A (Contract 2948A). PG&E has indicated it is unwilling to continue the terms of that contract. Western, in formulating the new marketing plan for the post-2004 period, based on PG&E's positions, assumed that Contract 2948A would expire and services such as firming energy and ancillary services previously provided by PG&E would have to be either self-provided or purchased in the market. Under Contract 2948A, PG&E provides these services and bills Western monthly. With the increased complexity of the markets and the need to schedule, account for, and settle transactions with the ISO on a 10-minute to hourly basis, Western needs to acquire replacement business systems to provide the same level of technical support for the post-2004 period now provided by PG&E.

One of the biggest changes that Western will face in implementing its post-2004 Marketing Plan is that Western and its customers will be exposed directly to real-time changes in the market. Previously, under Contract 2948A, Western and its customers settled with PG&E on a monthly after-the-fact basis. This change represents a significant departure from Western's current business practices and will require a substantial increase in work effort to implement Western's post-2004 marketing program.

Western recognized its need for new business systems and infrastructure during the development of its new marketing plan. Western embarked upon an effort to identify the requirements to procure and install new business systems that would provide the needed tools for doing business in the business environment under the new marketing plan. The new systems needed to support the new marketing plan, regardless of which operational configuration is selected, include the Scheduling system, the Power Billing system, the Load Forecasting system, the Generation Optimization system, the Enterprise Architecture Integration system, the Meter Data Repository system, and the Settlements system.

The Scheduling system software supports two functional areas, the merchant function and the reliability function, because Western has chosen to follow the spirit and intent of the FERC Order Nos. 888 and 889, which require separation of the merchant function from the reliability function. The merchant function portion of the scheduling system enables the merchant to schedule transactions in the day-ahead markets to deliver Federal power to Project Use loads and Preference Power customers, including the necessary transmission reservations required by Western's energy deliveries and Western's transmission customers.

The reliability function portion of the system provides for real-time implementation of the day-ahead schedules and any real-time modifications to schedules required to balance the control area, sub-control area, MSS, or to accommodate schedule changes by Western's customers, including changes to transmission schedules. This new system is needed to accommodate hourly scheduling and accounting required under the new restructured energy markets, rather than the monthly scheduling and accounting previously required under the terms of Contract 2948A.

The Power Billing system allows Western to gather and process meter data and information from the Scheduling system, bill customers, and generate reports within administratively and contractually required time frames. The Power Billing system used by Western under Contract 2948A requires extensive modifications to accommodate hourly market settlements under current utility settlement standards. This major upgrade will allow Western to accurately bill and account for any of the alternatives under consideration.

The Load Forecasting system will enable Western's merchant function to forecast the load of customers who have requested portfolio management services under the Full Load Service option in the new marketing plan. As the portfolio manager for these customers, Western will need the ability to accurately forecast load requirements to optimize power purchases and minimize costs. Under Contract 2948A, since Western was not the load serving entity for these customers, it had no responsibility to meet customer loads other than to reduce load whenever energy deliveries to its customers exceeded Contract 2948A's maximum simultaneous demand level.

The Generation Optimization system is another new system that will enable Western and Reclamation to maximize the value of the hydropower generation from each Central Valley Project (CVP) power plant. Using the required daily water releases and hourly energy price forecasts, the Generation Optimization system will develop a water release schedule, which still allows Reclamation to meet its daily water delivery obligations, while simultaneously maximizing the value of the hydropower generation. When Contract 2948A expires, PG&E will no longer integrate CVP's hydropower generation with its own resource portfolio. Consequently, Western will need to have the optimization capability to maximize the value of the hydropower generated from the project's facilities.

The Enterprise Architecture Integration (EAI) is a software integration system and serves as the communications backbone for the different software packages. EAI allows data sharing and coordinates/integrates the interaction between other software programs to develop reports and analytical studies that support day-to-day business operations.

The Meter Data Repository system will allow Western to collect metered quantities from its delivery and interconnection points. Collecting this data will allow Western to analyze system performance and support its day-to-day operations. The information stored in the data repository will be used by the maintenance, operations, and power billing functions to conduct day-to-day operations to ensure that Western's transmission facilities continue to operate reliably and in conformance with all applicable NERC and WECC operating criteria. In addition, the metered data quantities will be used in Western's power rates function to support cost-of-service determinations.

The Settlements system will allow Western to keep track of its transactions with the ISO for each commodity purchased or sold in the ISO markets. Western's existing system is inadequate for post-2004 operations since significant amounts of data need to be entered manually, and the current application is not easily integrated with other business applications/systems. A replacement system capable of automatically integrating data from other business information systems is required.

Western requires each identified system to meet the statutory obligations associated with implementing its post-2004 Marketing Plan regardless of which operational alternative it selects. Because of the projected cost of the identified systems and resultant budget impact, Western worked with its customers during calendar year 2001 to secure additional funds to implement its new marketing plan. Customers recognized this need and provided more than $19 million to develop and implement these new business systems in fiscal years 2002-2004.

Navigant prepared a comparative economic analysis of each post-2004 operational alternative under consideration as part of this public process on behalf of Reclamation and Western. Navigant's initial comparative analysis showed that, of the three alternatives, the comparative net benefits of Western operating as either an MSS in the ISO control area or as a new control area were similar. Navigant's analysis indicated the Participating Transmission Owner (PTO) Alternative was the least cost-effective option.

During the public comment period, the ISO and other commentors questioned some of the underlying assumptions used in the Navigant study. The ISO submitted a separate economic analysis showing the PTO and MSS options were the least-cost options. Navigant reviewed the assumptions used in the ISO's studies and the comments received on its study assumptions. As a result, a number of assumptions in Navigant's initial economic comparative benefits study were changed. The revised study indicates from an overall comparative economic standpoint, the PTO option continues to remain the least cost-effective of the three alternatives being considered.

The revised comparative benefits study incorporated the following recommended changes to the assumptions: (1) Changing the treatment for self-provided ancillary services to correct a misinterpretation of the ISO Tariff, (2) changing the operating reserve requirement under the Federal control area option to be the greater of 5 percent or the largest single contingency, (3) increasing Western expenses to escalate these costs at the rate of inflation, (4) changing the assumption to include all transmission revenues on the 94-mile section of the Pacific AC Intertie (PACI) line between Malin and Round Mountain substations, (5) changing the assumptions regarding reliability services charges to eliminate charges for direct-connected customer loads, and (6) changing the congestion charges applied to Western loads to reduce net congestion charges to 80 percent of the total charges.

The comparative economic benefit analysis estimated the comparative costs Western would incur under each proposed post-2004 operating alternative over a 15-year analysis period. The nominal values identified in the Navigant comparative economic benefit study were discounted at a Federal discount rate of 5.6250 percent to determine annualized benefits and costs. The annualized results of the study are summarized below:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pregnancy Employment Discrimination Act. Pursuant to its authority under those statutes, EEOC launched the “Freedom to Compete” (FTC) initiative, a national outreach, education and coalition-building strategy designed to complement the agency's enforcement and litigation efforts by identifying EEO practices and programs worthy of emulation. The Commission has built and seeks to further build partnerships and strategic alliances with various stakeholders that can directly and indirectly ensure equal opportunity in the nation's workplaces. One component of this initiative is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “Freedom to Compete” Award. The Award is designed to recognize employers, organizations and entities whose extraordinary efforts embody the EEOC's mission of ensuring individuals the freedom to compete in the workplace on a level playing field regardless of race, color, gender, age, national origin, religion or disability. The Award will be presented to entities that have demonstrated exemplary efforts in promoting free and unfettered access to opportunities in the workplace. The Award will be based on nominations received from the public.

This notice concerns the nomination form which constitutes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and OMB regulation 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the Commission solicits public comment on its proposed nomination form to enable it to:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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, including through 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 remainder of this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section provides the public with information it will need to comment on the EEOC proposal. It contains an overview of the information collection and the proposed nomination form.

Collection Title: Nomination for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “Freedom to Compete” Award.

OMB Number: None.

Description of Affected Public: Individuals or households; Businesses or other for profit, Not-for-profit institutions; State or local governments.

Number of Responses: 100.

Estimated Reporting Time Per Respondent: 10 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 1,000 hours.

Federal Cost: None

Form— Nomination Form for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “Freedom To Compete” Award.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's “ Freedom to Compete” Award is designed to recognize organizations and individuals whose extraordinary efforts embody the EEOC's mission of ensuring individuals the freedom to compete in the workplace on a level playing field and to go as far as their talent and abilities will allow regardless of race, color, gender, age, national origin, religion or disability. Award winners will be given the Commission's “Freedom to Compete” Award, which will be presented by the Chair of the Commission at an annual ceremony in Washington, DC. All nominees will be required to disclose any charges and litigation involving the statutes enforced by the Commission. Receipt of the “Freedom to Compete” Award does not constitute a waiver by the Commission nor will it be considered with respect to any future charges and investigations against nominees or award recipients. Background: In 2002, under the leadership of Chair Cari M. Dominguez, EEOC launched the “Freedom to Compete” (FTC) initiative, a national outreach, education and coalition-building strategy designed to complement the agency's enforcement and litigation efforts by identifying EEO practices and programs worthy of emulation. The Commission has built and seeks to further build partnerships and strategic alliances with various stakeholders that can directly and indirectly influence positive change in the nation's workplaces. The Award will be presented to individuals and organizations that have demonstrated exemplary efforts in promoting free and unfettered access to opportunities in the workplace. The Award will be called the “Freedom to Compete” Award.

Eligibility Criteria: The following criteria apply to the Freedom to Compete Award Nominees:

A. The nominees must be public or private employers, corporations, associations, organizations, or others whose activities exemplify the goals of the Chair's “Freedom to Compete” initiative. Nominees may self-nominate or be nominated by others.

B. Nominees must have implemented a program or practice that has successfully removed barriers that hinder free and fair workplace competition and increased access, inclusion, and/or promotional opportunities for qualified workers. The program or practice must involve one or more of the following components: innovative leadership, outreach, education, recruitment, training/development, promotion, retention, and/or mentoring.

C. Nominees must report any unresolved violations of state of Federal law, or any pending Federal or state enforcement actions, any corrective actions or consent decrees that have resulted from litigation under the laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

D. Recipients of this Award agree to participate in programs, meetings, and/or other collaborative efforts with the Commission for the purpose of publicizing the award-winning program/effort, and agree to share information to assist other entities seeking to replicate the program/effort. Recipients agree to take part in Commission efforts to promote the “Freedom to Compete” Award and the principles of free and fair workplace competition that underlie the award.

This is an essay format (1,000 words or less) application. Programs/activities must have been in place for at least one year and have measurable and demonstrable results.

Essays should include the following:

• A profile of your organization—its mission, size, number of employees, nature of work, and, if a business, a description of its products/services, assets and annual revenues.

• A description of what led you to implement the program/practice.

• How you went about developing the program/practice. Describe who was involved, how it evolved, whether any major obstacles were encountered and how they were overcome, and how long the program/practice has been in place.

• A description of the program/practice. Explain the structure of the program/practice, how it is managed and measured, and who is accountable for results.

• Describe the level of executive involvement in, and commitment to, the program/practice during both development and implementation.

• A description of the tangible results. Explain what makes your program/practice effective, and how it has positively affected the lives of your workers. Address how the program/practice has helped to bring about free and fair competition in your workplace.

• A description of the joint activities your organization and the EEOC could undertake to share the program/effort with other entities and to promote the principles of free and fair workplace competition in partnership. Explain why others would find your program valuable.

Timing and Acceptable Methods of Submission of Nominations: Nomination packages must be submitted to ____, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507 by ___, 2003. Any application received or postmarked after___ will not be considered. All applications will be acknowledged

The Administrative Review Process: Nominations will be evaluated by EEOC staff, with final award determinations made by the EEOC Chair.

Location: The awards ceremony will generally be held during the month of ____at a location to be determined by the EEOC Chair.

Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This collection of information is approved under OMB number___(Expiration Date: ___). The obligation to respond to this information collection is voluntary; however, only nomination that follow the nomination procedures outlined in this notice will receive consideration. The average time to respond to this information collection is estimated to be 10 hours per response; including time for reviewing instructions, researching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Submit comments regarding this estimate; including suggestions for reducing response time to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of the Chair, 1801 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507. Please reference to OMB Number ___. We are very interested in your thoughts and suggestions about your experience in preparing and filing this nomination packet for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Freedom to Compete Award. Your comments will be very useful to the Commission in making improvements in our solicitation for nominations for this award in subsequent years.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0599.

Title: Implementation of Section 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 45.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1.66 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 75 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The information collected will create regulatory symmetry among similar mobile services. The symmetrical regulatory structure will promote competition in the mobile services marketplace and will serve the interests of consumers while also benefiting the national economy.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0757.

Title: FCC Auctions Customer Survey.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 2,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The information will be used by the Commission to evaluate the competitive bidding methodologies and other operational processes used to date and to improve these techniques for use in future auctions.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0093.

Title: Application for Renewal of Radio Station License for Multipoint Distribution Service.

Form No: FCC Form 405.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 2,494.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2.25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 5,612 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,048,000.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 405 is now being used by Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) to apply for renewal of radio station licenses at the FCC. As a result of the Schedule S rulemaking, earth stations will file the new FCC Form 312-R in lieu of the FCC Form 405 to request renewals of their licenses. The FCC Form 312-R contains all of the data elements of the currently approved FCC Form 405. However, the name was changed to identify that the form is filed by earth station licenses for license renewals only. Additionally, the FCC Form 312-R is filed on the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS). The FCC Form 405 is available on the electronic Broadcast Licensing System (BLS) utilized by licensees and/or by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0292.

Title: Part 69—Access Charges.

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,458 respondents; 5,832 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: .75-5 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 27,702 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Part 69 of the Commission's rules and regulations establishes the rules for access charges for interstate or foreign access provided by telephone companies. Local telephone companies and states are required to submit information to the Commission and/or the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA). The information is used to compute changes in tariffs for access service (or origination and termination) and to computer revenue pool distributions.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0270.

Title: Section 90.443, Content of Station Records.

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 57,410.

Estimated Time Per Response: .083 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 4,765 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: This rule section requires antenna structure owners to: (1) Register the antenna structure with the Commission; (2) maintain the painting and lighting of the structure; (3) notify the Commission of changes in height, coordinates, ownership, painting, or lighting of the structure; and (4) notify the Commission upon dismantling of the structure. Section 90.433 of the Commission's rules, sets forth the recordkeeping requirement which is to be maintained by station licensees. These records will reflect whether or not maintenance of the licensee's equipment has been performed, and in instances of tower light checks and failures, if any, will indicate to the Commission that corrective action has been taken. The maintenance records may be used by the licensee or Commission field personnel to note any recurring equipment problems or conditions that may lead to degraded equipment performance and/or interference generation. Tower lighting records required are to ensure that the licensee is aware of the tower light condition and proper operation, in order to prevent and/or to correct any hazards to air navigation.

Released: November 26, 2003.

The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Tuesday, January 13, 2004, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.

1. Announcements and Recent News.

2. Approval of Minutes of Prior Meeting.

3. Report from NBANC.

4. Report of NAPM, LLC.

5. Report of the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).

6. Report of National Thousands Block Pooling Administrator.

7. Status of Industry Numbering Committee (INC) activities.

8. Reports from Issues Management Groups (IMGs).

9. Report of Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group.

10. Report of Numbering Oversight Working Group (NOWG).

11. Report of Cost Recovery Working Group.

12. Special Presentations.

13. Update List of NANC Accomplishments.

14. Summary of Action Items.

15. Public Comments and Participation (5 minutes per speaker).

16. Other Business.

Adjourn no later than 5 p.m.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, March 16, 2004.

In the Matter of a Petition for Exemption from the Trade Regulation Rule Entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures” filed by Paccar, Inc.

On March 31, 2003, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments on a petition filed by Paccar, Inc. (“Paccar” or “Petitioner”). Paccar manufactures heavy-duty and medium-duty trucks, parts, and accessories, which it distributes through a network of 131 dealers operating under the name “Kenworth” or “Peterbilt.” The dealers also offer and perform warranty repair and bodywork; sell, rent, or lease used vehicles; and offer financing and insurance in connection with truck sales. Most of these dealers have been in business for 10 years or more; one-third have been Paccar dealers for more than 20 years. The petition sought an exemption, pursuant to Section 18(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, from coverage under the Commission's Trade Regulation Rule entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures” (“Franchise Rule”).

In accordance with Section 18(g), the Commission conducted an exemption proceeding under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, and invited public comment during a 60-day period ending May 30, 2003. No comments were received. After reviewing the petition, the Commission has concluded that the Petitioner's request should be granted.

The statutory standard for exemption requires the Commission to determine whether application of the Trade Regulation Rule to the person or class of persons seeking exemption is “necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates.” If not, an exemption is warranted.

The pre-sale disclosures required by the Franchise Rule are designed to prevent deceptive acts or practices. The Rule requires franchisors to provide investors with the material information they need to make an informed investment decision in circumstances where they might otherwise lack the resources, knowledge, or ability to obtain the information, and thus protect themselves from the deception.

The abuses that the disclosure remedy of the Franchise Rule is designed to prevent are most likely to occur, as the Statement of Basis and Purpose of the Rule notes, in sales where three factors are present:

The petition demonstrates that potential Paccar dealers are and will continue to be a select group of sophisticated and experienced businesspeople; that they make very significant investments; and that they have more than adequate time to consider the dealership offer and obtain information about it before investing. In particular, we note that the purchase of a Paccar dealership costs in excess of $2 million. As a practical matter, investments of this size and scope typically involve knowledgeable investors, the use of independent business and legal advisors, and an extended period of negotiation that generates the exchange of information necessary to ensure that investment decisions are the product of an informed assessment of potential risks and benefits.

The Commission has reviewed the potential for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the offer of Paccar dealerships and found no evidence or likelihood of a significant patter or practice of abuse. If any such evidence exists, it has not yet been brought to the Commission's attention in this proceeding.

Thus, both the record in this proceeding, and all prior experience to date with other Franchise Rule exemptions, support the conclusion that Petitioner's sale of Paccar dealerships accomplishes what the Rule was intended to ensure. The conditions most likely to lead to abuses are not present in the sale of the dealerships, and the process generates sufficient information to ensure that applicants will be able to make an informed investment decision. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the application of the Franchise Rule to Petitioner's sale of Paccar dealerships is not necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive acts or practices to which the Rule relates.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the provisions of 16 CFR part 436 shall not apply to the advertising, offering, licensing, contracting, sale or other promotion of dealerships by Paccar, Inc. This opinion is based on the information submitted and representations made in Paccar, Inc.'s petition. The grant of the petition applies only to the extent that actual company practices conform to the practices described in the petition.

In the Matter of a Petition for Exemption from the Trade Regulation Rule Entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures” filed by Rolls-Royce Corp.

On March 31, 2003, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting comments on a petition filed by Rolls-Royce Corp. (“Rolls-Royce” or “Petitioner”). Rolls-Royce sells maintenance center franchises to service its turboprop, turbofan, and industrial gas turbine engines. The petition sought an exemption, pursuant to Section 18(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, from coverage under the Commission's Trade Regulation rule entitled “Disclosure Requirements and Prohibitions Concerning Franchising and Business Opportunity Ventures” (“Franchise Rule”).

In accordance with Section 18(g), the Commission conducted an exemption proceeding under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, and invited public comment during a 60-day period ending May 30, 2003. No comments were received. After reviewing the petition, the Commission has concluded that the Petitioner's request should be granted.

The statutory standard for exemption requires the Commission to determine whether application of the Trade Regulation Rule to the person or class of persons seeking exemption is “necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates.” If not, an exemption is warranted.

The pre-sale disclosures required by the Franchise Rule are designed to prevent deceptive acts or practices. The Rule requires franchisors to provide investors with the material information they need to make an informed investment decision in circumstances where they might otherwise lack the resources, knowledge, or ability to obtain the information, and thus protect themselves from deception.

The abuses that the disclosure remedy of the Franchise Rule is designed to prevent are most likely to occur, as the Statement of Basis and Purpose of the Rule notes, in sales where three factors are present:

The petition demonstrates that potential maintenance center franchisees are and will continue to be a select group of highly sophisticated and experienced businesspeople; that they make very significant investments; and that they have more than adequate time to consider the dealership offer and obtain information about it before investing.

In particular, we note that the purchase of a Rolls-Royce maintenance center is among the most costly of franchise offerings. On average, the maintenance centers have approximately $10 million in assets, excluding land and buildings. As a practical matter, investments of this size and scope typically involve knowledgeable investors, the use of independent business and legal advisors, and an extended period of negotiation that generates the exchange of information necessary to ensure that investment decisions are the product of an informed assessment of the potential risks and benefits.

The Commission has reviewed the potential for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in connection with the offer of Rolls-Royce maintenance centers and found no evidence or likelihood of a significant pattern or practice of abuse. If any such evidence exists, it has not yet been brought to the Commission's attention in this proceeding.

Thus, both the record in this proceeding and all prior experience to date with other Franchise Rule exemptions support the conclusion that Petitioner's sale of Rolls-Royce maintenance centers accomplishes what the Rule was intended to ensure. The conditions most likely to lead to abuses are not present in the sale of the maintenance centers, and the process generates sufficient information to ensure that applicants will be able to make an informed investment decision. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the application of the Franchise Rule to Petitioner's sale of maintenance center franchises is not necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive acts or practices to which the Rule relates.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the provisions of 16 CFR Part 436 shall not apply to the advertising, offering, licensing, contracting, sale or other promotion of maintenance centers by Rolls-Royce Corp. This opinion is based on the information submitted and representations made in Rolls-Royce's petition. The grant of the petition applies only to the extent that actual company practices conform to the practices described in the petition.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for November 25, 2003), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/11/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Comments filed in paper form should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If a comment contains nonpublic information, it must be filed in paper form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “confidential.” Comments that do not contain any nonpublic information may instead be filed in electronic form (in ASCII format, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word) as part of or as an attachment to e-mail messages directed to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov. Such comments will be considered by the Commission and will be available for inspection and copying at its principal office in accordance with Section 4.9(b)(6)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.9(b)(6)(ii)).

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a proposed consent order with Memorial Hermann Health Network Providers (“Respondent” or “MHHNP”). The agreement settles charges that Respondent violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, by facilitating and implementing agreements among MHHNP members on price and other competitively significant terms; refusing to deal with payors except on collectively agreed-upon terms; and negotiating uniform fees and other competitively significant terms in payor contracts and refusing to submit to members payor offers that do not conform to Respondent's standards for contracts.

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make the proposed order final. The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order, or to modify their terms in any way. Further, the proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint (other than jurisdictional facts) are true. The allegations in the Commission's proposed complaint are summarized below.

Respondent MHHNP is a nonprofit corporation that contracts with third-party payors for the provision of medical services on behalf of its approximately 3,000 participating physicians. MHHNP is organized and operated to further the pecuniary interests of those physicians, who are licensed to practice medicine in the State of Texas and who are engaged in the business of providing medical services to patients in the Houston metropolitan area (hereinafter “Houston area”).

Physicians often contract with third-party payors, such as insurance companies and preferred provider organizations. The contracts typically establish the price and other terms under which the physicians will render services to the payors' subscribers. Contracting physicians often agree to accept lower-than-customary compensation from these third-party payors to gain access to additional patients through the payor. Thus, these contracts may reduce payor costs, and may result in lower medical care costs to the payor's subscribers.

Absent agreements among competing physicians, each competing physician decides for him or herself whether, and on what price and other terms, the physician will contract with third-party payors to provide medical services to the payors' subscribers. To be competitively marketable in the Houston area, a payor must include in its physician network a large number of primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists who practice in the Houston area. Many of the PCPs and specialists who practice in the Houston area are members of MHHNP. Accordingly, many payors concluded that they could not establish a viable physician network in areas in which MHHNP physicians are concentrated without including a large number of MHHNP physicians in that network.

Sometimes a network of competing physicians uses an agent to convey to payors information, obtained from each of its participating physicians individually, about fees and other significant contract terms that the physicians are willing to accept. In other instances, the agent may convey all payor contract offers to network physicians, with each physician then unilaterally deciding whether to accept or reject each offer. These “messenger model” arrangements, which are described in the 1996 Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care jointly issued by the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice ( see http://www.ftc.gov/reports/hlth3s.htm ), can facilitate contracting between physicians and payors and minimize the costs of providing medical care, without fostering agreements among competing physicians on fees and other competitively sensitive terms. The messenger may not, consistent with the competitive model, negotiate fees and other competitively significant terms on behalf of the participating physicians, nor facilitate the physicians' coordinated responses to contract offers, for example, by electing not to convey a payor's offer to the physicians based on the messenger's opinion of the acceptability or appropriateness of the offer.

Rather than acting simply as a “messenger,” MHHNP engaged in collective negotiations on its members behalf with third party payors. MHHNP's improper collective negotiations included actively bargaining with third-party payors by proposing and counter-proposing fee schedules (among other terms), gathering fee information from its members and using that information to negotiate prices, refusing to messenger proposals it deemed unacceptable on price and other terms, and, to maintain its bargaining power, on occasion discouraging its participating physicians from entering into unilateral agreements with third-party payors. For example, MHHNP periodically polled its physician members, asking each to disclose the minimum fee that he or she would accept in return for providing medical services pursuant to future MHHNP-payor agreements. MHHNP would then calculate minimum acceptable fees for use in payor negotiations, based in part on the information received from physician members concerning their future pricing intentions, and would often begin discussions regarding a possible contract for physician services by informing the payor of these minimum fees, and stating that it would not enter into or otherwise forward to its physician members any payor offer that did not satisfy those fee minimums.

In the course of its collective price negotiations with payors, MHHNP in fact often did not convey to its physician members payor offers that provided for fees that did not satisfy MHHNP's Board of Directors. MHHNP instead demanded, and often received, more favorable fee and other contract terms—terms that third-party payors would not have offered to MHHNP's participating physicians had those physicians engaged in unilateral, rather than collective, negotiations with the payors. Only after the third-party payor acceded to fee and other contract terms acceptable to MHHNP, would MHHNP convey the payor's proposed contract to MHHNP's participating physicians for their consideration. For example, in one instance MHHNP refused a payor's request to messenger an offer MHHNP's Board deemed unacceptable. Instead, MHHNP notified its members that it had rejected the offer because it was below the minimum acceptable fee level previously set pursuant to physician member surveys, and then “polled” its members to determine whether or not they agreed with the Board's decision to reject the offer. A majority of physician members voted to agree with the Board's decision, and MHHNP then again rejected the payor's offer and explicitly refused to forward the offer to any of its physician members. Subsequently, the payor increased its proposed fees to the MHHNP fee minimums, and MHHNP then entered into a contract with the payor and messengered the agreement to its physician members, affording them the option to participate (or not) in the payor's offer.

Since the end of 2000, MHHNP and its members have entered only into fee-for-service agreements with payors, pursuant to which MHHNP and its members did not undertake financial risk-sharing. Further, MHHNP members have not integrated their practices to create significant potential efficiencies. MHHNP's joint negotiation of fees and other competitively significant terms has not been, and is not, reasonably related to any efficiency-enhancing integration. Instead, MHHNP's acts and practices have restrained trade unreasonably and hindered competition in the provision of physician services in the Houston area in the following ways, among others: price and other forms of competition among MHHNP's members were unreasonably restrained; prices for physician services were increased; and health plans, employers, and individual consumers were deprived of the benefits of competition among physicians. Thus, MHHNP's conduct has harmed patients and other purchasers of medical services by restricting choice of providers and increasing the price of medical services.

The proposed consent order is designed to prevent recurrence of the illegal concerted actions alleged in the complaint while allowing Respondent and its members to engage in legitimate joint conduct.

Paragraph II.A prohibits Respondent from entering into or facilitating agreements among physicians: (1) To negotiate on behalf of any physician with any payor; (2) to deal, refuse to deal, or threaten to refuse to deal with any payor; (3) regarding any term upon which any physicians deal, or are willing to deal, with any payor; and (4) not to deal individually with any payor or through any arrangement other than MHHNP.

Paragraph II.B prohibits Respondent from exchanging or facilitating the transfer of information among physicians concerning any physician's willingness to deal with a payor, or the terms or conditions, including price terms, on which the physician is willing to deal.

Paragraph II.C prohibits Respondent from attempting to engage in any action prohibited by Paragraph II.A or II.B. Paragraph II.D prohibits Respondent from encouraging, pressuring, inducing, or attempting to induce any person to engage in any action that would be prohibited by Paragraphs II.A through II.C. Paragraph II contains a proviso that allows Respondent to engage in conduct that is reasonably necessary to the formation or operation of a “qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement” or a “qualified clinically-integrated joint arrangement,” or that solely involves physicians in the same medical group practice.

Paragraph III requires MHHNP, for a period of three years after the order becomes final, to notify the Commission at least 60 days prior to entering into any arrangement under which MHHNP will act as a messenger or agent on behalf of physicians with payors regarding contracts. This provision will allow the Commission to review any future MHHNP policy or practice that MHHNP plans to implement with payors before such a policy or practice is implemented with respect to any particular payor.

Paragraphs IV.A and IV. B require MHHNP to distribute the complaint and order to its members, payors with which it previously contracted, and specified others. Paragraph IV.C requires MHHNP to terminate, without penalty, any payor contracts that it had entered into during the collusive period, at any such payor's request. This provision is intended to eliminate the effects of Respondent's joint price setting. Paragraph IV.C also contains a proviso to preserve payor contract provisions defining post-termination obligations relating to continuity of care during a previously begun course of treatment.

The remaining provisions of the proposed order impose complaint and order distribution, reporting, and other compliance-related provisions. For example, Paragraph IV. D requires MHHNP to distribute copies of the Complaint and Order to incoming MHHNP members, payors that contract with MHHNP for the provision of physician services, and incoming MHHNP officers, directors, and employees. Further, Paragraph V requires MHHNP to file periodic reports with the Commission detailing how MHHNP has complied with the Order. Paragraph VII authorizes Commission staff to obtain access to Respondent's records and officers, directors, and employees for the purpose of determining or securing compliance with the Order. The proposed order will expire in 20 years.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product LEXAPRO (escitalopram oxalate). LEXAPRO is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for LEXAPRO (U.S. Patent No. 34,712) from H. Lundbeck A/S, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2003, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of LEXAPRO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for LEXAPRO is 1,146 days. Of this time, 636 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 510 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective : June 27, 1999. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the date the investigational new drug application became effective was on June 27, 1999.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act : March 23, 2001. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for LEXAPRO (NDA 21-323) was initially submitted on March 23, 2001.

3. The date the application was approved : August 14, 2002. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 21-323 was approved on August 14, 2002.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 827 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by February 2, 2004. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by June 1, 2004. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information 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. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product ELOXATIN (oxaliplatin). ELOXATIN, used in combination with infusional 5-FU/LV, is indicated for the treatment of patients with metastatic carcinoma of the colon or rectum whose disease has recurred or progressed during or within 6 months of completion of first line therapy with the combination of bolus 5-FU/LV and irinotecan. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for ELOXATIN (U.S. Patent No. 5,420,319) from Sanofi-Synthelabo, and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2003, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of ELOXATIN represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for ELOXATIN is 3,417 days. Of this time, 3,370 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 47 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective : April 3, 1993. The applicant claims May 2, 1997, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. The date provided by the applicant is the date FDA released a clinical hold that had been placed on the application on August 16, 1993. Because that clinical hold was placed on the application more than 30 days after receipt of the IND, FDA considers the IND effective date to be April 3, 1993, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act : June 24, 2002. The applicant claims July 22, 1999, as the date the new drug application (NDA) for ELOXATIN (NDA 21-063) was initially submitted. However, FDA records indicate that FDA refused to file NDA 21-063, and this NDA was ultimately withdrawn. The applicant subsequently submitted, and FDA accepted for filing, a different NDA (NDA 21-492) on June 24, 2002. NDA 21-492 was approved for marketing on August 9, 2002.

3. The date the application was approved : August 9, 2002. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 21-492 was approved on August 9, 2002.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,138 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by February 2, 2004. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by June 1, 2004. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information 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. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Public Law 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.

A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial submission of an application to market the human drug product and continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product. Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).

FDA recently approved for marketing the human drug product INVANZ (ertapenem sodium). INVANZ is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with certain moderate to severe infections caused by susceptible strains of designated microorganisms. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for INVANZ (U.S. Patent No. 5,478,820) from Syngenta Ltd., and the Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated July 16, 2003, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of INVANZ represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Shortly thereafter, the Patent and Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.

FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for INVANZ is 2,273 days. Of this time, 1,916 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 357 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:

1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became effective : September 3, 1995. The applicant claims September 2, 1995, as the date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective. However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was September 3, 1995, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.

2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to the human drug product under section 505(b) of the act : November 30, 2000. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug application (NDA) for INVANZ (NDA 21-337) was initially submitted on November 30, 2000.

3. The date the application was approve d: November 21, 2001. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that NDA 21-337 was approved on November 21, 2001.

This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 1,023 days of patent term extension.

Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments and ask for a redetermination by February 2, 2004. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period by June 1, 2004. To meet its burden, the petition must contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept. 857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.

Comments and petitions should be submitted to the Division of Dockets Management. Three copies of any mailed information 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. Comments and petitions may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In FR Doc. 03-28005, appearing on page 63108 in the Federal Register of Friday, November 7, 2003, the following correction is made:

1. On page 63109, in the first column, under the Location paragraph, the correct address reads as follows: Harvey W. Wiley Building, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835.

In the Federal Register of August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52901), FDA published a proposed rule to classify certain dental sonography and jaw tracking devices into class II. In the Federal Register of August 14, 2002 (67 FR 53005), FDA also identified the document “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Dental Sonography and Jaw Tracking Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Reviewers” as the special control, which in conjunction with general controls, is capable of providing reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these devices. This guidance document describes a means by which certain dental sonography and jaw tracking devices may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices.

Following the effective date of the final classification rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for the class II devices described in that final rule will need to address the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness.

Interested persons were invited to comment on the draft guidance by November 12, 2002. FDA received no comments on the draft guidance document. FDA made minor revisions to the guidance to improve clarity and provide more detailed descriptions of our recommendations for electromagnetic compatibility testing and labeling.

This 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 dental sonography and jaw tracking devices. 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.

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 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (the PRA). The collections of information addressed in the guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E, OMB control number 0910-0120). The labeling provisions addressed in the guidance have been approved by OMB under the PRA under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments to http://wwww.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments or two paper copies of any written comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Dental Sonography and Jaw Tracking Devices” by fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1393) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturer's addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html . Guidance documents are also available on the Division of Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

On November 14, 2000, FDA issued two draft guidance documents entitled “Over the Counter (OTC) Screening Tests for Drugs of Abuse: Guidance for Premarket Notifications” and “Guidance for Prescription Use Drugs of Abuse Assays Premarket Notifications” (docket nos. 1999D-1020 and 2000D-1587). This draft guidance replaces those documents and is intended to address concerns about those documents, including concerns regarding a recommendation that the cost of confirmatory testing be bundled with the cost of screening tests. Among other changes, the draft guidance FDA is issuing today recognizes that measures other than bundling the cost of confirmatory testing may help mitigate the risk of inaccurate results. The new draft guidance also clarifies that premarket submissions for drugs of abuse screening tests used in workplace and other repetitive testing sites may not require the same types of data as submissions for screening tests that are intended for sale directly to untrained users. The draft guidance is intended to assist manufacturers in preparing premarket submissions for drugs of abuse tests used in any setting, including hospital, workplace, sports, insurance, and home settings. The draft guidance also provides recommendations on labeling drugs of abuse screening tests.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on premarket submissions and labeling of drugs of abuse screening tests. 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 statute and regulations.

To receive “Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Premarket Submissions and Labeling Recommendations for Drugs of Abuse Screening Tests” by fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (152) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html . Guidance documents are also available on the Division of Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

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 collections of information addressed in the guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E) (OMB control number 0910-0120). The labeling provisions addressed in the guidance have been approved by OMB under the PRA under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ), written or electronic comments regarding this document at any time. Submit a single copy of electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments . Submit two paper copies of any mailed comments, 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. Comments received may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In the Federal Register of January 19, 2001 (67 FR 5515), FDA, in cooperation with the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and in consultation with CDC of HHS, announced the availability of two documents on these topics: (1) A draft risk assessment on the relationship between foodborne L. monocytogenes and human health that considers categories of ready-to-eat food and (2) a proposed risk management action plan that considered the draft L. monocytogenes risk assessment. The action plan articulated how FDA, FSIS, and CDC intended to achieve the Healthy People 2010 goal of reducing L. monocytogenes illness by 50 percent. FDA, FSIS, and CDC held a public meeting on March 19, 2001 (66 FR 13544), to receive comments on the technical aspects of the draft risk assessment and the draft action plan. Interested persons were given until March 20, 2001, with extensions to May 21, 2001, and to July 18, 2001, to comment on the documents. The risk assessment has been revised in response to the public comments, newly available data, and updated modeling techniques; and it was made available to the public on October 24, 2003 (68 FR 61006).

The updated risk management action plan outlines the actions that FDA and CDC plan to undertake to reduce L. monocytogenes illness from ready-to-eat foods. These planned actions are structured according to the food categories used in the risk assessment as either warranting additional measures to reduce L. monocytogenes contamination or warranting collection of additional data.

The action plan contains these six action areas:

• Guidance for processors, retailers, food service operations, and institutional establishments;

• Training and technical assistance;

• Consumer and health care provider information and education;

• Enforcement and regulatory strategies;

• Disease surveillance and outbreak response; and

• Research needs.

A public meeting to present the revised risk assessment and the action plan has been scheduled for December 4, 2003, from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (see 68 FR 63108 for details). The meeting will be held at the FDA/CFSAN Harvey W. Wiley Building, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740.

The risk management action plan may be reviewed at the FDA Division of Dockets Management (Docket No. 1999N-1168), 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

The risk management action plan is available electronically at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov and www.foodsafety.gov.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Research Studies on Homeownership and affordable Lending (NOFA).

OMB Approval Number: 2528-0228.

Form Numbers: HUD-424, HUD-424-B, 424-CB, HUD-424-CBW, SF-LLL, HUD-2880, HUD-2993, HUD-2994, HUD-1044, SF-1199A, HUD-27053, HUD-27054, SF-269A.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: A NOFA funding a study of homeownership and affordable lending will aid in the formulation of policies in support of the President's goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion, Quarterly.

Reporting Burden: Number of Respondents 40; Average annual responses per respondent 2.8; Total annual responses 115; Average burden per response 16 hrs.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,870.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Applicant: Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

The applicant requests a permit to remove/reduce to possession (collect seed) Arabis mcdonaldiana (McDonald's rock-cress) in conjunction with research in Josephine and Curry Counties, Oregon, and Del Norte County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Applicant: Erica Fleishman, Stanford, California.

The applicant requests a permit to remove/reduce to possession (collect seed and tissue) Cordylanthus palmatus (palmate-bracted bird's-beak) in conjunction with research in Colusa, Fresno, Alameda, Yolo, and Sacramento Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Applicant: Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to remove/reduce to possession (collect) Calystegia stebbinsii (Stebbins' morning-glory), Ceanothus roderickii (Pine Hill ceanothus), Eriogonum apricum var. apricum (Apricum Hill buckwheat), Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens (Pine Hill flannelbush), Galium californicum ssp. sierrae (El Dorado bedstraw) in conjunction with research in Tuolumne, Amador, El Dorado, Nevada, and Yuba Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Applicant: Matthew Williams, San Diego, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Applicant: Point Mugu Naval Base, Point Mugu, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to remove/reduce to possession (collect seed, propagate, and outplant) Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. maritimus (salt marsh bird's-beak) in conjunction with a planting program in Ventura County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

Applicant: Amanda J. Colombo, Livermore, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and mark) the San Francisco garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ) and the Alameda whipsnake ( Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus ) in conjunction with monitoring, surveys, and scientific research throughout the range of each species for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Applicant: Kimberly Kindt, Palm Springs, California.

The applicant requests a permit to take (monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ), and take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with demographic studies in Riverside County, California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Applicant: National Wildlife Health Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (capture, handle, mark, measure, collect biological samples, release, and recapture) the Nihoa millerbird ( Acrocephalus familiaris kingi ), nightingale reed warbler ( Acrocephalus luscinia ), Mariana gray swiftlet ( Aerodramust vanikorensis bartschi ), Laysan duck ( Anas laysanensis ), Hawaiian duck or koloa ( Anas wyvilliana ), Hawaiian hawk or 'io ( Buteo solitarius ), Hawaiian crow or 'alala ( Corvus hawaiiensis ), Mariana crow ( Corvus kubaryi ), Hawaiian coot or 'alae ke'o ke'o ( Fulica americana alai ), Mariana moorhen ( Gallinula chloropus guami ), Hawaiian moorhen or 'alae'ula ( Gallinula chloropus sandvicensis ), Micronesian kingfisher ( Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina ), Maui nukupu'u ( Hemignathus lucidus affinus ), Kauai nukupu'u ( Hemignathus lucidus hanapepe ), 'akiapola'au ( Hemignathus munroi ), Kauai 'akialoa ( Hemignathus procerus ), Hawaiian stilt or ae'o ( Himantopus mexicanus knudseni ), palila ( Loxioides bailleui ), Hawaii 'akepa ( Loxops coccineus coccineus ), Maui 'akepa ( Loxops coccineus ochraceus ), Micronesian megapode ( Megapodius laperouse ), po'ouli ( Melamprosops phaeosoma ), Kauai 'o'o ( Moho braccatus ), Tinian monarch ( Monarcha takatsukasae ), Molokai solitare or oloma'o ( Myadestes lanaiensis rutha ), large Kauai solitare or kama'o ( Myadestes myadesinus ), small Kauai solitare or puaiohi ( Myadestes palmeri ), Hawaiian goose or nene ( Nesochen sandvicensis ), Hawaii creeper ( Oreomystis mana ), crested honeycreeper or 'akohekohe ( Palmeria dolei ), Molokai creeper or kakawahie ( Paroreomyza flammea ), Oahu creeper or 'alauahia ( Paroreomyza maculata ), Maui parrotbill ( Pseudonestor xanthophrys ), 'o'u ( Psittirostra psittacea ), Hawaiian petrel or 'ua'u ( Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis ), Newell's shearwater ( Puffinus auricularis ), Guam rail ( Rallus owstoni ), Laysan finch ( Telespiza cantans ), Nihoa finch ( Telespiza ultima ), bridled white-eye ( Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus ), Hawaiian hoary bat or ope'ape'a ( Lasiurus cinereus semotus ), Mariana fruit bat ( Pteropus mariannus mariannus ), and the Green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) for evaluation of injury and/or disease, to determine epidemiologic trends, and to assist other permitted biologists in broader ecological studies in the Hawaiian Islands; Midway, Johnston, Wake, Palmyra, and Kingman Reef Atolls; Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands; Guam; American Samoa; the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and the Republic of Palau for the purpose of enhancing their survival. All of these activities for these species were previously authorized under subpermit BRDVET-3.

Applicant: Bruce Koebele, Wai‘anae, Hawai‘i.

The permittee requests an amendment to remove/reduce to possession (collect and propagate) Achyranthes splendens var. rotundata (round-leaved chaff-flower) and Chamaesyce skottsbergii var. kalaeloana (‘Ewa Plains ‘akoko) in conjunction with site rehabilitation in O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Applicant: Ryan Young, Carlsbad, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ), and to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.

Applicant: Mikael Romich, San Bernardino, California.

The permittee requests an amendment to take (monitor nests, video monitor, and band) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with demographic studies in Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.

We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.

The Planning Area boundary encompasses approximately 9.4 million acres located in the northwestern portion of the NPR-A. Within the 9.4 million acre Planning Area are approximately 8.8 million acres of federal surface and 9.1 million acres of federal subsurface estate. The Planning Area is roughly bounded on the east by the Ikpikpuk River. The southern boundary extends along a portion of the Colville River and then proceeds along township and section lines in a “stair-step” fashion to the northwestern corner of the NPR-A at Icy Cape on the Arctic Ocean. The northern boundary from Icy Cape to the mouth of the Ikpikpuk River follows the Arctic Ocean coastline encompassing the bays, lagoons, inlets, and tidal waters between the NPR--'s outlying islands and the mainland. The Final IAP/EIS addresses three primary questions regarding management of the Northwest portion of the NPR-A. First, what lands, if any, will be made available for oil and gas leasing? Second, what measures will BLM use to protect important surface resources during oil and gas exploration and development activities? Third, what non-oil and gas land use allocations should BLM consider for the Northwest portion of the NPR-A?

The release of the Final IAP/EIS concludes a planning and environmental analysis process for the Northwest portion of the NPR-A which started in November, 2002. A Draft IAP/EIS was made available for a 60-day comment period on January 17, 2003. Scoping and comment meetings on the Draft IAP/EIS were held in Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Barrow, Wainwright, Point Lay, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. The Planning Area provides particularly important habitat for caribou, waterfowl, and other species. Many of the local residents of the area rely on harvesting these resources for subsistence purposes. Ensuring adequate protection of these resources has been one of the main focuses of public comment. The BLM held public hearings on subsistence in conjunction with the public meetings held on the Draft IAP/EIS.

The Final IAP/EIS describes the Preferred Alternative which was developed in consideration of more than 96,000 public comments on the four alternatives included in the Draft IAP/EIS. All the significant elements of the Preferred Alternative were included in one or more of the alternatives presented in the Draft IAP/EIS.

Under the Preferred Alternative, all 9.1 million acres of BLM administered subsurface estate within the Planning Area would be available for oil and gas leasing. No areas would be recommended as Wilderness Study Areas or Wild and Scenic Rivers. Leasing, however, would be deferred for 10 years in the western portion of the Planning Area, which encompasses approximately 1,570,000 acres. The Preferred Alternative also recommends the Kasegaluk Lagoon and adjacent lands for designation as a Special Area and prohibits permanent oil and gas facilities within this 102,000-acre proposed Special Area. Under the Preferred Alternative, setbacks have been established prohibiting permanent facilities within 1/4 to 1 mile along major rivers, deep water lakes and coastal areas to protect subsistence resources/activities and other important surface resources. Multi-year studies are required prior to development to protect spectacled and Steller's eiders, yellow-billed loons, brant and caribou. Other stipulations and required operating procedures establish restrictions and guidance that apply to waste prevention and spills, water use, winter overland moves and seismic activity, exploratory drilling, aircraft use and subsistence consultation.

The no action alternative calls for continuation of current management, and no leasing would occur. Alternatives A through C make progressively less land, especially environmentally sensitive land, available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative A makes 100 percent available for oil and gas leasing, Alternative B makes 96 percent available, and Alternative C makes 47 percent available. Stipulations would provide protection for natural and cultural resources under all alternatives, but their nature, number and scope varies between the alternatives.

Authority for developing this document is derived from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, as amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The SMAC was appointed by the Secretary of Interior on August 14, 2001 pursuant to the Steens Act and re-chartered in August 2003. The SMAC's purpose is to provide representative counsel and advice to the BLM regarding (1) new and unique approaches to management of the land within the bounds of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), (2) cooperative programs and incentives for landscape management that meet human needs, maintain and improve the ecological and economic integrity of the area and (3) preparation and implementation of a management plan for the CMPA.

Topics to be discussed by the SMAC at these meetings include categories such as transportation, recreation/public use, wildlife, special designated areas, partnerships/programs, cultural resources, watersheds, projects, education, volunteer-based information, adaptive management, planning process (Andrews Management Unit/Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement), science committee/consultants, socioeconomics, and other matters that may reasonably come before the SMAC.

All meetings are open to the public in their entirety. Information to be distributed to the SMAC is requested at least 10 days prior to the start of each SMAC meeting. Public comment is generally scheduled for 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., local time, both days of each meeting session. The amount of time scheduled for public presentations and meeting times may be extended when the authorized representative considers it necessary to accommodate all who seek to be heard regarding matters on the agenda.

Title: Survey Instruments—Quantitative Description of Potential Impacts of OCS Activities on Bowhead Whale Hunting Activities in the Beaufort Sea.

OMB Control Number: 1010-NEW.

Abstract: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) is responsible for oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) under the OCS Lands Act of 1953, the OCS Lands Act Amendments of 1978 (OCSLA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. OCSLA (Section 18) and NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) require assessment of the effects of OCS oil and gas activities on adjacent human and physical environments. Therefore, USDOI/MMS acquires and analyzes and/or oversees collection and analysis of environmental, socio-economic, and socio-cultural information relevant to OCS decisions and uses that information in Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).

This study is responsive to concerns among North Slope Borough (NSB) residents that oil exploration and development activities in general, and OCS activities in particular, are having an adverse effect on whale hunting and In upiat life. There are three general areas of concern. First are the worries over the physical effects of seismic testing; the movement of barges, aircraft, and other transport vessels; and the erection of platforms. Many think these disruptions alter the feeding and migration patterns of bowhead whales and other marine mammals. The result is that fall whaling crews must move further out to sea, thereby increasing both the danger and the costs of the hunt. There is also considerable anxiety over the contamination of wild foods and the environment from drilling cuts, mudflows, and production water wastes and petroleum discharges. Many of the residents in the smaller villages question the long-term consequences of altering freshwater habitats by draining lakes to build ice roads; the interference of oil well structures, fences, and pipeline on caribou crossings and the behavior of other land mammals; and the ability of local residents to continue to access marine and land mammals.

Secondly, the social, cultural, and economic impact of energy development is a second area of interest and apprehension. There are the direct benefits of economic growth that many look forward to, such as more employment opportunities, more discretionary income, and improved public services. There are also negative trends associated with industrialization, such as general anomie, excessive alcohol and drug use, abusive and self-destructive behavior, higher accident rates, loss of territory, restrictions on land use, loss of language and subsistence skills, dissolution of family relations, decline in community rituals and festivities, and the dilution of cultural values such as sharing, reciprocity, respect for others, and consensual decision making.

There is another, more intangible, worry about what some social scientists call an “opportunity-threat impact” or fears about what might happen to the health and well-being of one's family and community. The implications of economic and social change in the Arctic are not fully understood. Some welcome the transformation of the community and the availability of freshwater, sewers, and better housing. According to others, In upiat peoples have “over adapted” to the new industrial economy, which can threaten the long-term survival of cultural traditions and a distinctive way of life.

Finally, whether the changes that accompany economic development are positive or destructive depends heavily on the regulatory regimes and mitigation measures that are in place, a final area of contention. Here, complaints have been voiced about the pressure on the NSB to deal with the accidents and damages tied to development for which it is not responsible. This puts added stress on the capacity of the NSB to serve the needs of residents and is particularly troublesome in a time of declining revenues and personnel layoffs.

MMS proposes to collect the information in this study: (1) To describe participation in bowhead whale hunting and its importance to and relationship with other traditional activities in three Iñupiat communities on Alaska's North Slope and one control community of similar size in the western part of the State; (2) to describe and analyze community assessments of the effects of oil and gas development and modernization on participation in traditional activities, especially bowhead whale hunting; (3) to describe and analyze community assessments of desired future conditions for whale hunting and related traditional activities; and (4) to describe how oil and gas development and other forces of modernization influence these desired future conditions for whaling and other traditional activities. The information collected will be used in regional EAs and EISs and will be used to make decisions on future oil and gas lease sales in the Beaufort Sea, currently scheduled for 2005 and 2007. These data will enhance the ability of MMS and the Secretary of the Interior to make fully informed leasing and development decisions about the Beaufort Sea.

Survey Instruments: An integral aspect of the research effort is the development and administration of three survey instruments that will collect information about the North Slope communities of Barrow, Kaktovik, and Nuiqsut and the “control community” of Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Straits. The survey data are divided into five broad categories: demographic and economic characteristics; quantitative and qualitative summaries of participation in bowhead whaling and other subsistence activities; an assessment of residents' perceptions of the potential threats and benefits of OCS development to subsistence and other traditional activities, especially bowhead whaling; changes in the quality of life in each community, measured in both economic and cultural terms; and the way residents view the likely future of their communities.

The information under this proposed collection will be obtained through personal interviews with three distinct groups: whaling captains, adult-headed households and elders, and high school juniors and seniors. A separate survey, based on previous studies, has been developed for each of these groups.

The Whaling Captain Survey focuses on the patterns of participation in whale hunting activities and the possible impact of OCS development on these patterns. Demographic questions about age, length of time in the community, education, gender, shareholder status in village and regional corporations, and family relations will reveal, in part, a captain's experience, understanding, and perspectives on social change and resource development. The Household Survey focuses on the effects of offshore oil industry activities on individual residents, households, and groups in each community. Population characteristics such as age, number, and relationships of people in the household and level of education are related to changes in employment, income, and economic opportunity. Gender, ethnic background, length of residency, and corporate membership can also result in divergent views about subsistence, development, language, and many other factors. The Student Survey focuses on perceptions about the effects of OCS oil and gas activities, documents student attitudes about Iñupiat traditions, and tracks changes in student behaviors that help assess inter-generational continuities. Responses may vary depending on age, ethnicity, and gender.

It is assumed in all three surveys that Native ancestry is predictably tied to participation in subsistence and other traditional cultural activities. Since only coastal Alaskan Natives can legally hunt bowhead whales and other marine mammals, the survey will include only Native residents. Variation of participation in subsistence and other traditional activities among groups, as well as over time, will be a key analytical focus.

Interview Methods: The interviews for each survey will be done face to face in a setting that is most comfortable for the respondent. This personal method is more expensive and time consuming for the researchers, but these drawbacks are outweighed by improvements in the quality of information obtained and the rapport established between the surveyor and the person interviewed. Telephone interviews have not been successful on the North Slope.

Households in Barrow, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, and Savoonga (control village) will be randomly chosen for interviews. To achieve the desired statistical confidence level, smaller communities are sampled at a higher rate than are larger ones. Respondents will be paid for taking part in the survey.

Frequency: One-time survey.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 614 respondents from Alaska's North Slope communities and a control group in western Alaska.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 474 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: No non-hour cost burden has been identified.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on July 14, 2003, we published a Federal Register notice (68 FR 41658) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. This notice also informed the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provided the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by January 2, 2004.

Public Comment Policy: MMS practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor the request to the extent allowable by the law. However, anonymous comments will not be considered. 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.

MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer: Denise Johnson, (202) 208-3976.