Section 243(c) of Public Law 106-224, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, amended § 17(d)(5) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766 (d)(5)(E)(i) and (ii)) requires the USDA to maintain a list of institutions, family day care home providers, and individuals that have been terminated or otherwise disqualified from participation in the CACFP. The law also requires the USDA to make the list available to State agencies for their use in reviewing applications to participate and to sponsoring organizations to ensure that they do not employ as principals any persons who are disqualified from the program. This statutory mandate has been incorporated into § 226.6(c)(7) of the CACFP regulations.

In order to implement this and other provisions of Public Law 106-243, which was designed to improve the management and integrity of the CACFP, the USDA has published an interim rule entitled, “Child and Adult Care Food Program: Implementing Legislative Reforms to Strengthen Program Integrity” (67 FR 43447, June 27, 2002). As amended by the interim rule, § 226.6(b)(12) of the CACFP regulations prohibits State agencies from approving an institution's application to participate in the program if either the institution or any of its principals is on the National Disqualified List. This section of the regulations also prohibits State agencies from approving an application submitted by a sponsoring organization on behalf of a facility if the facility or any of its principals is on the National Disqualified List. In addition, sponsoring organizations are prohibited (introductory paragraph of § 226.16(b) and § 226.6(c)(7)(iv)(B)) from submitting an application on behalf of a facility if either the facility or any of its principals is on the National Disqualified List and are prohibited from employing in a principal capacity any individual who is on the National Disqualified List (§§ 226.6(c)(3)(ii)(B), 226.6(c)(6)(ii)(G)( 2 ), and 226.6(c)(7)(iv)(A)).

An institution that operates the CACFP is disqualified from participation in the program and placed on the National Disqualified List after having been declared seriously deficient; failing to take the required corrective action within the stated period of time; being notified of the State agency's intent to terminate their program agreement; and being offered an administrative review (appeal) of the State agency's proposed termination. When a State agency determines that an institution is seriously deficient, it must also identify the principals or individuals associated with the institution whose actions or conduct led to the institution's serious deficiency, and notify these persons that (1) they have been determined to be a “responsible principal” or a “responsible individual” for the serious deficiency, and (2) the failure to correct the serious deficiencies in the allotted time will result in the State agency's proposed termination of the institution's agreement and proposed disqualification of the institution and the responsible principals and individuals from participation in the program. The State agency must submit a copy of the notification of serious deficiency, including the names of the responsible principals and individuals, to the FNS regional office (FNSRO) that oversees the operation of the CACFP in that State.

If the serious deficiency is not corrected or if the State agency determines that the responsible principal(s) and individual(s) should be proposed for disqualification independently of the disqualification of the institution, it must notify the responsible principals and individuals that the State agency proposes to disqualify them and include them on the National Disqualified List and offer them an administrative review of the State agency's proposed termination. The State agency must provide a copy of the notice of proposed disqualification to the FNSRO.

Section 226.6(k)(8) of the regulations requires that, in most instances, an individual's appeal will be considered as part of an institution's appeal of its proposed termination and disqualification. However, the administrative review officer may separate the appeals of the institution and the responsible principals and/or responsible individuals if (a) the institution does not appeal, but the individual wishes to do so or if (b) either the institution or the individual demonstrates to the administrative review officer's satisfaction that their interests conflict.

If the appeals of the institution and the responsible principal(s) and responsible individual(s) have not been separated by the administrative review officer, when the State agency terminates the institution's program and disqualifies it from participation in the CACFP, it will also disqualify those persons named as “responsible principals” or “responsible individuals,” and will submit a copy of the termination notice (including the name(s), birth date(s), and address(es) of responsible principals and responsible individuals) to the FNSRO. If the institution is not terminated and disqualified but the responsible principals and individuals are disqualified, the State agency must notify the individuals of the disqualification and send a copy of the notice to the FNSRO. The FNSRO will transmit information on disqualified institutions and disqualified responsible principals and individuals to FNS Headquarters, which will then include the individual(s) on the National Disqualified List. State agencies are prohibited (§ 226.6(b)(12)) from approving the application of an institution that employs any person on the National Disqualified List in a principal capacity, or of a facility if the facility or any of its principals is on the National Disqualified List. Sponsoring organizations are prohibited (introductory paragraph of § 226.16(b) and § 226.6(c)(7)(iv)(B)) from submitting an application on behalf of a facility if either the facility or any of its principals is on the National Disqualified List and are prohibited from employing in a principal capacity any individual who is on the National Disqualified List (§§ 226.6(c)(3)(ii)(B), 226.6(c)(6)(ii)(G)(2), and 226.6(c)(7)(iv)(A)).

The operator of a family day care home will be placed on the National Disqualified List only after having been declared seriously deficient by the operator's sponsoring organization; failing to take the required corrective action within the stated period of time; being notified of the sponsoring organization's intent to terminate the operator's CACFP agreement; and being offered an administrative review of the sponsoring organization's proposed termination. If the operator of the family day care home fails to exercise his/her appeal rights, or if he/she loses the appeal, the sponsoring organization will terminate the operator's program agreement and will submit a copy of the termination notice (including the name, mailing address and date of birth of the family day care home operator, the effective date of the termination, the reasons for the termination, and whether the operator owes a debt to the program) to the State agency. The State agency will forward the information to FNS, which will include the family day care home operator on the National Disqualified List. The National Disqualified List is maintained at FNS Headquarters, and will be shared with other State administering agencies and sponsoring organizations.

Once placed on the National Disqualified List, a responsible principal or individual or the operator of a family day care home will remain on the list for 7 years from the effective date of the disqualification or until acceptable corrective action is taken. Also, no responsible principal or individual or operator of a family day care home can be removed from the list until any debt owed to the program is repaid in full, even if the full 7 years has elapsed.

In order for a responsible principal or individual to be removed from the National Disqualified List, he/she must demonstrate to the satisfaction of both the State agency and FNS that appropriate corrective action has been taken. In order for a family day care home operator to be removed from the National Disqualified List, he/she must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State agency that appropriate corrective action has been taken.

The purpose of maintaining a National Disqualified List and making it available to State agencies and sponsoring organizations is to provide these entities with a tool for promoting CACFP integrity by preventing several situations from occurring. First, it prevents institutions whose CACFP agreements were terminated for cause in one State from simply moving to another State and reapplying for program participation. Second, it prevents individuals responsible for fraud or serious mismanagement from continuing to be involved in CACFP administration by forming a new corporate entity and entering the program under a different organizational name. Third, it prevents individuals associated with a disqualified institution from re-entering the CACFP as a family day care home provider, as a principal with another institution, or as a principal in a sponsored center. Finally, it prevents family day care home providers terminated for cause by one sponsoring organization from re-entering the CACFP under the auspices of a different sponsoring organization.

Because this system of records contains personal information about individuals ( i.e. , names, birth dates, and addresses) as well as the nature of the serious deficiency for which they were responsible, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, requires publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing the existence and character of the system of records and the routine uses to which it is put. Therefore, FNS is proposing the following routine use for this system of records in order to fully comply with this legislative mandate. This system of records is routinely updated and the data on individuals who have been disqualified from participation in the CACFP is made available to all State agencies and sponsoring organizations administering the program.

A “Report on a New System,” required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), as implemented by OMB Circular A-130, was sent to the Chair, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform, and to the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, of the Office of Management and Budget on or before February 12, 2004.

The business meeting on March 17, 2004 begins at 10 a.m. at the Caribou-Targhee National Forest Headquarters Office, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Agenda topics will include looking at project proposals for 2004 and electing a new chairperson.

On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) was signed into law as Pub. L. 107-171. The Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act was amended by section 6002 of the Farm Bill, by adding a grant program to establish a revolving loan fund. The Secretary may make grants to qualified, private, non-profit entities. The grant recipients will use the grant funds to establish a revolving loan fund. The loans will be made to eligible entities to finance predevelopment costs of water or wastewater projects, or short-term small capital projects not part of the regular operation and maintenance of current water and wastewater systems.

Eligible entities for the revolving loan fund will be the same entities eligible to obtain loans, loan guarantees, or grants from the Rural Utilities Service program. The amount of financing to an eligible entity shall not exceed $100,000 and shall be repaid in a term not to exceed 10 years. The rate shall be determined in the approved grant workplan.

The Act stipulates that, among other provisions, the Administrator of RUS shall prescribe regulations to implement the Act and shall issue and otherwise administer the grant program. No funds were appropriated for the Act for fiscal year (FY) 2002. The appropriations bill for FY 2004 includes $500,000 for the grant program; therefore we are proceeding with the development of a regulation in order to implement the program.

The section also requires the Administrator of RUS to prescribe regulations to implement the provisions. We will be relying heavily on existing regulations within the Rural Development Program in order to develop regulations for this new program. The main referenced regulations will be the following:

(1) Rural Economic Development Loan & Grant Program (REDLG), 7 CFR 1703 Subpart B; http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html

(2) Intermediary Lending Program (IRP), RD Instruction 4274-D http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs/regs_toc.html and

(3) Rural Housing regulation for the Housing Preservation Grant Program (HPG), RD Instruction 1944, Subpart N. http://rdinit.usda.gov/regs/regs_toc.html

RUS encourages interested parties to review the Act in its entirety on the USDA Web site at http://www.usda.gov/farmbill/ .

RUS is requesting comment and discussion on the following topics:

(1) RUS is seeking comments on the current lending experience of potential grant applicants;

(2) RUS is also interested in comments regarding a proposed minimum 20 percent matching funds contribution by the grant recipient; in-kind contributions will not be accepted as part of the 20 percent minimum;

(3) RUS is interested in comments regarding the percentage of the grant funds that may be used for administrative or servicing fees;

(4) RUS is seeking comments on the issue of a maximum of 75 percent of the project costs the revolving loan should pay, with the other 25 percent of project costs paid for from non-Federal sources;

(5) RUS is interested in comments regarding the use of the Central Servicing Center for the revolving loans, including processing loan payments, reviewing financial statements, and other responsibilities involved in loan servicing, and

(6) RUS is also seeking comments on the definition of eligible and ineligible projects for the revolving loan funds.

RUS invites interested parties including, but not limited to, financial and lending institutions, non-profit organizations, consumer groups, community organizations, and individuals to comment. Written comments should provide RUS any information or analysis believed to be relevant to the issues discussed in this Notice and to the implementation of the revolving loan program.

On December 8, 2003, we published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands for the period May 3, 2001 through October 31, 2002. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 68341 (December 8, 2003). Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), currently the final results of this administrative review are due on April 6, 2004. The Department, however, may extend the deadline for completion of the final results of a review if it determines it is not practicable to complete the final results within the statutory time limit. See 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. In this case the Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because of significant issues which require additional time to evaluate. These include: treatment of section 201 tariffs; treatment of entries made during the period October 30, 2001 through November 28, 2001 (“gap period”) in the margin calculation; and the calculation of various components of the cost of production ( e.g. , cost of manufacture and general and administrative expenses). Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the final results until June 5, 2004 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act.

On August 22, 2003, in response to requests from the respondent, ThyssenKrupp Mexinox S.A. de C.V. (Mexinox), and Allegheny Ludlum, AK Steel Corporation, J&L Specialty Steel, Inc., North American Stainless, Butler-Armco Independent Union, Zanesville Armco Independent Organization, Inc., and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, petitioners), we published a notice of initiation of this administrative review in the Federal Register . See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 50750 (August 22, 2003). Pursuant to the time limits for administrative reviews set forth in section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), the current deadlines are April 1, 2004 for the preliminary results and July 30, 2004 for the final results. The Department, however, may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a review if it determines it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results within the statutory time limit. See 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act and section 351.213(h)(2) of the Department's regulations. In this case the Department has determined it is not practicable to complete this review within the statutory time limit because of significant case issues which require additional time to evaluate. These include: the reporting of downstream sales; a buyback of Thyssen Krupp AG's (Mexinox's parent company) shares from the Government of Iran; and major inputs purchased from affiliated suppliers. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results until July 30, 2004 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act. The deadline for the final results of this review will continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.

This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A) (2001)).

On December 22, 2003, the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From the Republic of Korea (68 FR 71078). The preliminary determination was negative. The notice stated that the Department would issue its final determination no later than 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination (December 16, 2003).

Section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) allows for a postponement of the final determination until not later than 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the request of the petitioner, when the preliminary determination was negative.

On January 23, 2004, the Department received a request from the petitioner, International Imaging Materials, Inc. (IIMAK), that the Department postpone the final determination until March 22, 2004. IIMAK made this request under section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), which as noted above allows the petitioner to request a postponement of the final determination if the preliminary determination was negative. There are no compelling reasons for the Department to deny petitioner's request. Therefore, pursuant to section 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i), the Department is postponing the deadline for issuing the final determination until March 22, 2004.

This notice of postponement is in accordance with section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2).

NOAA published its first omnibus notice announcing the availability of grant funds for both projects and fellowships/scholarships/internships for Fiscal Year 2004 in the Federal Register on June 30, 2003 (68 FR 38678). The evaluation criteria and selection procedures contained in the June 30, 2003 omnibus notice are applicable to this solicitation. For a copy of the June 30, 2003 omnibus notice, please go to: http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/~amd/SOLINDEX.HTML.

The full funding announcement for each program is available via website: http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/~amd/SOLINDEX.HTML or by contacting the program official identified below. These announcements will also be available through FedGrants at http://www.fedgrants.gov .

This third omnibus notice describes funding opportunities for the following NOAA discretionary grant programs:

Summary Description: The North Atlantic right whale is among the world's most endangered cetaceans. The population is believed to number only about 300 individuals and appears to be declining. The lack of recovery is due in part to high mortality from human sources, notably fishing gear entanglements and vessel collisions. A Recovery Plan is in effect, and conservation of this species is a high priority for NOAA Fisheries. Research directed at facilitating such conservation or to provide monitoring of the population's status and health, is also a high priority for the agency. The RWRGP is conducted by NOAA to provide Federal assistance to eligible researchers for: (1) detection and tracking of right whales; (2) behavior of right whales in relation to ships; (3) relationships between vessel speed, size or design with whale collisions; (4) modeling of ship traffic along the Atlantic coast; (5) population monitoring and assessment studies; (6)reproduction, health and genetic studies; (7) development of a Geographic Information System database or other system designed to investigate predictive modeling of right whale distribution in relation to environmental variables; (8) habitat quality studies including food quality and pollutant levels; and (9) any other work relevant to the recovery of North Atlantic right whales.

Funding Availability:

This solicitation announces that a maximum of $2.0M may be available for distribution under the FY 2004 RWRGP, in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. Applicants are hereby given notice that funds have not yet been appropriated for this program. There is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to make awards for all qualified projects. The exact amount of funds that may be awarded will be determined in pre-award negotiations between the applicant and NOAA representatives. Publication of this notice does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds. There is no set minimum or maximum amount for any award, and there is no limit on the number of applications that can be submitted by the same researcher during the 2004 competitive grant cycle. However, there are insufficient funds to award financial assistance to every applicant. If an application for a financial assistance award is selected for funding, NOAA/NMFS has no obligation to provide any additional funding in connection with that award in subsequent years.

Statutory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1380

CFDA: 11.472, Unallied Science Programs

Application Deadline: Proposals must be postmarked by 5 p.m. eastern time on April 12, 2004.

Address for submitting Proposals: NOAA Fisheries Right Whale Grants Program, Protected Species Branch, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, 508 495-2316.

Information Contact(s): Dr Phillip J. Clapham, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543, 508 495-2316, email rightwhalegrants@noaa.gov .

Eligibility: Eligible applicants are individuals, institutions of higher education, other nonprofits, commercial organizations, international organizations, foreign governments, organizations under the jurisdiction of foreign governments, and state, local and Indian tribal governments. Federal agencies, or employees of Federal agencies are not eligible to apply.

Cost Sharing Requirementste: http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/~amd/SOLINDEX.HTML or by contacting the program official identified below. These announcements will also be available through FedGrants at http://www.fedgrants.gov .

This third omnibus notice describes funding opportunities for the following NOAA discretionary grant programs:

Summary Description: The North Atlantic right whale is among the world's most endangered cetaceans. The population is believed to number only about 300 individuals and appears to be declining. The lack of recovery is due in part to high mortality from human sources, notably fishing gear entanglements and vessel collisions. A Recovery Plan is in effect, and conservation of this species is a high priority for NOAA Fisheries. Research directed at facilitating such conservation or to provide monitoring of the population's status and health, is also a high priority for the agency. The RWRGP is conducted by NOAA to provide Federal assistance to eligible researchers for: (1) detection and tracking of right whales; (2) behavior of right whales in relation to ships; (3) relationships between vessel speed, size or design with whale collisions; (4) modeling of ship traffic along the Atlantic coast; (5) population monitoring and assessment studies; (6)reproduction, health and genetic studies; (7) development of a Geograph under this announcement pending submission of successful proposals subject to technical and panel reviews, adequate progress on previous award(s) and/or site visits, and available funding.

Statutory Authority: 33 U.S.C. 883d, 15 U.S.C. 1540

CFDA: 11.473, Coastal Services Center.

Application Deadline: Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Pacific time on March 29, 2004.

Address for submitting Proposals: Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Office; 299 Foam Street, Monterey, CA 93940. Facsimile transmissions and electronic mail submission of proposals will not be accepted.

Information Contact: Seaberry Nachbar, phone 831-647-4201, fax 831-647-4250, internet at seaberry.nachbar@noaa.gov .

Eligibility: Eligible applicants for both areas of interest (“Meaningful Outdoor Experiences” and Professional Development in the Area of Environmental Education for Teachers) are K-through-12 public and independent schools and school systems, institutions of higher education, commercial and nonprofit organizations, state or local government agencies, and Indian tribal governments. Applicants that are not eligible are individuals and Federal agencies.

Cost Sharing Requirements: No cost sharing is required under this program, however, the Pacific Services Center strongly encourages applicants to share as much of the costs of the award as possible. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the review process with cash being the preferred method of contribution.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Summary Description: The B-WET grant program is a competitively based program that supports existing environmental education programs, fosters the growth of new programs, and encourages the development of partnerships among environmental education programs throughout the Monterey Bay watershed. Funded projects provide “meaningful” outdoor experiences for students and professional development opportunities for teachers in the area of environmental education.

Funding Availability: This solicitation announces that approximately $475,000 may be available in FY 2004 in award amounts to be determined by the proposals and available funds. It is anticipated that approximately 15 grants will be awarded with these funds. About $250,000 will be for proposals that provide opportunities for students to participate in a “Meaningful” Outdoor Experience. About $225,000 will be for proposals that provide opportunities for Professional Development in the area of Environmental Education for Teachers. Proposals may be submitted for up to 3 years. However, funds will be made available for only a 12-month award period and any renewal of the award period will depend on submission of a successful proposal subject to technical and panel reviews, adequate progress on previous award(s), and available funding to renew the award. The NMSP may renew the grants funded under this announcement pending submission of successful proposals subject to technical and panel reviews, adequate progress on previous award(s) and/or site visits, and available funding.

Statutory Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1440

CFDA: 11.429, Marine Sanctuary Program.

NMFS implemented a final rule to establish GHLs in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A for the harvest of Pacific halibut ( Hippoglosses stenolepis ) by the charter fishery on August 8, 2003 (68 FR 47256). The GHL is intended to serve as a benchmark for participants in the charter fishery.

This announcement is consistent with § 300.65(i)(2), which requires that GHLs for IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A be specified by NMFS and announced by publication in the Federal Register no later than 30 days after receiving information from the IPHC which establishes the constant exploitation yield (CEY) for halibut in IPHC regulatory areas 2C and 3A for that year. Based on the regulations at § 300.65(i)(1), the CEY established by the IPHC in 2004 in regulatory area 2C results in a GHL of 1,432,000 pounds (649.5 mt), and, in regulatory area 3A, results in a GHL of 3,650,000 pounds (1,655.6 mt).

This notice does not require any regulatory action by NMFS and is intended to serve as an announcement of the GHL in Areas 2C and 3A for 2004. If a GHL is exceeded in 2004, based on information received from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, NMFS will notify the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in writing within 30 days pursuant to regulations at § 300.65(i)(3). The Council is not required to take action, but may recommend additional management measures after receiving notification that a GHL has been exceeded.

This action does not require any additional regulatory action by NMFS and does not impose any additional restrictions on harvests by the charter fishery. If the GHL is exceeded in any year, the Council would be notified, but no action would be required to be taken. This process of notification is intended to provide the Council an indication of the level of harvests by the charter fishery in a given year and could be used to prompt future action.

On October 9, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 58316) that a request for a scientific research permit to collect, obtain, and import/export samples taken from marine mammals of the Orders Pinnipedia (except walrus) and Cetacea had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

Documents are available in the following offices:

Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289);

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

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

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

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

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (508) 281-9346; fax (508) 281-9371; and

Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (813) 570-5301; fax (813) 570-5517.

Respondents are LRAs that have executed no-cost EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by section 2821(a)(3)(B)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Pub. L. 106-65), such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale, lease or equivalent use of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. LRA's are subject to this same seven-year reinvestment requirement if their EDC agreement is modified to reduce the debt owed to the Federal Government. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. No specific form is required.

The mission of the Advisory Group is to provide advice to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E), and through the DDR&E to the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Military Departments in planning and managing an effective and economical research and development program in the area of electron devices.

The AGED meeting will be limited to review of research and development programs which the Military Departments propose to initiate with industry, universities or in their laboratories. The agenda for this meeting will include programs on microwave technology, microelectronics, electro-optics, and electronics materials.

In accordance with section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 10(d)), it has been determined that this Advisory Group meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

A. Final Selection Criteria

The final criteria to be used by the Department of Defense to make recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, 10 U.S.C. 2687 note, are as follows:

In selecting military installations for closure or realignment, the Department of Defense, giving priority consideration to military value (the first four criteria below), will consider:

1. The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the Department of Defense's total force, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.

2. The availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving locations.

3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training.

4. The cost of operations and the manpower implications.

5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs.

6. The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations.

7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel.

8. The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities.

The Department of Defense (DoD) received a variety of comments from the public, members of Congress, and other elected officials in response to the proposed DoD selection criteria for closing and realigning military installations inside the United States. The Department also received a number of letters from members of Congress regarding BRAC selection criteria before publication of the draft criteria for comment. The Department has treated those letters as comments on the draft criteria and included the points raised therein in our assessment of public comments. The comments can be grouped into three categories: general, military value, and other considerations. The following is an analysis of these comments.

(a) Numerous commentors expressed support for the draft criteria without suggesting changes and used the opportunity to provide information on their particular installations. DoD understands and greatly appreciates the high value that communities place on the installations in their area and the relationships that have emerged between the Department and local communities. Both the BRAC legislation and DoD's implementation of it ensure that all installations will be treated equally in the base realignment and closure process.

(b) Several commentors gave various reasons why a particular installation, type of installation, or installations designated by Congress as unique assets or strategic ports, should be eliminated from any closure or realignment evaluation. Public Law 101-510 directs DoD to evaluate all installations equally. The Department has issued guidance to all DoD Components instructing them to treat all installations equally.

(c) Some commentors indicated the selection criteria should reflect the statutory requirement of section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, to maintain a core logistics capability, and the statutory limitation of Section 2466 that the Department spend no more than 50% of its depot-level maintenance and repair funds to contract for the performance of such workload. Consistent with the development and application of the criteria used in all previous rounds, it is inappropriate to include any statutory constraints in the selection criteria because they are too varied and numerous and could preclude evaluation of all installations equally. The absence of these requirements in the text of the criteria, however, should not be construed as an indication that the Department will ignore these or any other statutory requirements or limitations in making its final recommendations.

(d) The Department did not receive any requests from local governments that a particular installation be closed or realigned pursuant to section 2914(b)(2) of Public Law 101-510, which states that the Secretary shall consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that the local government would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation. A few private citizens, however, asked that a particular installation be closed or that operations be restricted to limit noise or other community impacts.

(e) A few commentors expressed concern over the broad nature of the criteria and requested greater detail, including in some cases requests for definitions, specificity regarding select functions, and explanations of when a closure as opposed to a realignment was appropriate. While the Department appreciates a desire for detail, the inherent mission diversity of the Military Departments and Defense Agencies makes it impossible for DoD to specify detailed criteria that could be applied to all installations and functions within the Department. Broad criteria allow flexibility of application across a wide range of functions within the Department.

(f) A few commentors recommended assigning specific weights to individual criteria and applying those criteria uniformly across the Department. It would be impossible for DoD to specify weights for each criterion that could be applied uniformly to all installations and functions because of the inherent mission diversity within the Department. Other than the requirement to give the military value criteria priority consideration, the numbering reflected in the listing of the criteria are not intended to assign an order of precedence to an individual criterion.

(g) One commentor suggested that section 2687 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Department to exclude military installations with less than 300 authorized civilian positions from consideration for closure or realignment under BRAC. While section 2687 allows the Department to close or realign such installations outside the BRAC process, it does not preclude their consideration within BRAC. In order for the Department to reconfigure its current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and efficiency, it must undertake an analysis of the totality of its infrastructure, not just those with 300 or more authorized civilian positions.

(h) Some commentors were concerned that BRAC would be used as a “back door” method of privatizing civilian positions. DoD's civil service employees are an integral part of successful accomplishment of defense missions. Section 2904 specifically limits the ability of the Secretary of Defense to carry out a privatization in place of a military installation recommended for closure or realignment to situations where that option is specified in the recommendations of the Commission and determined by the Commission to be the most cost-effective method of implementation of the recommendation. Therefore, if any closure or realignment recommendation includes privatization, it will be clearly stated in the recommendation.

(i) One commentor suggested that the Department needed to conduct a comprehensive study of U.S. military installations abroad and assess whether the existing U.S. base infrastructure meets the needs of current and future missions. The BRAC statute applies to military installations inside the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. As a parallel action, the Secretary of Defense has already undertaken a comprehensive study of global basing and presence—the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS). BRAC will accommodate any decisions from that study that relocate forces to the U.S. DoD will incorporate our global basing strategy into a comprehensive BRAC analysis, thereby ensuring that any overseas redeployment decisions inform our recommendations to the BRAC Commission.

(j) A few commentors cautioned the Department against using the authority provided by section 2914(c) to close and retain installations in inactive status because of the negative effect such action might have on the relevant local community. The Department recognizes that job creation gained through the economic reuse of facilities is critically important to mitigate the negative impact of BRAC recommendations. As such, the Department will exercise the utmost caution and consideration when exercising its authority to retain installations in an inactive status. It should be noted that the Department has always had this authority, even though its appearance in the authorizing legislation for the 2005 round would indicate it is a new authority. As such, the Department's actions in the four previous base closure rounds demonstrate that it will be exercised judiciously.

(k) A few commentors asked the Department to give priority to relocating activities within the same state or local community. The Department recognizes that the economic impact of BRAC reductions can be lessened by moving functions to geographically proximate locations. As specified in the BRAC legislation, however, military value must be the primary consideration when making these decisions. Specifically, those factors that are set out in criteria one through four are the most important considerations when selecting receiving locations.

(a) A majority of comments received dealt with the military value criteria. In the aggregate, military value refers to the collection of attributes that determine how well an installation supports force structure, functions, and or missions.

(b) One commentor was concerned that the Department would lose sight of the value of service-unique functions when applying criteria that include reference to jointness. The Department recognizes the distinct military value provided by both service-unique functions and those functions that are performed by more than one service. Accordingly, the Secretary established a process wherein the Military Departments are responsible for analyzing their service-unique functions, while Joint Cross-Service Groups, which include representatives from each of the military services, analyze the common business-oriented support functions.

(c) A few commentors were concerned that criterion two, which captures the legislative requirements set out in Section 2913(b)(1)-(3), did not recite verbatim the language in the BRAC statute. They urged incorporation of “Preservation of” into the final criteria to ensure that the 2005 BRAC round preserve the infrastructure necessary to support future military requirements. Selection criteria must facilitate discriminating among various military installations, assessing the value of each and comparing them against each other to see which installations offer the greatest value to the Department. Criteria one through three compare the respective assets of different military installations against each other, valuing those with more of those assets more highly than those without those assets. By valuing the installations with more of these assets higher, the Department “preserves” these valuable assets set out in the criteria. If the Department were to modify the criteria to include “preservation,” as suggested in the comment, we would be forced to assess how an installation “preserves” something rather than whether an installation possesses the assets worthy of preservation, potentially undercutting the statutory factors rather than furthering those factors. While the criteria proposed by the Secretary do not recite the statutory language verbatim, they do fully reflect the nine factors set out in the statute, and as such are legally sufficient. Additionally, the Department does not agree with the assertion that the criteria must contain the word “preservation” in order to comply with congressional intent. The report of the Committee of Conference to accompany S. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, refers to the preceding list of requirements as “factors that must be evaluated and incorporated in the Secretary's final list of criteria.” The BRAC statute does not require, as a matter of law, a verbatim recitation of the factors set out in Section 2913. On the contrary, a requirement for a verbatim recitation is inconsistent with the requirements for publication of draft criteria, an extensive public comment period, and finalization of criteria only after reviewing public comments. If the Secretary were bound to adopt the statutory language as his criteria, the detailed publication process required by Congress would be meaningless.

(d) A few commentors stressed the importance of maintaining a surge capacity. Surge requirements can arise for any number of reasons, including contingencies, mobilizations, or extended changes in force levels. Criteria one and three capture the concept of surge capacity as they are currently drafted. As was the case with the criteria used in the past three rounds of BRAC, criterion one requires the Department to consider “current and future ” mission capabilities and criterion three assesses the “ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization and future total force requirements ”. In 1999, after three rounds of BRAC using these criteria (and similar criteria used in the first round of BRAC), the Department looked closely at its ability to accommodate increased requirements and found that even after four rounds of base realignments and closures it could accommodate the reconstitution of 1987 force structure—a significantly more robust force than exists today—which is a more demanding scenario than a short term mobilization. Further, as required by Section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136), the Secretary, as part of his assessment of probable threats to national security, will determine the “potential, prudent, surge requirements to meet those threats.”

(e) Numerous commentors stated that previous BRAC rounds failed to evaluate research, development, test and evaluation, engineering, procurement, and technical facilities accurately, because of the lack of effective criteria to consider the features essential to their performance. They noted that the criteria applied to such facilities in previous rounds were largely the same criteria that were applied to operations, training and maintenance facilities serving very different functions. DoD highly values its research, development, test and evaluation, engineering, procurement, and technical facilities. Research, development, engineering, procurement and other technical capabilities are elements of military value captured within criteria one through four. The Department will consider military value in a way that incorporates these elements.

(f) Several commentors also raised concerns that the criteria did not take into account the availability of intellectual capital, critical trade skills, a highly trained work force, allied presence, and the synergy among nearby installations and between DoD facilities and nearby industrial clusters and academic institutions. DoD appreciates the importance of having an available pool of intellectual capital and critical trade skills that make up, and allow us to recruit and retain, a highly trained and experienced work force, as well as the synergy provided by nearby facilities. To the extent that the availability of highly skilled civilian or contractor work forces and relationships with local institutions and other installations influence our ability to accomplish the mission, they are captured in criteria one, three and seven.

(g) Some commentors urged DoD to consider strategic location and irreplaceable properties and facilities as part of military value. The availability and condition of land and facilities are an integral part of military value, specifically covered under criterion two. Furthermore, the strategic location of DoD facilities informs criteria one and three.

(h) Some commentors said that an installation's demonstrated ability to transform, streamline business operations, and manage successful programs should be considered as part of military value. In some instances commentors praised the outstanding work of a particular installation or group of installations. DoD recognizes and appreciates the outstanding work done by its installations. Criteria one and three capture both the ability to perform a mission and the quality of that work—both of which, in turn, capture the willingness to transform and streamline.

(i) Some commentors recommended that DoD consider an installation's role in homeland defense, security, domestic preparedness, and the war on terrorism as a part of military value. Some suggested that an installation's proximity to and ability to protect vital national assets, transportation facilities, major urban centers and international borders was a key consideration, while others indicated that geographic diversity or complete isolation should be the real objective in order to enhance security. The security of our nation, whether expressed as homeland defense, domestic preparedness, or fighting the war on terrorism, is an important DoD mission. Both the BRAC legislation and DoD's implementation of it ensure that homeland defense and security are considered in the BRAC process. Specifically, criterion two requires DoD Components to consider “[t]he availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace * * * as staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions.” Additionally, as a mission of DoD, all of these issues are captured by the requirements of criteria one and three.

(j) Some commentors noted that, in some areas of the country, expanding civilian use of adjacent lands is encroaching upon military properties and has impacted critical training requirements and preparations for deployments. Some said that installations located in rural regions with access to large areas of operational airspace over land and water as well as direct ingress/egress routes from water to land will be key to future military operational and training requirements. The issue of encroachment is captured by criterion two which requires the Department to consider the availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace.

(k) Some commentors recommended that DoD consider the difficulty of relocating missions and functions requiring federal nuclear licenses or environmental permits, as part of military value. DoD recognizes the importance of federal licenses and permits. The ability to accommodate current and future force requirements, which includes Federal licensing and permitting requirements, is covered under criteria one, two and three. Furthermore, the impact of environmental compliance activities ( i.e. , permits and licenses) is also specifically captured in criterion eight.

(l) A few commentors were concerned that the “cost of operations” language in criterion four would not be a meaningful measure of military value because it would appear to encourage the closure or realignment of an installation in a high cost of living area, despite important strategic reasons for retaining that installation. Because DoD operates in a resource constrained environment, all resources—land, facilities, personnel, and financial—have value. Monetary resources are an inextricable component of military value because all equipment, services, and military salaries are dependent on the availability of this resource. Therefore, the extent to which one installation can be operated at less cost than another is worthy of consideration, particularly for business operations, although the importance of this will vary depending on the function involved.

(a) Criteria five through eight deal with other considerations, such as costs and savings and economic, community, and environmental impacts.

(b) Some commentors recommended a standardized interpretation of the cost criteria. The Department agrees that costs and savings must be calculated uniformly. To that end, we are improving the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model used successfully in previous BRAC rounds to address issues of uniformity and will provide it to the Military Departments and the Joint Cross-Service Groups for calculation of costs, savings, and return on investment in accordance with criterion five.

(c) Several commentors stated that total mission support costs associated with reestablishing or realigning a military activity should be considered, including such things as the costs of reestablishing intellectual capital and relationships with nearby businesses and academic institutions, the costs associated with mission disruption, the costs of contractor relocations, and the availability and reliability of raw materials and supplies. DoD has improved the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model used in prior BRAC rounds to more accurately and appropriately reflect the variety of costs of base realignment and closure actions. DoD will provide it to the Military Departments and the Joint Cross-Service Groups for calculation of costs, savings, and return on investment in accordance with criterion five.

(d) A few commentors stated DoD should consider the total resource impact of a recommendation to the Federal Government and reflect both costs and savings. The Department understands the decision making value of comprehensive consideration of costs. In accordance with Section 2913(d), the Department's application of its cost and savings criterion will “take into account the effect of the proposed closure or realignment on the costs of any other activity of the Department of Defense or any other Federal agency that may be required to assume responsibility for activities at the military installations.” The Department will issue guidance to the Military Departments and the Joint Cross Service Groups that incorporates this requirement in the application of criterion five.

(e) Some commentors asked that DoD consider the impact of closing or realigning an installation on the local community and on military retirees in the area who rely on the installation's medical facilities, commissary, and other activities. While military value criteria must be the primary consideration, the impact of a closure or realignment on the local community, including military retirees residing therein, will be considered through criteria five, six, and seven. The DoD Components will calculate economic impact on existing communities by measuring the effects on direct and indirect employment for each recommended closure or realignment. These effects will be determined by using statistical information obtained from the Departments of Labor and Commerce. This is consistent with the methodology used in prior BRAC rounds to measure economic impact.

(f) Some commentors asked that DoD recognize that their state, facility or community was affected by closures and realignments in prior BRAC rounds and that it, therefore, be protected in this round. These and other commentors suggested that the Department view economic impact cumulatively or take into account the need of a community for an economic boost. Still others suggested that the current BRAC round respect decisions made in prior BRAC rounds—and not take any action inconsistent with a prior recommendation. DoD recognizes the impact that BRAC can have on local communities, and makes every effort in the implementation phase of BRAC to soften the effect of closures and realignments on local communities. The BRAC statute, however, specifically requires the Secretary to consider all military installations in the United States equally, without regard to whether that installation has previously been considered for closure or realignment.

(g) The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) stated that the draft criteria, if adopted, would add an element of consistency and continuity in approach with those of the past three BRAC rounds. It noted that its analysis of lessons learned from prior BRAC rounds affirmed the soundness of these basic criteria and generally endorsed their retention for the future, while recognizing the potential for improving the process by which the criteria are used in decision-making. It suggested that DoD clarify two issues: (1) The Department's intention to consider potential costs to other DoD activities or federal agencies that may be affected by a proposed closure or realignment recommendation under the criterion related to cost and savings, and (2) the extent to which the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities will be included in cost and savings analyses of individual BRAC recommendations.

As discussed above, DoD recognizes that the BRAC legislation required it to consider cost impacts to other DoD entities and Federal agencies in its BRAC decision-making and will issue implementing guidance to ensure that such costs are considered under criterion five.

On the second point raised by GAO, which was echoed by a few other commentors, DoD policy guidance has historically stipulated that environmental restoration costs were not to be factored into analyses of costs and savings when examining potential installations for realignment and closure, since DoD was obligated to restore contaminated sites on military installations regardless of whether or not they were closed. DoD concurs with GAO that determining such costs could be problematic in advance of a closure decision, since reuse plans for BRAC properties would not yet be determined and studies to identify restoration requirements would not yet be completed. As suggested, DoD will issue guidance to clarify consideration of environmental costs.

(h) A few commentors suggested that criterion seven—the ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities” infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel “ be included in military value and receive priority consideration. DoD has demonstrated in previous BRAC rounds that factors falling within this criterion can be applied within the military value criteria if they directly relate to the elements of criteria one through four.

(i) A few commentors asked the Department to consider the social as well as the economic impact on existing communities. The Department recognizes that its installations can be key components of the social fabric of the communities in which they are located, in both a positive or negative sense. For instance, the BRAC statute requires that the Department consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that it would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation. Additionally, because social impact is an intangible factor that would be difficult for the Department to quantify and measure fairly, issues of social impact are best addressed to the BRAC Commission during its process of receiving public input.

(j) A few commentors wanted to ensure that, as the Department considers the ability of community infrastructure to support the military, DoD view that ability as evolving, and consider the willingness and capacity of the community to make additional investments. The infrastructure provided by the communities surrounding our installations is a key component in their efficient and effective operation. As the BRAC legislation has established a stringent timetable for the Secretary to arrive at recommendations, the Department must focus on the existing, demonstrated ability of a community to support its installation, especially as potential investment actions may not translate into reality.

(k) One commentor requested clarification that criterion eight “ environmental impact “ includes consideration of the impact of the closure or realignment on historic properties. As has been the case in prior rounds of base closure, the Department will consider historic properties as a part of criterion eight.

(l) Several commentors stated that the criteria should consider the effect of closures and realignments on the quality of life and morale of military personnel and their families. The Department agrees that the quality of life provided to its military personnel and their families significantly contributes to the Department's ability to recruit and retain quality personnel. Military personnel are better able to perform their missions when they feel comfortable that their needs and those of their families are taken care of. Quality of life is captured throughout the criteria, particularly criterion seven.

While the mining industry uses many of the latest evolutionary technologies in their operations, further revolutionary energy efficient processes and technological advances in extraction, materials handling, and beneficiation/processing are needed to enable the mining industry to remain competitive. The objective of the targeted announcement is to support the stated national interests by funding research and development (R&D) projects that address technology needs presented at the Grand Challenge workshops in 2003 as well as those described in the Energy Analysis. The Energy Analysis is a presentation showing the results of an energy analysis study to demonstrate where the largest energy saving opportunities are in mining and is located at http://www.oit.doe.gov/mining/pdfs/energyanalysis.pdf. The Grand Challenge Technology Concepts for the Mining Industry “focuses on developing revolutionary energy efficiency improvements in the areas of extraction, materials handling, and beneficiation/processing in the mining industry.” The three key industry-identified research areas are the Energy Efficient Alternatives to Current Technologies in Extraction, Materials Handling, and Beneficiation/Processing that offer the largest opportunities for energy savings presented in the Energy Analysis. The areas of interest are activities in the mining industry that is integral to the operations of Surface Mining, Underground Mining, and Mineral Processing. Surface Mining, also called strip mining, placer mining, trench mining, opencast, opencut mining, and/or open pit mining is done at or near the surface where the overburden can be removed without too much expense. Interests include but are not limited to: solution mining, materials handling, systems integration and automation/robotics for all mining at or near the surface where overburden can be economically removed. Underground Mining is generally done where the valuable mineral is located deep enough where it is not economically viable to be removed by surface mining. Interests include but are not limited to: Near face (such as intelligent or remote controlled robotics), ancillary (activities not directly involved in ore mining such as ventilation and improved health conditions). Maintenance operations and technical services are also of interest. Mineral and Coal Processing encompasses unit processes required to size, separate, and process for eventual use. These processes include comminution (crushing and grinding), sizing (screening or classifying), separation (physical or chemical), dewatering (thickening, filtration, or drying), and hydrometallurgical or chemical processing. The Energy Analysis forms the basis of this announcement and characterizes the three interest areas as follows:

Area of Interest 1: Energy Efficient Alternatives to Current Technologies in Extraction —Extraction is the removal of ore from surface or underground mines. This involves excavating activities such as digging, blasting, breaking, loading and hauling. Interests include revolutionary energy alternatives to mineral processes using equipment or processes to mine and process ore.

Area of Interest 2: Energy Efficient Alternatives to Material Handling —Materials handling is the use of any equipment or process to transport ore and waste. Interests include revolutionary energy alternatives with regard to energy used per unit of output to current technologies involving the use of equipment or processes to handle and transport ore and waste.

Area of Interest 3: Energy Efficient Alternatives to Current Technologies in Beneficiation and Processing —Beneficiation and Processing is the use of equipment or processes to crush, grind, concentrate and/or separating the ore from the unwanted material. Interests include revolutionary energy alternatives with regard to energy use per unit of output to current technologies using equipment or processes to crush, grind, concentrate and/or separating the ore from the unwanted material.

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. If you need technical assistance in registering or for any other IIPS function, call the IIPS Help Desk at (800) 683-0751 or E-mail the Help Desk personnel at IIPS_HelpDesk@e-center.doe.gov . 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 will not be accepted and/or honored. Applications must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the instructions and forms contained in the announcement.

The NNSA prepared this record of decision pursuant to the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR part 1021). This record of decision is based, in part, on information provided in the CMRR EIS.

LANL is located in north-central New Mexico, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) north-northeast of Albuquerque, and about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northwest of Santa Fe. LANL occupies an area of approximately 25,600 acres (10,360 hectares), or approximately 40 square miles (104 square kilometers). NNSA is responsible for the administration of LANL as one of three National Security Laboratories. LANL provides both the NNSA and DOE with mission support capabilities through its activities and operations, particularly in the area of national security.

Work at LANL includes operations that focus on the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and on programs that reduce global nuclear proliferation. LANL's main role in NNSA mission objectives includes a wide range of scientific and technological capabilities that support nuclear materials handling, processing and fabrication; stockpile management; materials and manufacturing technologies; nonproliferation programs; and waste management activities. LANL supports actinide (any of a series of elements with atomic numbers ranging from actinium-89 through lawrencium-103) science missions ranging from the plutonium-238 heat source program undertaken for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to arms control and technology development.

The capabilities needed to execute NNSA mission activities require facilities at LANL that can be used to handle actinide and other radioactive materials in a safe and secure manner. Of primary importance are the facilities located within the CMR building and the plutonium facility (located in TAs 3 and 55, respectively). Most of the LANL mission support functions require analytical chemistry (AC) and materials characterization (MC), and actinide research and development support capabilities and capacities that currently exist within facilities at the CMR building and that are not available elsewhere. Other unique capabilities are located within the plutonium facility. Work is sometimes moved between the CMR building and the plutonium facility to make use of the full suite of capabilities they provide.

The CMR building is over 50 years old and many of its utility systems and structural components are deteriorating. Studies conducted in the late 1990s identified a seismic fault trace located beneath one of the wings of the CMR building that increases the level of structural integrity required to meet current structural seismic code requirements for a Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility (a Hazard Category 2 nuclear facility is one in which the hazard analysis identifies the potential for significant onsite consequences). Correcting the CMR building's defects by performing repairs and upgrades would be difficult and costly. NNSA cannot continue to operate the assigned LANL mission-critical CMR support capabilities in the existing CMR building at an acceptable level of risk to public and worker health and safety without operational restrictions. These operational restrictions preclude the full implementation of the level of operation DOE decided upon through its 1999 record of decision for the “Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory” (DOE/EIS-0238) (LANL SWEIS). Mission-critical CMR capabilities at LANL support NNSA's stockpile stewardship and management strategic objectives; these capabilities are necessary to support the current and future directed stockpile work and campaign activities conducted at LANL. The CMR building is near the end of its useful life and action is required now by NNSA to assess alternatives for continuing these activities for the next 50 years. NNSA needs to act now to provide the physical means for accommodating continuation of the CMR building's functional, mission-critical CMR capabilities beyond 2010 in a safe, secure, and environmentally sound manner.

NNSA evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the proposed relocation of LANL AC and MC, and associated research and development capabilities that currently exist primarily at the CMR building, to a newly constructed facility, and the continued performance of those operations and activities at the new facility for the next 50 years. The CMRR EIS analyzed four action alternatives: (1) The construction and operation of a complete new CMRR facility at TA-55; (2) the construction of the same at a “greenfield” location within TA-6; (3) and a “hybrid” alternative maintaining administrative offices and support functions at the existing CMR building with a new Hazard Category 2 laboratory facility built at TA-55, and, (4) a “hybrid” alternative with the laboratory facility being constructed at TA-6. The CMRR EIS also analyzed the no action alternative. These alternatives are described in greater detail below.

Alternative 1 is to construct a new CMRR facility consisting of two or three new buildings within TA-55 at LANL to house AC and MC capabilities and their attendant support capabilities that currently reside primarily in the existing CMR building, at the operational level identified by the expanded operations alternative for LANL operations in the 1999 LANL SWEIS. Alternative 1 would also involve construction of a parking areas(s), tunnels, vault area(s), and other infrastructure support needs. AC and MC activities would be conducted in either two separate laboratories (constructed either both above ground (construction option 1) or one above and one below ground (construction option 2)) or in one new laboratory (constructed either above ground (construction option 3) or below ground (construction option 4)). An administrative office and support functions building would be constructed separately.

Alternative 2 would construct the same new CMRR facility within TA-6; the TA-6 site is a relatively undeveloped, forested area with some prior disturbance in limited areas that is referred to as a “greenfield” site.

Alternatives 3 and 4 are “hybrid” alternatives in which the existing CMR building would continue to house administrative offices and support functions for AC and MC capabilities (including research and development) and no new administrative support building would be constructed. Structural and systems upgrades and repairs to portions of the existing CMR building would need to be performed and some portions of the building might be dispositioned. New laboratory facilities (as described for alternative 1) would be constructed either at TA-55 (alternative 3) or at TA-6 (alternative 4).

Under any of the alternatives, disposition of the existing CMR building could include a range of options from no demolition (disposition option 1), to partial demolition (disposition option 2), to demolition of the entire building (disposition option 3).

The no action alternative would involve the continued use of the existing CMR building with some minimal necessary structural and systems upgrades and repairs. Under this alternative, AC and MC capabilities (including research and development), as well as administrative offices and support activities, would remain in the existing CMR building. No new building construction would be undertaken. AC and MC operational levels would continue to be restricted and would not meet the level of operations determined necessary for the foreseeable future at LANL in the 1999 SWEIS record of decision.

In both the draft and the final CMRR EIS, the preferred alternative for the replacement of the existing CMR building is identified as alternative 1 (construct a new CMRR facility at TA-55). The preferred construction option would be the construction of a single consolidated special nuclear material (SNM) capable, Hazard Category 2 laboratory with a separate administrative offices and support functions building (construction option 3). (Special nuclear materials include actinides such as plutonium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or 235, and any other material that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines to be special nuclear material.) NNSA's preferred option for the disposition of the existing CMR building is to decontaminate, decommission and demolish the entire structure (disposition option 3). Based on the CMRR EIS, the environmental impacts of the preferred alternative, although minimal, would be expected to be greater than those of the no action alternative. Construction option 3 would have less impact on the environment that implementing construction options 1 or 2; and disposition option 3 would have the greatest environmental impact of the disposition options analyzed.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in its “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's NEPA Regulations” (46 FR 18026, 2/23/81) with regard to 40 CFR 1505.2, defined the “environmentally preferable alternative” as the alternative “that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's section 101”. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The CMRR EIS impact analysis indicates that there would be very little difference in the environmental impacts among the action alternatives analyzed and also that the impacts of these action alternatives would be small. After considering impacts to each resource area by alternative, NNSA has identified the no action alternative as the environmentally preferable alternative. The no action alternative was identified as having the fewest direct impacts to the physical environment and to cultural and historic resources. This is because no construction-related disturbances would exist and none of the CMR building would be demolished, as would be the case under any of the action alternatives analyzed for the proposed action, including the preferred alternative. Therefore, the no action alternative would have the fewest impacts.

NNSA analyzed the potential impacts that might occur if any of the four action alternatives or the no action alternative were implemented for land use and visual resources; site infrastructure; air quality and noise; geology and soils; surface and groundwater quality; ecological resources; cultural and paleontological resources; socioeconomics; human health impacts; environmental justice; waste management and pollution prevention. NNSA considered the impacts that might occur from potential accidents associated with the four action alternatives, and the no action alternative as well, on LANL worker and area residential populations. NNSA considered the impacts of each alternative regarding the irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources, and the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The CMRR EIS analyses identified minor differences in potential environmental impacts among the action alternatives including: Differences in the amount of land disturbed long term for construction and operations, ranging between about 27 and 23 acres disturbed during construction and between 10 and 15 acres disturbed permanently during operations; and differences in the potential to indirectly affect (but not adversely affect) potential habitat for a federally-listed threatened species and the potential to have no affect on sensitive habitat areas; differences in the potential to affect human health during normal operations and during accident events; differences in waste volumes generated and managed; and differences in transportation accident dose possibilities. A comparison of impacts is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Alternative 1 (Construct New CMRR Facility at TA-55; Preferred Alternative): The construction of a new SNM-capable Hazard Category 2 laboratory, an administrative offices and support functions building, SNM vaults and other utility and security structures, and a parking lot at TA-55 would affect 26.75 acres (10.8 hectares) of mostly disturbed land, but would not change the area's current land use designation. The existing infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) would adequately support construction activities. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air quality impacts, but resulting criteria pollutant concentrations would be below ambient air quality standards. Construction activities would not impact water, visual resources, geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. Minor indirect effects on potential Mexican spotted owl habitat could result from the removal of a small amount of habitat area, increased site activities, and night-time lighting near the remaining Mexican spotted owl habitat areas. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be adequately managed by the existing LANL management and disposal capabilities.

Alternative 2 (TA-6 Greenfield Alternative): The construction of new SNM-capable Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of an administrative offices and support functions facility, SNM vaults and other utility and security structures, and a parking lot at TA-6 would affect 26.75 acres (10.8 hectares) of undisturbed land, and would change the area's current land use designation to nuclear material research and development, similar to that of TA-55. Infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) would need to be extended or expanded to TA-6 to support construction activities. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air quality impacts, but resulting criteria pollutant concentrations would be below ambient air quality standards. It would alter the existing visual character of the central portion of TA-6 from that of a largely natural woodland to an industrial site. Once completed, the new CMRR facility would result in a change in the visual resource contrast rating of TA-6 from Class III (undeveloped land where management activities do not dominate the view) to Class IV (developed land where management activities dominate the view). Construction activities would not impact water, biotic resources (including threatened and endangered species), geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for handling waste. In addition, a radioactive liquid waste pipeline might also be constructed across Two Mile Canyon to tie in with an existing pipeline to the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (RLWTF) in TA-50.

Alternative 3 (Hybrid Alternative at TA-55): The construction of new Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of SNM vaults and utility and security structures, and the construction of a parking lot at TA-55 would affect 22.75 acres (9.2 hectares) of mostly disturbed land, but would not change the area's current land use designation. The existing infrastructure would adequately support construction activities. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air quality impacts, but resulting criteria pollutant concentrations would be below ambient air quality standards. Construction activities would not impact water, visual resources, geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. Minor indirect effects on Mexican spotted owl habitat could result from the removal of a small amount of habitat area, increased site activities, and night-time lighting near the remaining Mexican spotted owl habitat areas. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for handling waste.

Alternative 4 (Hybrid Alternative at TA-6): The construction of new Hazard Category 2 and 3 buildings, the construction of SNM vaults and utility and security structures, and the construction of a parking lot at TA-6 would affect 22.75 acres (9.2 hectares) of undisturbed land, and would change the area's current land use designation to nuclear material research and development, similar to that of TA-55. Infrastructure resources (natural gas, water, electricity) would need to be extended or expanded at TA-6 to support construction activities. Construction activities would result in temporary increases in air quality impacts, but would be below ambient air quality standards. The existing visual character of the central portion of TA-6 would be altered from that of a largely natural woodland to that of an industrial site. Once completed, the new CMRR facility would result in a change in the visual resource contrast rating of TA-6 from Class III to Class IV. Construction activities would not impact water, visual resources, biotic resources (including threatened and endangered species), geology and soils, or cultural and paleontological resources. The socioeconomic impacts associated with construction would not cause any major changes to employment, housing, or public finance in the socioeconomic region of influence. Waste generated during construction would be adequately managed by the existing LANL capabilities for handling waste. In addition, a radioactive liquid waste pipeline may also be constructed across Two Mile Canyon to tie in with an existing pipeline to the RLWTF at TA-50.

During a 4-year transition period, CMR operations at the existing CMR building would be moved to the new CMRR facility. During this time, both CMR facilities would be operating, although at reduced levels. At the existing CMR building, where restrictions would remain in effect, operations would decrease as CMR operations move to the new CMRR facility. At the new CMRR facility, levels of CMR operations would increase as the facility becomes fully operational. In addition, the transport of routine onsite shipment of AC and MC samples would continue to take place while both facilities are operating. With both facilities operating at reduced levels at the same time, the combined demand for electricity, and manpower to support transition activities during this period might be higher than would be required by the separate facilities. Nevertheless, the combined total impacts during this transition phase from both these facilities would be expected to be less than the impacts attributed to the expanded operations alternative and the level of CMR operations analyzed in the LANL SWEIS.

Also during the transition phase, the risk of accidents would be changing at both the existing CMR building and the new CMRR facility. At the existing CMR building, the radiological material at risk and associated operations and storage would decline as material and equipment are transferred to the new CMRR facility. This material movement would have the positive effect of reducing the risk of accidents at the CMR building. Conversely, at the new CMRR facility, as the amount of radioactive material at risk and associated operations increases to full operations, the risk of accidents would also increase. However, the improvements in design and technology at the new CMRR facility would also have a positive effect of reducing overall accident risks when compared to the accident risks at the existing CMR building. The expected net effect of both of these facilities operating at the same time during the transition period would be for the risk of accidents to be lower than the accident risks at either the existing CMR building or the fully operational new CMRR facility.

Relocating CMR operations to a new CMRR facility located at either TA-55 or TA-6 within LANL would require similar facilities, infrastructure support procedures, resources, and numbers of workers during operations. For most environmental areas of concern, operational differences would be minor. There would not be any perceivable differences in impact between the action alternatives for land use and visual resources, air and water quality, biotic resources (including threatened and endangered species), geology and soils, cultural and paleontological resources, power usage, and socioeconomics. Additionally, the new CMRR facility would use existing waste management facilities to treat, store, and dispose of waste materials generated by CMR operations. All impacts would be within regulated limits and would comply with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. Any transuranic (TRU) waste generated by CMRR facility operations would be treated and packaged in accordance with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) waste acceptance criteria and transported to WIPP or a similar type facility for disposition by DOE.

Routine operations for each of the action alternatives would increase the amount of radiological releases as compared to current restricted CMR building operations. Current operations at the CMR building do not support the levels of activity described for the expanded operations alternative in the LANL SWEIS. There would be small differences in potential radiological impacts to the public, depending on the location of the new CMRR facility. However, radiation exposure to the public would be small and well below regulatory limits and limits imposed by DOE Orders. The maximally exposed offsite individual would receive a dose of less than or equal to 0.35 millirem per year, which translates to 2.1×10 −7 latent cancer fatalities per year from routine operational activities at the new CMRR facility. Statistically, this translates into a risk of one chance in 5 million of a fatal cancer for the maximally exposed offsite individual due to these operations. The total dose to the population within 50 miles (80 kilometers) would be a maximum of 2.0 person-rem per year, which translates to 0.0012 latent cancer fatalities per year in the entire population from routine operations at the new CMRR facility. Statistically, this would equate to a chance of one additional fatal cancer among the exposed population every 1,000 years.

Using DOE-approved computer models and analysis techniques, estimates were made of worker and public health and safety risks that could result from potential accidents for each alternative. For all CMRR facility alternatives, the results indicate that statistically there would be no chance of a latent cancer fatality for a worker or member of the public. The CMRR facility accident with the highest risk is a facility-wide spill of radioactive material caused by a severe earthquake that exceeds the design capability of the CMRR facility under Alternative 1. The risk for the entire population for this accident was estimated to be 0.0005 latent cancer fatalities per year.

This value is statistically equivalent to stating that there would be no chance of a latent cancer fatality for an average individual in the population during the lifetime of the facility. Continued operation of the CMR building under the no action alternative would carry a higher risk because of the building's location and greater vulnerability to earthquakes. The risk for the entire population associated with an earthquake at the CMR building would be 0.0024 latent cancer fatalities per year, which is also statistically equivalent to no chance of a latent cancer fatality for an average individual during the lifetime of the facility.

As previously noted, overall CMR operational characteristics at LANL would not change regardless of the ultimate location of the replacement facility and the action alternative implemented. Sampling methods and mission operations in support of AC and MC would not change and, therefore, would not result in any additional environmental or health and safety impacts to LANL. Each of the action alternatives would generally have the same amount of operational impacts. All of the action alternatives would produce equivalent amounts of emissions and radioactive releases into the environment, infrastructure requirements would be the same, and each action alternative would generate the same amount of radioactive and non-radioactive waste, regardless of the ultimate location of the new CMRR facility at LANL. Other impacts that would be common to each of the action alternatives include transportation impacts and CMR building and CMRR facility disposition impacts. Transportation impacts could result from: (1) The one-time movement of SNM, equipment, and other materials during the transition from the existing CMR building to the new CMRR facility; and (2) the routine onsite shipment of AC and MC samples between the plutonium facility at TA-55 and the new CMRR facility. Impacts from the disposition of the existing CMR building and the CMRR facility would result from the decontamination and demolition of the buildings and the transport and disposal of radiological and non-radiological waste materials. All action alternatives would require the relocation and one-time transport of SNM equipment and materials. Transport of SNM, equipment, and other materials currently located at the CMR building to the new CMRR facility at TA-55 or TA-6 would occur over a period of two to four years. The public would not be expected to receive any measurable exposure from the one-time movement of radiological materials associated with this action. Impacts of potential handling and transport accidents during the one-time movement of SNM, equipment, and other materials during the transition from the existing CMR building to the new CMRR facility would be bounded by other facility accidents for each alternative. For all alternatives, the environmental impacts and potential risks of transportation would be small.

Under each action alternative, routine onsite shipments of AC and MC samples consisting of small quantities of radioactive materials and SNM samples would be shipped from the plutonium facility at TA-55 to the new CMRR facility at either TA-55 or TA-6. The public would not be expected to receive any additional measurable exposure from the normal movement of small quantities of radioactive materials and SNM samples between these facilities. The potential risk to a maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public from a transportation accident involving routine onsite shipments of AC and MC samples between the plutonium facility and CMRR facility was estimated to be very small (3.7x10-10), or approximately 1 chance in 3 billion. For all action alternatives, the overall environmental impacts and potential risks of transporting AC and MC samples would be small.

All action alternatives would require some level of decontamination and demolition of the existing CMR building. Operations experience at the CMR building indicates some surface contamination has resulted from the conduct of various activities over the last 50 years. Impacts associated with decontamination and demolition of the CMR building are expected to be limited to the creation of waste within LANL site waste management capabilities. This would not be a discriminating factor among the alternatives.

Decontamination, and demolition of the new CMRR facility would also be considered at the end of its designed lifetime operation of at least 50 years. Impacts from the disposition of the CMRR facility would be expected to be similar to those for the existing CMR building.

No Action Alternative: Under the no action alternative there would be no new construction and minimal necessary structural and systems upgrades and repairs. Accordingly, there would be no potential environmental impacts resulting from new construction for this alternative. Operational impacts of continuing CMR operations at the CMR building would be less than those identified under the expanded operations alterative analyzed in the 1999 LANL SWEIS due to the operating constraints imposed on radiological operations at the CMR building.

NNSA distributed approximately 400 copies of the final EIS to Congressional members and committees, the State of New Mexico, various American Indian tribal governments and organizations, local governments, other Federal agencies, and the general public. NNSA received one comment letter from the Pueblo of San Ildefonso regarding NNSA's responses to Pueblo concerns related to the draft CMRR EIS that focused primarily on the spread of contamination present in the canyons around LANL onto land owned by the Pueblo. This issue is beyond the scope of the CMRR EIS but will be addressed by NNSA through other means already established for LANL, such as the environmental restoration project, rather than through the NEPA compliance process.

NNSA's decisions are based on its mission responsibilities and the ability to continue to perform mission-critical AC and MC operations at LANL in an environmentally sound, timely and fiscally prudent manner. Other key factors in the decision-making process include programmatic impacts and overall program risk, and construction and operational costs.

LANL's CMR operations support a wide range of scientific and technological capabilities that support, in turn, NNSA's national security mission assignments. Most of the LANL mission support functions require AC and MC, and actinide research and development support capabilities and capacities that currently exist within the CMR building. NNSA will continue to need CMR capabilities now and into the foreseeable future, much as these capabilities have been needed at LANL over the past 60 years. Programmatic risks are high if LANL CMR operations continue at the curtailed operational level now appropriate at the aging CMR building. CMR operations at LANL need to continue seamlessly in an uninterrupted fashion, and the level of overall CMR operations needs to be flexible enough to accommodate the work load variations inherent in NNSA's mission support assignments and the general increase in the level of operations currently seen as necessary to support future national security requirements.

The CMR building was initially designed and constructed to comply with the Uniform Buildings Codes in effect at the time. The CMR building's wing 4 location over a seismic trace would require very extensive and costly structural changes that would be of marginal operational return. Construction costs are estimated to be less for building and operating a new CMRR facility over the long term than the cost estimated for making changes to the aging CMR building so that the building could be operated as a nuclear facility at the level of operations required by the expanded operations alternative selected for LANL in the 1999 LANL SWEIS ROD over the next 50 years. Life cycle costs of operating a new CMRR facility at TA-55 are less than the costs would be of operating a totally upgraded CMR building over the next 50 years. Reduced general occupation costs of maintaining the new CMRR facility (such as heating and cooling the building to maintain comfortable personnel working conditions) given the reduction in occupied building square footage over that of the existing CMR building, and reduced security costs (for maintaining Perimeter Intrusion Detection Alarm Systems (PIDAS) and guard personnel) due to the co-location of the CMRR facility within the existing security perimeter of the plutonium facility thereby eliminating the need for maintaining a separate duplicative security system at the CMR building both would significantly reduce general operating costs for the new facility.

Based on the analyses of impacts provided in the CMRR EIS, no mitigation measures were identified as being necessary since all potential environmental impacts would be substantially below acceptable levels of promulgated standards. Activities associated with the proposed construction of the new CMRR facility would follow standard procedures for minimizing construction impacts, as would demolition activities.

NNSA has decided to implement the preferred alternative, alternative 1, which is the construction and operation of a new CMRR facility within TA-55 at LANL. The new CMRR facility would include two buildings (one building for administrative and support functions, and one building for Hazard Category 2 SNM laboratory operations), both of which would be constructed at above ground locations (construction option 3). The existing CMR building would be decontaminated, decommissioned and demolished in its entirety (disposition option 3). However, the actual implementation of these decisions is dependent on DOE funding levels and allocations of the DOE budget across competing priorities.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On November 26, 2003 (68 FR 66412), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2003-0059, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: Emission Defect Information Reports and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports (Renewal).

Abstract: Per sections 207(c)(1) and 213 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), when emission testing shows that a substantial number of properly maintained and used engines produced by a manufacturer do not conform to emission standards, the manufacturer is required to recall the engines. Manufacturers are also required to submit Defect Information Reports (DIRs) to alert EPA of the existence of emission-related defects on certain classes of engines that may cause the engines' emissions to exceed the standards and ultimately may lead to a recall. EPA uses these reports to target potentially nonconforming classes of engines for future testing, to monitor compliance with applicable regulations and to order a recall, if necessary. Manufacturers can also initiate a recall voluntarily by submitting a Voluntary Emission Recall Report (VERR). VERRs and VERR updates allow EPA to determine whether the manufacturer conducting the recall is acting in accordance with the CAA and to examine and monitor the effectiveness of the recall campaign.

The information is collected by the Engine Programs Group, Certification and Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. Confidentiality of proprietary information submitted by manufacturers is granted in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and class determinations issued by EPA's Office of General Counsel.

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 260 hours per respondent. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Manufacturers of on-highway heavy-duty trucks, non-road compression-ignition engines, non-road spark-ignition engines, marine engines, locomotives and locomotive engines.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 17.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and quarterly.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,417.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $265,971 includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $413 annual O&M costs and $265,558 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 508 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to the correction of a mistake made in the original calculations. The decrease in burden is, therefore, due to an adjustment to the estimates.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 19, 2003, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (68 FR 27059), seeking comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA-2003-0032, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is: (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or to view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comment, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov/edocket .

Title: NESHAP for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ).

Abstract: Respondents to this information collection request are the owners and operators of both new and existing wood furniture manufacturing operations that are sources of hazardous air pollutants. Major sources are required to perform recordkeeping activities and submit both initial and semiannual/quarterly compliance reports. Incidental wood furniture manufacturers and area sources must keep records to show that they are not major sources. The information is used to determine that all sources subject to the rule are complying with the standards. The information to be collected is mandatory under the rule.

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Wood Furniture Manufacturers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.

Frequency of Response: Semiannually, quarterly and initially.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 47,190 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $3,003,109, which includes zero annualized capital/startup costs, $18,000 annual O&M costs, and $2,985,109 respondents' labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 44,881 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is a result of a more accurate characterization of the sources affected by the standard.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On May 19, 2003 (68 FR 27059), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number OECA-2003-0023, which is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SSS)

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities were proposed on January 22, 1986, and promulgated on October 3, 1988. These standards apply to each coating operation and each piece of coating mix preparation equipment for which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after January 22, 1986. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the pollutants regulated under the standards.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one-time-only reports: Notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test.

Owners or operators also are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility. These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Monitoring requirements specific to these magnetic tape operations consist mainly of VOC measurements, including monthly records of VOC content of all coatings applied, total amount and percent VOC recovered, and the total amount of coating applied. In addition, facilities utilizing less solvent annually than the applicable cutoff shall make semiannual estimates of projected annual amount of solvent use and maintain records of actual solvent use.

Each owner or operator of an affected magnetic tape coating operation shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring device that continuously indicates and records the concentration level of organic compounds in the outlet gas stream. Certain facilities will also be required to continuously measure and record either the combustion temperature of the incinerator (for those facilities controlled by a thermal incinerator) or the condenser exhaust temperature (for those facilities controlled by a condensation system).

Responses to the collection of information are mandatory (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart SSS, NSPS for Magnetic Tape Coating Facilities). The required information has been determined not to be confidential. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information.

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 88 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Owners or operators of magnetic tape coating facilities.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 6.

Frequency of Response: Initial, quarterly, semiannually.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,017 hours.

Estimated Total Cost: $216,000, which includes $34,000 annualized capital/startup costs, $53,000 annual O&M costs and $129,000 labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,874 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to a reduction in the number of sources affected by the standard.

EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On April 18, 2003, EPA sought comments on this renewal ICR (68 FR 19203). EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received one comment and has addressed the comment received.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OPPT-2003-0017, which is available for public viewing at the OPPT Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is 202-566-0280. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.

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

Title: Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA Submissions.

Abstract: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires industry to submit information and studies for existing chemical substances under sections 4, 6, and 8. Under normal reporting conditions, EPA receives thousands of submissions each year; each submission represents on average three studies. In addition, specific data call-ins can be imposed on industry.

As a follow-up to industry experience with a 1994 TSCA data call-in, the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, now known as the American Chemistry Council (ACC)), the Specialty Organics Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA), and the Chemical Industry Data Exchange (CIDX), in cooperation with EPA, took an interest in pursuing electronic transfer of TSCA summary data and of full submissions to EPA. In particular, ACC developed a standardized cover sheet for voluntary use by industry as a first step to an electronic future and to begin familiarizing companies with standard requirements and concepts of electronic transfer.

This form is designed for voluntary use as a cover sheet for submissions of information under TSCA sections 4, 8(d) and 8(e). The cover sheet facilitates submission of information by displaying certain basic data elements, permitting EPA more easily to identify, log, track, distribute, review and index submissions, and to make information publicly available more rapidly and at reduced cost, to the mutual benefit of both the respondents and EPA.

Responses to the collection of information are voluntary. Respondents may claim all or part of a notice as CBI. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a CBI claim only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in 40 CFR part 2.

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

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Companies that manufacture, process, use, import or distribute in commerce chemical substances that are subject to reporting requirements under sections 4, 8(d) or 8(e) of TSCA.

Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

Estimated No. of Respondents: 964.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 9,136 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Costs: $703,435.

Changes in Burden Estimates: There is an increase of 8,221 hours (from 915 hours to 9,136 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the information collection request most recently approved by OMB. This change reflects a net increase in the estimated number of submissions under TSCA sections 4, 8(d) and 8(e) for which the Voluntary TSCA Cover Sheet could be used, in particular a substantial increase in the estimated number of TSCA section 4 submissions. Since the use of the Voluntary TSCA Cover Sheet is a direct reflection of the number of submissions received under TSCA sections 4, 8(d) and 8(e), any change in the estimated numbers of submissions under those requirements will result in a parallel change in the burden hours associated with this information collection. This increase represents an adjustment.

Petitioners raise issues concerning: (1) The adequacy of CALPUFF air dispersion model to address certain instances of long range transport, (2) the availability of EPA-approved version of CALPUFF model on model developer's website potentially allowing model developer to make unauthorized changes to the model, and (3) the potential for misinterpretation of statements in preamble to April 5, 2003, final rule (68 FR 18444) discussing the role of federal land managers in evaluating air quality related values impacts.

Under the Settlement Agreement, EPA would issue three documents: (1) A guidance document for using CALPUFF to model long range pollutant transport, (2) a letter to the CALPUFF model developer describing procedures for EPA approval of changes to the EPA-approved version of the CALPUFF model, and (3) a letter to Petitioner's counsel clarifying EPA's statement in the preamble to the rule regarding the role of federal land managers in evaluating air quality related values impacts.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties to the litigation in question. The Agency will review and consider comments received, and will then: (1) Consent to the proposed settlement, (2) make any modifications deemed necessary or appropriate prior to consenting to the proposed settlement, or (3) withhold consent to the proposed settlement.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0001 which contains a copy of the settlement agreement and the three documents EPA would sign pursuant to the settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or on paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider late comments.

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

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting proposals from State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA for unique and innovative projects that address the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program with special emphasis on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) permitting, watershed integration through NPDES, and homeland security, as well as, water quality studies relating to water quality standards, monitoring and assessment, ecoregion and subregion delineation, harmful algal blooms, and biological criteria.

Funding is authorized under the provisions of the CWA section 104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C.1254(b)(3). The regulations governing the award and administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements are in 40 CFR part 30 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR part 31 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies).

An organization whose IP is selected for possible Federal assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR 30.12 and 31.10).

WQCAs awarded under section 104(b)(3) may only be used to conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of activities such as research, investigations, experiments, training, education, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. These activities, while not defined in the statute, advance the state of knowledge, gather information, or transfer information. For instance, “demonstrations” are generally projects that demonstrate new or experimental technologies, methods, or approaches and the results of the project will be disseminated so that others can benefit from the knowledge gained. A project that is accomplished though the performance of routine, traditional, or established practices, or a project that is simply intended to carry out a task rather than transfer information or advance the state of knowledge, however worthwhile the project may be, is not a demonstration. Research projects may include the application of the practices when they contribute to learning about an environmental concept or problem.

EPA will award WQCAs for research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution in the following subject areas:

Demonstration of treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls that are designed to reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a demonstration of amount of loading reductions from those technologies, e.g. , handling phosphorus-rich poultry litter in northwest Arkansas/northeast Oklahoma; efficacy of wetlands to polish runoff or overflow from ponds and/or land application processes.

Demonstration of nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, nutrient impaired watersheds, e.g. , ribo-typing study to determine source of bacteria and pathogens, or nitrogen-ion study to determine source of nitrogen in waters, or hormone or antibiotic study to determine sources of excreted waste material.

Development of innovative permit tool(s) supporting watershed-based permitting activities for specific parameters. Establish a technique for identifying all dischargers and their respective contribution levels for parameter(s) of concern within an impaired watershed. Should determine the overall impact of point and non-point dischargers on receiving waters. Pollutant data for water quality parameters, such as nutrients, dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, etc., could be used in the development of a model (such as self-implementing general permits) for permitting activities. The model may incorporate unique permitting approaches including effluent trading scenarios (in accordance with the Water Quality Trading Policy, January 13, 2003), which may be implemented in the general permit for specific water quality parameters.

Studies of ability of conventional or innovative wastewater treatment plant processes to effectively treat, remove, or render harmless biological, chemical, or radiological agents, which could be introduced into the collection or treatment system.

Development of models for hardening of collection systems, lift stations, and wastewater treatment plant processes to prevent introduction of harmful biological, chemical, or radiological agents.

Estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors. Biological measures should form the primary basis for assessing attainment of the aquatic life use with chemical, physical, and watershed measurements used to assess and rank the relative importance of stressors.

Development of effects based nutrient criteria and assessment methods, based on the relationship(s) between evidence of impairment of biological integrity, and/or other response indicators, and instream nutrient concentrations observed at reference waterbodies. Priority consideration will be given to proposals that also address criteria development and refinement for other naturally occurring water quality constituents.

Ecoregion and subregion delineation providing an improved basis for waterbody classification, supporting definition of water quality management goals and expectations, development of water quality standards, and water quality monitoring and assessment.

Critical research, monitoring necessary to characterize spacial and temporal extent of blooms, and implementation of measures to manage and control harmful algal blooms (HABs) in fresh or marine waters using innovative, cost effective watershed based approaches. HABs include golden alga (Pyrmnesium parvum), red tide, blue-green algae and brown algae. Of particular concern is the golden alga, which has established in numerous river basins in west Texas and New Mexico and has the potential to spread to other states.

Development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in large rivers, where conventional reference waterbody approaches are not feasible, based on historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or similar waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative approaches.

Region 6 EPA intends to award an estimated $1 million to eligible applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size, on average, from $40,000 up to $200,000 (Federal) for innovative projects/demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. From the IPs received, EPA estimates up to 8 to 10 projects may be selected to submit full applications. The average size of an award is anticipated to be approximately $100,000. Awards will be made in the summer of 2004. Typically, the project and budget period for these awards is one to two years, with an average of about two years. Organizations who have an existing agreement under this program are eligible to compete for new awards, including supplementation to existing projects.

It is expected that all the awards under this program will be cooperative agreements. States and interstate agencies meeting the requirements in 40 CFR 35.504 may include the funds for WQCA in a Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) in accordance with the regulations governing PPGs in 40 CFR part 35, subparts A and B. For states and interstate agencies that choose to do so, the regulations provide that the workplan commitments that would have been included in the WQCA must be included in the PPG workplan.

A description of the Agency's substantial involvement in cooperative agreements will be included in the final agreement.

Eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section 104(b)(3) of the CWA are State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, organizations, and other entities as defined by the CWA in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. IPs received for projects outside of Region 6 will not be considered.

A minimum match of five percent will be required for all approved projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each proposal submitted.

The specific criteria listed in the Criteria section of V. Application Review Information can also be considered eligibility criteria. The IPs will be evaluated by Region 6 in a two phased approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address the specific criteria. Eligible proposals will then be evaluated in the second phase of the review process.

Full application packages should not be submitted at this time; Region 6 is only requesting initial proposals. Initial proposal format and content is included below. Upon notification of final selections, applicants will be instructed how financial assistance application packages can be obtained.

IPs should be no more than three pages with a minimum font size of 10 pitch in Wordperfect/Word or equivalent. Failure to follow the format or to include all requested information could result in the IP not being considered for funding. It is recommended that confidential information not be included in this IP. The following format should be used for all IPs:

Name of Project:

Priority Area Addressed: Only one priority area should be listed. If more than one addressed, select best. ( i.e. , CAFO Permitting Support, Homeland Security for NPDES, Nutrient Criteria, etc. ):

Point of Contact: (Individual and Agency/Organization Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, E-mail Address)

Is This a Continuation of a Previously Funded Project (if so, please provide the status of the current grant or cooperative agreement):

Proposed Federal Amount:

Proposed Non-Federal Match (minimum of 5%): The match is based on the total project cost not the Federal amount. To determine a proposed minimum match of 5%, use the following example:

Proposed Total Award Amount:

Description of General Budget Proposed To Support Project:

Project Description: (Should not exceed two pages of single-spaced text)

Expected Accomplishments or Product, With Dates, and Interim Milestones: This section should also include a discussion of a communication plan for distributing the project results to interested parties.

Environmental Results and Outcomes:

Describe How the Project Meets the Evaluation Criteria Specified in Section V. Application Review Information:

This is the estimated schedule of activities for submission, review of proposals and notification of selections:

April 12, 2004—Proposals due to EPA.

June 11, 2004—Initial approvals identified and sponsors of projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal application package.

Applicants requested to submit a full application will be required to comply with Intergovernmental Review requirements (40 CFR part 29).

The following information should be considered in developing proposal(s):

• Construction projects, except for the construction required to carry out a demonstration project, and acquisition of land are not eligible for funding under this program.

• New or on-going programs to implement routine environmental controls are not eligible for funding under this program.

• Although proposals may meet more than one of the priority areas listed in Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, select only one and identify that priority area in the proposal format.

• It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited to 15 percent.

Applicants may submit IPs only in hard copy. EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 p.m. central standard time April 12, 2004. IPs received after the due date will not be considered for funding. IPs should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight Delivery may be sent to the same address. Please mail three copies of the IP(s).

EPA Region 6 will award WQCA on a competitive basis and evaluate IPs based on specific and general criteria. EPA Region 6 has identified several subject areas for priority consideration. To be eligible to compete for funding, all specific criteria must be addressed/met for the priority area in which it was submitted (refer to Section III. Eligibility Information # 3).

The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate the subject priority area:

CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls that are designed to reduce CAFO-based nutrients in watersheds, with a demonstration of amount of loading reductions from those technologies, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Demonstrate treatment/reuse/disposal technologies and controls through testing and/or modeling.

• Report on the efficiencies.

CAFO Permitting Support, specifically, the demonstration of nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, nutrient impaired watersheds, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Demonstrate nutrient indicator tracing in CAFO dominated, nutrient impaired watersheds, with identification and differentiation of sources of animal/CAFO wastes from human wastes.

Watershed Integration of Water Programs Under the CWA Through NPDES, specifically, the development of innovative permit tool(s) supporting watershed-based permitting activities for specific parameters, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Include consideration of all waterbodies in a watershed.

• Include consideration of all point sources.

• Consider net contribution of non-point sources in aggregate effects.

• Provide aggregate water quality modeling which determines aggregate effects in the watershed.

Homeland Security for NPDES, specifically, studies of ability of conventional or innovative wastewater treatment plant processes to effectively treat, remove, or render harmless biological, chemical, or radiological agents, which could be introduced into the collection or treatment system, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Actual performance data of processes vs. technical predictions of performance.

• Enhanced security procedure models and development of model emergency operating plans.

Characterization of Ecological Condition, specifically, the estimation of the extent of waters attaining designated beneficial uses, and determination of causes of impairment, based on a core set of indicators of ecological condition and environmental stressors, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Mechanisms to evaluate the interrelationships between biological assemblages, ambient water chemistry, fish tissue contaminants, physical habitat, and/or watershed characteristics.

• Potential to improve a state's approaches to make decisions about whether or not water quality standards are being attained.

• Apply a probabilistic approach to site selection to support estimates of conditions across an entire study area.

• Result in the ability to compare environmental indicator data across state and regional boundaries for ambient and reference conditions.

• Offers the potential to improve a state's approach to estimate the extent of waterbody impairment statewide.

• Results integrated into State 305(b) report.

• All data entered into EPA STORET database.

Nutrient Criteria, specifically, the development of effects based nutrient criteria and assessment methods, based on the relationship(s) between evidence of impairment of biological integrity, and/or other response indicators, and instream nutrient concentrations observed at reference waterbodies. Priority consideration will be given to proposals that also address criteria development and refinement for other naturally occurring water quality constituents. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Demonstrate approaches or provide tools that may be applied in other areas.

• Apply the latest scientific approaches or innovative techniques to establish and validate the relationship(s) between elevated nutrient concentrations and indicator response.

• Result in recommendations for numeric water quality criteria standards or criteria that can be applied to a class of waters (rather than individual waters).

• Include mechanisms for technology transfer.

• All data entered into EPA's STORET database.

Ecoregion and Subregion Delineation, specifically, ecoregion and subregion delineation providing an improved basis for waterbody classification, supporting definition of water quality management goals and expectations, development of water quality standards, and water quality monitoring and assessment. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Conducted in New Mexico.

• High degree of coordination among natural resource and environmental management agency scientists.

• Result in completion of ecoregion and subregion boundaries and descriptions for an entire state.

• Conducted using methods comparable to those employed in other states by the EPA Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, to achieve level IV subregionalization.

• Result in a nationally consistent set of subregion management units.

Harmful Algal Blooms, specifically, critical research, monitoring necessary to characterize spacial and temporal extent of blooms, and implementation of measures to manage and control harmful algal blooms (HABs) in fresh or marine waters using innovative, cost effective watershed based approaches, etc. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Represent a significant step(s) of critical importance in understanding factors causing algal blooms.

• Incorporates both sound proven scientific methods and innovative approaches in managing and controlling HABs.

• Use of monitoring to assess geographic extent and temporal patterns resulting in a more targeted strategy to manage and control HABs.

Development of Biological Criteria for Large Rivers, specifically, the development of attainable conditions for biological integrity in large rivers, where conventional reference waterbody approaches are not feasible, based on historical aquatic assemblage data from the same or similar waterbodies, habitat-modeling techniques, or other innovative approaches. The following specific criteria will be used to evaluate this priority area:

• Results in the development of assessment methods for narrative water quality standards biocriteria or the adoption of numeric biocriteria for one or more aquatic assemblages.

• Based on sound scientific methods, waterbody classification approaches, and conventional collection methods that are practical for use by state environmental agencies.

• Yields comparable assessments to those conducted across state lines and other geopolitical boundaries.

The following general criteria will be used to evaluate each eligible proposal:

• Adequacy of proposal, including the relationship of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice, innovation of project proposal and level of multi-organizational support, if needed. (10 points)

• Compliance with proposal format/guidance, including how well the proposal follows the solicitation notice, clearly defined milestones/schedule and clearly identified deliverables. (5 points)

• Cost effectiveness/likelihood of success of the proposal, including adequacy of resources committed to project/realistic budget, realistic implementation schedule and clearly defined measures of success that are reasonably attainable. (5 points)

• Applicant's past performance, if applicable. (minus (−) 3 points max.)

The IPs will be evaluated by regional staff in a two phased approach. Initially, each IP will be evaluated against the specific criteria listed under the priority area for which it was submitted. In order for the IP to be considered in the second evaluation phase, it must address, at a minimum, ALL the specific criteria listed under the priority area. Once it is determined that all the specific criteria has been addressed, proposals will be evaluated on how well they address the specific criteria for a possible total score of 10 points.

In the second phase, each IP will be evaluated against the general criteria listed above for a possible total score of 20. Points will be taken away for poor past performance if knowledge of applicant's past performance is available to EPA. Points from Phase 1 and 2 will be added together for a possible total score of 30 points.

Final selection of IPs will be made by the Director of Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.

Selected organizations will be notified in writing and requested to submit full applications. Applications, including workplans, are subject to EPA review and approval. It is expected that unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing.

Applicants whose proposals contemplate contracting for services or products must comply with applicable regulations relating to competitive procurement and preparation of cost or price analyses in accordance with 40 CFR 30.40 through 30.48 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations) and 40 CFR 31.36 (for States, local governments, and interstate agencies). Identifying a contractor in a proposal does not exempt the applicant from these requirements. Applicants requested to submit a full application will be required to confirm compliance with competitive procurement procedures.

Additionally, applicants requested to submit a full application will be required to comply with the Quality Assurance requirements (40 CFR 30.54 and 31.45) if projects involve environmentally related measurements or data generation. Prior to award, a Quality Management Plan must be submitted and approved by EPA.

Applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with the full application. Organizations may obtain the number by calling, toll free, 1-866-705-5711.

Applicants requested to submit a full application may incur pre-award costs 90 calendar days prior to award provided such costs are included in the application, the costs meet the definition of pre-award costs and are approved by EPA. Pre-award costs are those costs incurred prior to the effective date of the award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the award where such costs are necessary to comply with the proposed delivery schedule or period of performance and are in conformance with the appropriate statute and cost principles. The approval of pre-award costs should be reflected in the budget period on the assistance agreement and if applicable, under a term and condition of the assistance agreement. Recipients incur pre-award costs at their own risk ( i.e. , EPA is under no obligation to reimburse such costs if for any reason the recipient does not receive an award or if the award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs).

Procedures for dispute resolution process are located in 40 CFR 30.63 and 31.70 apply.

It is encouraged that indirect cost be limited to 15 percent or less.

Post award reporting requirements include, at a minimum, submission of semi-annual project status reports with submission of a final report prior to the end of the budget/project period. Means of submission and report format will be negotiated in the workplan.

Point of Contact: Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by e-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.

A list of selected projects will be posted on the Region 6 Water Quality Protection Division, Assistance Programs Branch Web site http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/at/sttribal.htm. This Web site may also contain additional information about this request. Deadline extensions, if any, will be posted on this Web site and not in the Federal Register .

The purpose of the workshop is to elicit comments from the expert panelists on the charge to the peer consultation panel, which is reproduced below.

(a) What are the relative strengths and limitations of the existing human studies of the neurological effects of perc ( e.g. sample size, statistical power, potential biases, biological or clinical relevance of the findings, degree of consistency)? Do the EPA materials adequately evaluate these issues?

(b) How consistent are the visual contrast sensitivity effects seen in one residential study (with two exposed groups) with findings of other visual effects seen in other occupational and residential studies (where visual contrast sensitivity was not tested)?

(c) Table 1 of the EPA materials provides a summary of types of neurological tests that have been conducted measuring different effects with different populations exposed to perc. What is the biological and or clinical significance of the measured endpoints in these different studies?

(d) What weight should be attached to reported findings of neurological effects in residential populations at exposure levels below those seen in the occupational studies?

(e) Do the epidemiology studies identify susceptible populations, and in particular do the residential data indicate that children and elderly people may be more susceptible to the effects of perc?

(f) Do the studies reporting decrements in neurological function (including vision) in people exposed to organic solvents add support to conclusions about the hazards of perc?

(g) Can an association be made in the separate studies and in all studies collectively between perc exposure and observed neurotoxicity? Does the set of studies as a whole indicate that perc exposure to the general population presents a potential health hazard?

(h) Are there any published studies or data relevant to the neurotoxic risk which are not included in the discussion paper?

As part of your review, please comment on the use of secondary data in the document. The term “secondary data” for the purpose of this review refers to the use of published or unpublished data in the development of the Agency's assessment of the neurotoxic effects of tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) in humans. Please comment on the Agency's use of secondary data in the discussion paper, relative to the data validity in the context of the use in this assessment.

Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers, and there will be a limited time for comments from the public in the afternoon. If you wish to make comments during the workshop, contact Versar, Inc. at least one week in advance of the meeting. Space is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2003-0014. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the Headquarters EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752; facsimile: (202) 566-1753; or e-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

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

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket.

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

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

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” Late comments may be considered if time permits.

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

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EPA Dockets.” Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID No. ORD2003-0014. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ORD.Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. ORD2003-0014. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the OEI Docket mailing address. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word, or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

If you provide comments in writing, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

On December 31, 2003 (68 FR 75515), EPA published its preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005. The preliminary plan describes the current status of EPA's planning for the effluent guidelines program, presents the results of EPA's annual review of the effluent guidelines it has already promulgated for industrial categories, and identifies industrial categories that EPA expects to investigate further for the possible development or revision of effluent limitations guidelines.

The original comment deadline was February 17, 2004. Numerous stakeholders have requested an extension to the comment period in order to adequately understand and comment on the preliminary plan. This action extends the comment period for 30 days.

EPA established the public record for the preliminary plan under docket number OW-2003-0074. The record is available for inspection at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

To submit comments, or access the official public docket, please follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the December 31, 2003 Federal Register notice. EPA requests an original and three copies of any December 31, 2003 Federal Register notice. EPA requests an original and three copies of any written comments and enclosures (including references). Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. If you have questions, consult the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0286.

Title: Section 80.302, Notice of Discontinuance, Reduction, or Impairment of Service Involving a Distress Watch.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 160.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 160 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The reporting requirement contained in section 80.302 is necessary to ensure that the U.S. Coast Guard is timely notified when a coast station, which is responsible for maintaining a listening watch on a designated marine distress and safety frequency discontinues, reduces or impairs its communications services. This notification allows the Coast Guard to seek an alternate means of providing radio coverage to protect the safety of life and property at sea or object to the planned diminution of service. The information is used by the U.S. Coast Guard district office nearest to the coast station. Once the Coast Guard is aware that such a situation exists, it is able to inform the maritime community that radio coverage has or will be affected and/or seek to provide coverage of the safety watch via alternate means. When appropriate the Coast Guard may file a petition to deny any application. The Commission is seeking extension (no change) for this collection and all collections listed below for which we are seeking the full three year OMB clearance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0308.

Title: Section 90.505, Developmental Operation, Showing Required.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 200 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Section 90.505 requires applicants proposing developmental operations to submit supplemental information showing why the authorization is necessary and what its use will be. This requirement will be used by Commission staff in evaluating the applicant's need for such frequencies and the interference potential to other stations operating on the proposed frequencies.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0490.

Title: Section 74.902, Frequency Assignments.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 3 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.902 dictates that when a point-to-point ITFS station on the E and F MDS channels is involuntarily displaced by an MDS applicant, the MDS applicant must file the appropriate application for suitable alternative spectrum. The applications used would be FCC Form 327 (3060-0055) and FCC Form 330 (3060-0062). Section 74.902(i) requires that a copy of this application be served on the ITFS licensee to be moved. The data will be used by the ITFS licensee to oppose the involuntary migration if the proposal would not provide comparable ITFS service and would not serve the public interest.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0491.

Title: Section 74.991, Wireless Cable Application Procedures.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 4.5 hours (.5 respondent/4 hours attorney).

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

Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $116,240.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.991 requires that a wireless cable application be filed on FCC Form 330 (3060-0062), sections I and V, with a complete FCC Form 304 (3060-0654) appended. The application must include a cover letter clearly indicating that the application is for a wireless cable entity to operate on ITFS channels. The applicant must also, within 30 days of filing its application, give local public notice in a daily newspaper of general circulation published in the community in which the proposed station will be located. The specific data that must be included in the newspaper publication is contained in section 74.991(c). The notice must be published twice a week for two consecutive weeks. The data is used by FCC staff to ensure that proposals to operate a wireless cable system on ITFS channels do not impair or restrict any reasonably foreseeable ITFS use. The data is also used to insure that applicants are qualified to become a Commission licensee and that proposals do not cause interference.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0492.

Title: Section 74.992, Access to Channels Licensed to Wireless Cable Entities.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.5 hours (1.5 respondent/2 hours contractor).

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

Total Annual Burden: 15 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $4,000.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.992(a) requires that requests by ITFS entities for access to wireless cable facilities licensed on ITFS frequencies be made by filing FCC Form 330 (3060-0062), section I, II , III and IV. The application must include a cover letter clearly indicating that the application is for ITFS access to a wireless cable entity's facilities on ITFS channels. Section 74.992(d) requires an ITFS user to provide a wireless cable licensee with its planned schedule of use four months in advance of accessing the channels. This notice is completed before the filing of the application. The data is used by FCC staff to determine eligibility of an educational institution or entity demanding access for ITFS use on a wireless cable facility. The four month advance notice is used by the wireless cable licensee to allow it to move programming to other channels.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0493.

Title: Section 74.986, Involuntary ITFS Station Modifications.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time Per Response: 5 hours (1 hour respondent/4 hours contractor).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 25 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $16,250.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.986 requires that an application for involuntary modification of an ITFS station be filed on FCC Form 330 (3060-0062) but need not fill out section II (legal qualifications). The application must include a cover letter clearly indicating that the modification is involuntary and identify the parties involved. The data is used by FCC staff to insure that proposals to modify facilities of ITFS licensees/permittees would provide comparable ITFS service and would otherwise serve the public interest in promoting the MMDS service.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0494.

Title: Section 74.990, Use of Available Instruction Television Fixed Service Frequencies by Wireless Cable Entities.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time Per Response: .33-2 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 42 hours.

Annual Cost Burden: $11,250.

Needs and Uses: Section 74.990(c) requires applicants to confirm their unopposed status after the period for filing competing applications and petitions to deny has passed. This confirmation is accomplished through the filing of a letter with the Commission. Section 74.990(d) requires a wireless cable applicant to show that there are no multipoint distribution service (MDS) or multichannel multipoint distribution service (MMDS) channels available for application, purchase or lease that could be used in lieu of the instructional television fixed service (ITFS) frequencies applied for. The data provided in the showing will be used by FCC staff to insure that proposals to operate a wireless cable system on ITFS channels do not impair or restrict any reasonably foreseeable ITFS use.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0634.

Title: Section 73.691, Visual Modulation Monitoring.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1.0 hours (2 notifications/6 letters).

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; on occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 46 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.691(b) requires TV stations to enter into the station log the date and time of the initial technical problems that make it impossible to operate a TV station in accordance with the timing and carrier level tolerance requirements. If this operation at variance is expected to exceed 10 consecutive days, a notification must be sent to the FCC. The licensee must also notify the FCC upon restoration of normal operations. Furthermore, a licensee must send a written request to the FCC if causes beyond the control of the licensee prevent restoration of normal operations within 30 days. The FCC staff use the data to maintain accurate and complete technical information about a station's operation. In the event that a complaint is received from the public regarding a station's operation, this information is necessary to provide an accurate response.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0340.

Title: Section 73.51, Determining Operating Power.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 4,867.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 to 3.0 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping.

Total annual burden: 1,448 hours.

Total annual costs: None.

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0027.

Title: Application for Construction Permit for Commercial Broadcast Station.

Form Number: FCC 301.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 3,370.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 to 4 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 7,427 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $35,485,300.

Needs and Uses: On September 3, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Order staying the effectiveness of the new media ownership rules adopted by the Commission on June 2, 2003. (Report and Order, MB Docket 02-277 and MM Dockets 01-235, 01-317, and 00-244, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In The Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) 68 FR 46285, August 5, 2003. The Court ordered “that the prior ownership rules remain in effect pending resolution of these proceedings.” Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, No. 03-3388 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2003) ( per curiam ). The Court's Order requires that the Commission process broadcast station applications under the prior ownership rules.

FCC Form 301 is used to apply for authority to construct a new commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station, or to make changes in existing facilities of such a station. In addition, FM licensees or permittees may request, by application on FCC Form 301, upgrades on adjacent and co-channels, modifications to adjacent channels of the same class and downgrades to adjacent channels without first submitting a petition for rulemaking. All applicants using this one-step process must demonstrate that a suitable site exists which would comply with allotment standards with respect to minimum distance separation and city-grade coverage and which would be suitable for tower construction. To receive authorization for commencement of Digital Television (“DTV”) operation, commercial broadcast licensees must file FCC Form 301 for a construction permit. This application may be filed anytime after receiving the initial DTV allotment but must be filed before mid-point in a particular applicant's required construction period. The Commission will consider these applications as minor changes in facilities. Applications will not have to supply full legal or financial qualification information.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0031.

Title: Application for Consent to Assignment of Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License.

Form Number: FCC 314.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 1,591.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 2 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 2,546 hours.

Total Annual cost: $12,237,878.

Needs and Uses: On September 3, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Order staying the effectiveness of the new media ownership rules adopted by the Commission on June 2, 2003. (Report and Order, MB Docket 02-277 and MM Dockets 01-235, 01-317, and 00-244, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In The Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) 68 FR 46285, August 5, 2003. The Court ordered “that the prior ownership rules remain in effect pending resolution of these proceedings.” Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, No. 03-3388 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2003) ( per curiam ). The Court's Order requires that the Commission process broadcast station applications under the prior ownership rules.

FCC Form 314 and applicable exhibits/explanations are required to be filed when applying for consent for assignment of an AM, FM or TV broadcast station construction permit or license. In addition, the applicant must notify the Commission when an approved assignment of a broadcast station construction permit or license has been consummated.

This collection also includes the third party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580. This section requires local public notice in a newspaper of general circulation of the filing of all applications for assignment of license/permit. This notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. A copy of this notice must be placed in the public inspection file along with the application. Additionally, an applicant for assignment of license must broadcast the same notice over the station at least once daily on four days in the second week immediately following the tendering for filing of the application.

On April 4, 2000, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MM Docket No. 95-31 in the Matter of Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants. This Report and Order adopted new procedures to select among competing applicants for noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast channels. The new procedures will use points to compare objective characteristics whenever there are competing applications for full-service radio or television channels reserved for NCE use. The new procedure established a four-year holding period of on-air operations for licenses approved as a result of evaluation in a point system. The FCC 314 has been revised to reflect the new policy and to require stations authorized under the point system who have not operated for a four-year period to submit with their applications an exhibit demonstrating compliance with 47 CFR 73.7005. The data is used by the FCC staff to determine whether the applicants meet basic statutory requirements to become a Commission licensee/permittee and to assure that the public interest would be served by grant of the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0032.

Title: Application for Consent to Transfer Control of Entity Holding Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License.

Form Number: FCC 315.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 1,591.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 2 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 2,546 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $12,237,878.

Needs and Uses: On September 3, 2003, the United States Court of appeals for the Third Circuit issued an Order staying the effectiveness of the new media ownership rules adopted by the Commission on June 2, 2003. (Report and Order, MB Docket 02-277 and MM Dockets 01-235, 01-317, and 00-244, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In The Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. ) 68 FR 46285, August 5, 2003. The Court ordered “that the prior ownership rules remain in effect pending resolution of these proceedings.” Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, No. 03-3388 (3d Cir. Sept. 3, 2003) ( per curiam ). The Court's Order requires that the Commission process broadcast station applications under the prior ownership rules.

FCC Form 315 and applicable exhibits/explanations are required to be filed when applying for transfer of control of a corporation holding an AM, FM or TV broadcast station construction permit or license. In addition, the applicant must notify the Commission when an approved transfer of control of a broadcast station construction permit or license has been consummated.

This collection also includes the third party disclosure requirement of 47 CFR 73.3580. This section requires local public notice in a newspaper of general circulation of the filing of all applications for transfer of control of license/permit. This notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. A copy of this notice must be placed in the public inspection file along with the application. Additionally, an applicant for transfer of control of license must broadcast the same notice over the station at least once daily on four days in the second week immediately following the tendering for filing of the application.

On April 4, 2000, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MM Docket No. 95-31, In the Matter of Reexamination of the Comparative Standards for Noncommercial Educational Applicants. This Report and Order adopted new procedures to select among competing applicants for noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast channels. The new procedures will use points to compare objective characteristics whenever there are competing applications for full-service radio or television channels reserved for NCE use. The new procedure established a four-year holding period of on-air operations for licenses approved as a result of evaluation in a point system. The FCC 315 has been revised to reflect the new policy and to require stations authorized under the point system who have not operated for a four-year period to submit with their applications an exhibit demonstrating compliance with 47 CFR 73.7005. The data are used by the FCC staff to determine whether the applicants meet basic statutory requirements to become a Commission licensee/permittee and to assure that the public interest would be served by grant of the application.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0405.

Title: Application for Authority to Construct or Make Changes in an FM Translator or FM Booster Station.

Form Number: FCC 349.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

Number of respondents: 1,050.

Estimated Hours per Response: 1-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 2,750 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $2,689,500.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 349 is used to apply for authority to construct a new FM translator or FM booster broadcast station, or to make changes in the existing facilities of such stations. To satisfy the third party requirements under 47 CFR 73.3580, applicants must give notice of their applications for new or major changes in facilities in a local newspaper within 30 days, and copy of both the notice and the application must be placed in the public inspection. In addition, all mutually exclusive NCE proposals for the reserved band currently on file with the FCC are required to supplement their applications with portions of the revised FCC Form 349 necessary to make a selection under the new point system. The FCC will issue a public notice announcing the procedures to be used in this process. The data help the FCC to determine whether an applicant meets basic statutory requirements and will not cause interference to other licensed broadcast services. Where there are mutually exclusive, qualified applicants, the information is used to determine which proposal best serves the public interest.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0865.

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

Form No: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 61,340.

Estimated Time Per Response: .166-4 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 83,939 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The purpose of this collection is to streamline the set of rules which minimize filing requirements via the Universal Licensing System (ULS); to eliminate redundant and unnecessary submission requirements; and to assure ongoing collection of reliable licensing and ownership data. The recordkeeping and third party disclosure requirements, along with certifications which made via the ULS FCC Form 601 are two ways the Commission reduced the filing burdens in the industry. However, applicants must maintain records to document compliance with the requirements for which they provide certification. In some instances third party coordination's are required.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0551.

Title: Sections 76.1002 and 76.1004, Specific Unfair Practices Prohibited.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-25 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 260 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $50,000.

Needs and Uses: On June 28, 2002, the FCC released a Report and Order (R&O), In the Matter of Implementation of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution: Section 628(c)(5) of the Communications Act, Sunset of Exclusive Contract Prohibition, CS Docket No. 01-290, FCC 02-176. The R&O modified 47 CFR 76.1002(c)(6)—to extend the term of the prohibition on exclusive agreements between cable operators and vertically integrated programmers. The prohibition will expire on October 5, 2007 unless circumstances in the video programming marketplace indicate the prohibition continues to be necessary. FCC staff will use this information to determine on a case-by-case basis whether particular exclusive contracts for cable television programming comply with the statutory public interest standard of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act and Section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 301(j) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act amends the restrictions of Section 628 to include common carriers and their affiliates that provide video programming.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0095.

Title: Cable Television Annual Employment Report, FCC Form 395-A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: FCC 395-A.

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

Number of Respondents: 1,950.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.166 to 2.417 hrs.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; Annual and five year reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 3,302 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: Following the D.C. Circuit's decision in MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Association v. FCC (“Association”) in January 2001, vacating the FCC's broadcast EEO rules for recruitment, on January 31, 2001, the Commission suspended its EEO program requirements for both broadcasters and Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPD's), including the requirement to file FCC Forms 395-A, and 395-M. The FCC is now revising Form 395-A, Annual Employment Report, to incorporate FCC Form 395-M. The new FCC Form 395-A is a data collection device used to report industry trends. The report identifies employees by gender, race, and ethnicity in fifteen job categories. The FCC Form 395-A contains a grid which collects data on full and part-time employees and requests a list of employees by job title, indicating the job category and full or part-time status of the position. However, Form 395-A omits the old EEO program report section, which is now in the new FCC Form 396-C, OMB Control No. 3060-1033.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0390.

Title: Broadcast Station Annual Employment Report, FCC Form 395-B.

Form Number: FCC Form 395-B.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 14,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.88 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement.

Total annual burden: 12,320 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 395-B is used to compile statistics on the workforce employed by broadcast licensees/permittees. It is filed by all AM, FM, TV, international and low power TV broadcast licensees/permittees that employ five or more full-time employees. The FCC staff use the data to compile a report showing the five-year employment trends of the broadcast industry.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1033.

Title: Multi-channel Video Program Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, FCC Form 396-C.

Form Number: FCC 396-C.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 2,200.

Estimated Hours per Response: 0.166 to 2.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; Annual and five-year reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 3,188 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 396-C is a collection device used to assess compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) program requirements by Multi-channel Video programming Distributors (MPVDs). It is publicly filed to allow interested parties to monitor a MPVD's compliance with the commission's EEO requirements.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0621.

Title: Rules and Requirements for C & F Block Broadband PCS Licenses.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50-20 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 14,044 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules require applicants to file information so that the Commission can determine whether the applicants are legally, technically and financially qualified to be licensed and to determine whether applicants claiming different eligibility status are entitled to certain benefits.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0779.

Title: Amendment to Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 27,062 respondents; 31,467 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-50 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 112,450 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $28,490,000.

Needs and Uses: This collection includes rules which govern the operation and licensing of the 220-222 MHz band (220 MHz service). In establishing this licensing plan, the FCC's goal is to establish a flexible regulatory framework that allows for efficient licensing of the 220 MHz service, eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens and enhance the competitive potential of the 220 MHz service in the mobile service marketplace. However, as with any licensing and operational plan for radio service, a certain number of regulatory and informational burdens are necessary to verify licensee compliance with FCC rules.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0897.

Title: MDS and ITFS Two-Way Transmissions.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 130,888.

Estimated Time Per Response: .083-40 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 223,618 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $5,431,000.

Needs and Uses: This information collection includes rules that collectively form the Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instruction Television Fixed Service (ITFS) two-way services. The Commission's rules for two-way transmissions for MDS and ITFS will allow two-way licensing and provide greater flexibility in the use of the allotted spectrum to licensees. The rules will further eliminate market entry barriers for small entities. The Commission will use this information to ensure that MDS and ITFS applicants, conditional licensees, and licensees have considered properly under the FCC's rules the potential for harmful interference from their facilities.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0926.

Title: The Transfer of the Bands from Federal Government Use: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit and Federal Government.

Number of Respondents: 200 respondents; 1,200 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-20 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 22,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The various information reporting and verification requirements, and the prospective coordination requirement (third party disclosure requirement) will be used by the Commission to verify licensee compliance with Commission rules and regulations, and to ensure that licensees continue to fulfill their statutory responsibilities in accordance with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Such information has been used in the past and will continue to be used to minimize interference, verify that applicants are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and to determine compliance with Commission rules.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0963.

Title: Section 101.527, Construction Requirements for 24 GHz Operations, and Section 101.529, Renewal Expectancy Criteria for 24 GHz Licensees.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 952.

Estimated Time Per Response: .50-20 hours.

Frequency of Response: Once every 10 years reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 14,399 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $952,000.

Needs and Uses: The information required by these rule sections is used to determine whether a renewal applicant of a 24 GHz service system has complied with the requirement to provide substantial service by the end of the ten-year initial license term. The FCC uses this information to determine whether an applicant's license will be renewed at the end of the license period.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0950.

Title: Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 99-266.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 3,844.

Estimated Time Per Response: 10 hours for recordkeeping requirement; 190 hours to obtain tribal consent and to file the necessary certifications and waivers.

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

Total Annual Burden: 768,800 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: This information collection implemented bidding credits for federally-recognized tribal areas that have a telephone service penetration rate below seventy percent to ensure that these tribal communities have access to wireless telecommunications services equivalent to that of the nation.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1058.

Title: Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through the Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 1,770.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-4 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 7,813 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,222,040.

Needs and Uses: The required notifications and applications will provide the Commission with useful information about spectrum usage and helps to ensure that licensees and lessees are complying with Commission interference and non-interference related policies and rules. Similar information and verification requirements have been used in the past for licensees operating under authorizations, and such requirements will serve to minimize interference, verify lessees are legally and technically qualified to hold licenses, and ensure compliance with Commission rules. The Commission obtained emergency approval of this information collection on January 29, 2004. The Commission is now seeking extension (no change to the information collection requirements) to obtain the full three year OMB clearance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Allocations and Service Rules for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report and Order.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

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

Total Annual Burden: 1,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission issued a Report and Order in CC Docket No. 96-128, FCC 03-235, in which final service rules were adopted for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz bands. The Report and Order provided that sharing and coordination among non-Federal Government links and between non-Federal Government and Federal Governments would occur according to the registration and coordination standards and procedures generally adopted in the Report and Order and as further detailed in subsequent implementation public notices issued consistent with that Order. The Commission is now seeking OMB approval of those final rules.

The following described public land in the Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada, has been examined and found suitable for conveyance for recreational or public purposes under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et.seq. ).

The Clark County School District proposes to use the land for an elementary school site.

The land is not required for any Federal purpose. The lease/conveyance is consistent with current Bureau planning for this area and would be in the public interest. The patent, when issued, will be subject to the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and applicable regulations of the Secretary of the Interior and will contain the following reservations to the United States:

1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).

2. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

The lease/conveyance will be subject to all valid and existing rights. The lands have been segregated from all forms of appropriation under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (Pub. L. 105-263).

Detailed information concerning this action is available for review at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV, or by calling (702) 515-5000.

On February 12, 2004, the above described land will be segregated from all other forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the general mining laws, except for conveyance under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, leasing under the mineral leasing laws and disposal under the mineral material disposal laws. You should submit your comments regarding the proposed conveyance for classification of the lands on or before March 29, 2004, to: Las Vegas Field Manager, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130-2301.

Classification Comments: Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for an elementary school site. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.

Application Comments: Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the lands for an elementary school site. Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any adverse comments, these realty actions will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. The classification of the land described in this Notice will become effective on April 12, 2004. The lands will not be offered for lease/conveyance until after the classification becomes effective.