Title: Karnal Bunt; Compensation for the 1999-2000 Crop Season and Subsequent Seasons.

OMB Number: 0579-0182.

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

Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in cooperation with States, to carry out operations or measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, prevent, or retard the spread of plant pests, such as Karnal bunt, that are new to or not widely distributed within the United States.

Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of wheat ( Tricum aestivum ), durum wheat ( Triticum durum ), and triticale wheat ( Triticum aestivum X Secale cereale ), a hybrid of wheat and rye. Karnal bunt is caused by the smut fungus Tilletia indica (Mitra) Mundkur and is spread by spores, primarily through the movement of infected seed. In the absence of measures taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prevent its spread, the establishment of Karnal bunt in the United States could have significant consequences with regard to the export of wheat to international markets.

The regulations regarding Karnal bunt are set forth in 7 CFR 301.89-1 through 301.89-16. Among other things, the regulations define areas regulated for Karnal bunt and restrict the movement of certain regulated articles, including wheat seed and grain, from the regulated areas.

The regulations also provide for the payment of compensation to eligible persons in order to reduce the economic impact of our Karnal bunt quarantine on wheat producers and other individuals, and to help obtain their cooperation in our eradication efforts. The compensation program requires individuals to engage in several information collection activities, including the completion of a Karnal bunt compensation worksheet and compensation form.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities for an additional 3 years.

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

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

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

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

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

Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hours per response.

Respondents: Wheat growers, shippers, seed companies, State plant regulatory authorities, and Farm Service Agency personnel.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 170.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 170.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 85 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

Soybean rust is caused by two different fungal species— Phakopsora pachyrhizi Sydow and Phakopsora meibomiae (Arthur) Arthur. P. pachyrhizi is an aggressive pathogen and spreads rapidly under conducive environmental conditions. It is referred to as the Asian, Australian, or Old World rust strain. P. meibomiae is a less aggressive pathogen on soybean. It is referred to as the tropical, Latin American, or New World rust strain. Soybean rusts caused by one or both of these species have been reported in most soybean producing areas of the world, except for North America and Europe.

In light of recent outbreaks in South America of the Asian strain of soybean rust ( P. pachyrhizi ), U.S. soybean producers have asked APHIS to reevaluate the entry status of soybean grain, seed, and meal from countries where soybean rust is known to occur. To evaluate the risks associated with the introduction of soybean rust into the continental United States, a draft document, entitled “Status of Scientific Evidence on Risks Associated with the Introduction into the Continental United States of Phakopsora pachyrhizi with Imported Soybean Grain, Seed and Meal” (February 23, 2004), has been prepared. We are making the draft document available to the public for review and comment.

You may view the draft document on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/soybean_rust/sbr_riskevidoc2_23_04.pdf. You may request copies from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Please refer to the title of the draft document when requesting copies. Finally, the draft document is available for review in our reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room is provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

In addition, we are soliciting comments addressing the following questions:

1. What conditions at harvest and during cleaning, drying, storage, or transport would change the risk of introducing P. pachyrhizi with imported soybean grain, seed, and meal?

2. Is there additional specific information on industry and agricultural practices that would affect the risk of introducing the soybean rust pathogen with imported soybean grain, seed, and meal?

3. Are most soybeans that are grown in areas infested with soybean rust sprayed with fungicides? How effective is this control?

4. What other practical treatments could be used to address the risk of introducing the soybean rust pathogen in imported soybean grain, seed, and meal?

5. Is there any other information APHIS should consider in determining the risk of introducing P. pachyrhizi with imported soybean grain, seed, and meal?

We welcome all comments on the issues outlined above and encourage the submission of scientific information that supports any statements and conclusions. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice. These comments will be considered during the development of a pest risk assessment for soybean rust.

Title: Publication Comment Card.

OMB Number: 0596-0163.

Expiration Date of Approval: July 31, 2004.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: Executive Order 12862, issued September 11, 1993, directed Federal agencies to change the way they do business, to reform their management practices, and to provide service to the public that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private sector. In response to this Executive Order, the Forest Service Southern Research Station developed a “Publication Comment Card” for inclusion when distributing scientific research publications.

Since the early 1920's, Forest Service scientists have published the results of their studies about national forests and forest resources and products, in addition to their conclusions about the dynamics of natural timber stands and plantations, watershed and wildlife management, and recreational activities. These studies have provided long-term data that have become increasingly valuable to landowners and others involved in natural resource and land management. Data from the Publication Comment Cards help Forest Service research stations determine if publications meet customers' expectations and address customers' needs. The collected information also helps scientists and authors provide relevant information on effective, efficient, responsible land management in the United States.

Forest Service research personnel enclose Publication Comment Cards when providing publications to recipients in person or by mail. Public Comment Cards and most research station publications also are made available via the Internet. Public Comment Cards include the following statements that will be rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “Strongly Agree” and 5 being “Strongly Disagree.”

1. The information is what I expected, based on the title and abstract.

2. This publication is well organized.

3. The content is presented clearly.

4. The technical subject matter was explained sufficiently to meet my needs.

5. The graphics (photographs, tables, charts) were helpful.

6. This research information is useful to me.

7. I will continue to request Research Station publications.

Respondents complete Publication Comment Cards and return them in person or mail them back to the Forest Service via surface mail or electronically via the Internet.

Data gathered in this information collection are not available from other sources.

Estimate of Burden: 5 minutes.

Type of respondents: Respondents include citizens of the United States and of other countries; landowners or land lessees; timber and other forest-product customers; research scientists; forestry consultants; educators, librarians, and historians; representatives of other Federal, State, county, or local government agencies and representatives of foreign governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 22,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,833 hours.

Comment is invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including name and address when provided, will become a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 22, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on persulfates from the People's Republic of China. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 68 FR 50750 (Aug. 22, 2003). The period of review is July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The review covers one exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States.

In accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department shall make a preliminary determination in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order. The Act further provides, however, that the Department may extend the 245-day period to 365 days if it determines it is not practicable to complete the review within the foregoing time period. On February 12, 2004, the Department issued a revised surrogate country selection memorandum to interested parties in this proceeding, in which: (1) Pakistan had been eliminated as an acceptable surrogate country selection; (2) Egypt and Morocco had been added as acceptable surrogate country selections; and (3) economic indicators had been updated for all countries. We requested comments from interested parties for consideration in the preliminary results by April 1, 2004. In order to allow sufficient time for interested parties to comment and provide surrogate value information based on the revised surrogate country selection memorandum, it is not practicable to complete this review within the time limit mandated by section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we have fully extended the deadline until July 30, 2004.

The preliminary determination in this investigation was published on December 22, 2003. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Wax and Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons From France , 68 FR 71068 (December 22, 2003) ( Preliminary Determination ). Since the publication of the Preliminary Determination , the following events have occurred. On December 24, 2003 Union Chemicar Company Limited (UC) submitted critical circumstances information. On January 5 and January 16, 2004, petitioner, International Imaging Materials, Inc. (IIMAK), submitted additional comments regarding its allegation that respondents in the three investigations of TTR (France, Japan, and South Korea) would attempt to circumvent the order by slitting jumbo rolls in third countries, and its request that the Department therefore determine that slitting does not change the country of origin of TTR for antidumping purposes. On January 9, 2004, Armor, S.A. (Armor), the sole respondent in the French investigation, submitted additional comments on the country-of-origin issue. On January 16, 2004 Dai Nippon Printing Company Limited (DNP) submitted a request for a hearing. On February 9, 2004 the Department rejected the critical circumstances submissions made by both DNP and UC. On February 10, 2004 DNP and the Petitioner submitted case briefs. Additionally, on February 10, 2004 the Department rejected DNP's case brief because it contained the proprietary critical circumstances data which the Department had rejected on February 9, 2004. On February 13, 2004 DNP resubmitted its case brief. On February 17, 2004 DNP, UC and the Petitioner submitted rebuttal briefs. On February 20, 2004 we held a hearing on TTR from Japan. Additionally, on February 20, 2004, Ricoh Company Limited and Ricoh Electronics Inc. (collectively, Ricoh) submitted critical circumstances data. On February 23, 2004, the Department rejected Ricoh's critical circumstances data. On February 27, 2004, Fujicopian Company Limited submitted arguments supporting Ricoh's critical circumstances arguments. Please see the Preliminary Determination for a history of all previous comments submitted in this case.

This investigation covers wax and wax/resin thermal transfer ribbons (TTR), in slit or unslit (“jumbo”) form originating from Japan with a total wax (natural or synthetic) content of all the image side layers, that transfer in whole or in part, of equal to or greater than 20 percent by weight and a wax content of the colorant layer of equal to or greater than 10 percent by weight, and a black color as defined by industry standards by the CIELAB (International Commission on Illumination) color specification such that L*<35, -20<a*<35, and -40<b*<31, and black and near-black TTR. TTR is typically used in printers generating alphanumeric and machine-readable characters, such as bar codes and facsimile machines.

The petition does not cover resin TTR, and finished thermal transfer ribbons with a width greater than 212 millimeters (mm), but not greater than 220 mm (or 8.35 to 8.66 inches) and a length of 230 meters (m) or less ( i.e. , slit fax TTR, including cassetted TTR), and ribbons with a magnetic content of greater than or equal to 45 percent, by weight, in the colorant layer.

Please see the Issues and Decision Memorandum which accompanies this Federal Register notice regarding the country of origin for TTR from Japan.

The merchandise subject to this investigation may be classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at heading 3702 and subheadings 3921.90.40.25, 9612.10.90.30, 3204.90, 3506.99, 3919.90, 3920.62, 3920.99 and 3926.90. The tariff classifications are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes; however, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

The POI is April 1, 2002, through March 31, 2003. This period corresponds to the four most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of filing of the petition ( i.e. , June 2003) involving imports from a market economy, in accordance with our regulations. See 19 CFR § 351.204(b)(1).

In the Preliminary Determination , we based the dumping margin for the mandatory respondents, DNP and UC, on adverse facts available pursuant to sections 776(a) and 776(b) of the Act. The use of adverse facts available was warranted in this investigation because DNP withdrew its questionnaire responses from the record and UC failed to respond to any part of the antidumping duty questionnaire issued by the Department. See Preliminary Determination , 68 FR at 42386. The withdrawal of such information significantly impeded this proceeding because the Department could not accurately determine a margin without responses to our questionnaires. In addition, we found that DNP and UC failed to cooperate to the best of their ability. We assigned DNP and UC the highest margin stated in the notice of initiation. See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Thermal Transfer Ribbons From France, Japan and the Republic of Korea , 68 FR 38305 (June 27, 2003). A complete explanation of the selection, corroboration, and application of adverse facts available can be found in the Preliminary Determination . See Preliminary Determination , 68 FR at 71070-71.

Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 (2003).

The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs (“OETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of the certification in the Federal Register . Under section 305(a) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.11(a), any person aggrieved by the Secretary's determination may, within 30 days of the date of this notice, bring an action in any appropriate district court of the United States to set aside the determination on the ground that the determination is erroneous.

California in-shell and shelled pistachios, raw and roasted, in all forms.

All export trade-related facilitation services, including but not limited to: Development of trade strategy; sales, marketing, and distribution; foreign market development; promotion; and all aspects of foreign sales transactions, including export brokerage, freight forwarding, transportation, insurance, billing, collection, trade documentation, and foreign exchange; customs, duties, and taxes; and inspection and quality control.

The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the 50 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of theNorthern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).

1. CPEC and/ or one or more of its Members, including through Export Intermediaries (to the extent provided in section 1.g) may:

a. Export Sales Price. Establish sales price, minimum sales price, target sales price and/or minimum target sales price, and other terms of sale in the Export Markets;

b. Marketing and Distribution. Conduct marketing and distribution of Products in the Export Markets;

c. Promotion. Conduct joint promotion of Products in the Export Markets;

d. Quantities. Agree on quantities of Products to be sold in the Export Markets, provided each Member shall be required to dedicate only such quantity or quantities as each such Member shall independently determine. CPEC shall not require any Member to export a minimum quantity;

e. Market and Customer Allocation. Allocate geographic areas or countries in the Export Markets and/or customers in the Export Markets among Members;

f. Refusals to Deal. Refuse to quote prices for Products, or to market or sell Products, to or for any customers in the Export Markets, or any countries or geographical areas in the Export Markets;

g. Exclusive and Nonexclusive Export Intermediaries. Enter into exclusive and nonexclusive agreements appointing one or more Export Intermediaries for the sale of Products with price, quantity, territorial and/or customer restrictions as provided in sections 1.a through 1.f, inclusive, above;

h. Non-Member Activities. Purchase Products from non-Members to fulfill specific sales obligations in the Export Markets, provided that CPEC and/or its Members shall make such purchases only on a transaction-by-transaction basis and when the Members are unable to supply, in a timely manner, the requisite Products at a price competitive under the circumstances. Such purchases shall be made through a third party broker, and neither CPEC nor any Member shall directly contact any non-Member supplier in connection with such purchases. In no event shall a non-Member supplier be included in any deliberations concerning any Export Trade Activities; and

i. Transportation Activities. Negotiate favorable transportation rates (volume discounts) and consolidate shipments to or within the Export Markets.

2. CPEC and its Members may exchange and discuss the following information:

a. Information about sales and marketing efforts for the Export Markets, activities and opportunities for sales of Products in the Export Markets, selling strategies for the Export Markets, sales for the Export Markets, contract and spot pricing in the Export Markets, projected demands in the Export Markets for Products, customary terms of sale in the Export Markets, prices and availability of Products from competitors for sale in the Export Markets, and specifications for Products by customers in the Export Markets;

b. Information about the price, quality, source, and delivery dates of Products available from the Members to export;

c. Information about terms and conditions of contracts for sale in the Export Markets to be considered and/or bid on by CPEC and its Members;

d. Information about joint bidding or selling arrangements for the Export Markets;

e. Information about expenses specific to exporting to and within the Export Markets, including without limitation, transportation, trans- or intermodal shipments, insurance, inland freight to port, port storage, commissions, export sales, documentation, financing, customs, duties, and taxes;

f. Information about U.S. and foreign legislation and regulations, including federal marketing order programs, affecting sales for the Export Markets;

g. Information about CPEC or its Members' export operations, including without limitation, sales and distribution networks established by CPEC or its Members in the Export Markets, and prior or current export sales by individual Members (including export price information); and

h. Information about export customer credit terms and credit history.

3. CPEC and its Members may meet to engage in the activities described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.

4. CPEC may, on a transaction by transaction basis, join with any or all of the Members to bid for the sale of, and to sell, Products to the Export Markets.

5. On a transaction by transaction basis, for the purposes of allocating export quantities, the quantity that CPEC and/or one or more of its Members will commit to the sale will be determined in the following manner:

a. CPEC and the participating Member(s) or non-Member(s) will, without prior consultation, provide above-described quantity data to an Independent Third Party.

b. The Independent Third Party will independently incorporate such information into the joint sales or bid agreement. For the purposes of this provision, “independently” means that the Independent Third Party will not disclose the information obtained from CPEC to another Member, non-Member and/or CPEC.

c. Neither CPEC nor any participating Member shall intentionally obtain the information described in 5(a) above from the Independent Third Party.

1. “Export Intermediary” means a person (including a Member) who acts as a distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, or broker, or who performs similar functions, including providing, or arranging for, the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services.

2. “Independent Third Party” shall mean any individual, partnership, corporation (public or non-public) or other entity (hereinafter referred to as “entity”), or any representative thereof, that is not an officer, director, principal, affiliate, subsidiary or employee of CPEC or any entity that grows, processes, packs, or handles Products.

3. “Member” means a person who has membership in the CPEC Export Trade Certificate of Review and who has been certified as a “Member” within the meaning of section 325.2( l ) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2( l ) (2003), (currently as set out in Attachment A and incorporated by reference).

A copy of this certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection Facility, Room 4102, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.

Members (within the meaning of section 325.2( l ) of the Regulations):

NIST may enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (“CRADA”) with the licensee to perform further research on the invention for purposes of commercialization. The invention available for nonexclusive licensing is:

Title: Suspended Dry-Dock Platform.

Abstract: A cable-supported platform that can precisely manipulate workers, tools/equipment and loads using position, velocity and force control modes. The platform uses six cables that attach to four support points on towers, walls or other structural supports so as to provide constraint and control of the suspended platform. The cable lengths can be independently controlled by hoist drive-mechanisms and coordinated to achieve intuitive platform movement in all six degrees-of-freedom (side-to-side, forward-and-back, up-and-down, and all three rotations about these motions: roll, pitch and yaw). The platform, consisting of servo components ( i.e. , hoist, amplifier, servo interface, sensory feedback), can be rapidly reconfigured to adjust to new applications. Initial applications address worker/equipment access challenges in dry dock ship and submarine repair and conversion. It can also be used for construction, high bays, and dam repair and maintenance. Various combinations of manual and automatic control can also be implemented. The hoists can be controlled manually by a multi-axis joystick, or can be automatically controlled by a computer.

NMFS published a notice announcing public meetings during the DEIS's comment period on March 5, 2004 (69 FR 190428), FR Doc. 04-5019. Meetings will be held in three locations: Seattle, WA, Anchorage, AK, and Juneau, AK. The notice erroneously announced times for the Seattle meeting as Alaska local time, rather than Pacific local time. This action corrects this error.

Accordingly, in Column 3, under the heading “Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations,” in line 4, remove the following text “Alaska local time (ALT)” and replace it with the following: “Pacific local time”, and in line 9, remove the following text “ALT” and replace it with the following: “Alaska local time (ALT)”.

This notice is relevant to the following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs):

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): threatened Snake River spring/summer-run.

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened Snake River Basin.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. NMFS expects to take action on an ESA section 10(a)(1)(A) submittal received from the applicants. Therefore the Service is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.

The Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) has submitted an application for a section 10(a)(1)(A) enhancement permit for operation of an artificial propagation program on Johnson Creek, ID. Notice of receipt of this permit application was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30391) and closed on June 12, 2000.

The primary goal of CRITFC's proposed hatchery supplementation program is to increase the abundance of the natural chinook salmon population in Johnson Creek and to avoid further losses of the genetic variation that may be necessary to recover the population. NMFS proposes to issue a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for operation of the program to rear and release approximately 100,000 juveniles annually. The artificial propagation action would include collecting and spawning adult threatened Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon, using the resulting progeny in scientific research, enhancing the propagation or survival of the listed population, and subsequently releasing juveniles that are the progeny of listed fish into the wild. The Nez Perce Tribe, acting under the permit requested by CRITFC, also proposes to install and operate a weir, a trap, and holding facilities for collection of listed Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon adults from Johnson Creek to enhance the propagation and conduct research on the listed species of salmon.

The general effects on the environment considered include the impacts on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments of the Snake River Basin, particularly in the Johnson Creek sub-basin.

The purpose of this meeting is to assist the NEFSC in developing effective and consistent trawl survey protocols and practices for the trawl surveys. The Committee will be describing what they envision the scientific sampling gear should do in terms of the sampling focus and performance. They will be making recommendations on the new gear fishing package for the new research vessel.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Mid-Atlantic Council office ( see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The Scientific and Statistical Committee will address some issues relating to the Council's use of stock assessment advice and attempt to provide the Council with an understanding of why changes or differences in assessment advice may be very large as in the case of a recent Georges Bank yellowtail flounder assessment. Some other questions that the committee will consider are: (1) what kind of information should be collected and how should the Council direct funding and research to make stock assessments more reliable and robust; (2) how should the Council interpret and use virtual population analyses (VPAs), including weighting terminal year estimates of fishing mortality; (3) should other assessment models be used to compare VPA results; and (4) how should the Council handle retrospective patterns or errors in fishing mortality and biomass estimates?

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard ( see ADDRESSES ) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The subject modification to Permit No. 1231, issued on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36666) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

Permit No. 1231 authorizes the permit holder to take listed sea turtles inhabiting the Indian River Lagoon system, Indian River County; the nearshore Atlantic Sabellariid worm rock reef system, Indian River County; and the Trident submarine basin in Port Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida. The study is helping to gather information regarding habitat requirements, seasonal distribution and abundance, movement and growth, feeding preferences, sex ratios and the prevalence and severity of fibropapilloma. The permit holder requests authorization to expand the ongoing population assessment project by tracking the movements of juvenile green ( Chelonia mydas ) sea turtles. This modification will allow the permit holder to obtain additional information about this species' movement patterns and its utilization of habitat. The permit holder proposes to attach a transmitter and time-depth-temperature recorder to 14 of the green sea turtles that are already authorized to be captured under the existing permit. Turtles will be also be sampled, measured, weighed, and tagged before being released. This research will take place in the waters within the Indian River Lagoon on the east coast of Florida for the remaining duration of the permit which expires on March 31, 2005.

This action is authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745 which states that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. At the November 2003 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in Del Mar, California, NMFS received an application for these EFPs from the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting. The Council recommended that NMFS issue the EFPs, as requested by the States.

Issuance of these EFPs, to about 40 vessels, will continue an ongoing program to collect information on the incidental catch of salmon and groundfish in whiting harvests delivered to shore-based processing facilities by domestic trawl vessels. Because whiting deteriorates rapidly, it must be handled quickly and immediately chilled to maintain the quality. As a result, many vessels dump catch directly or near directly into the hold and are unable to effectively sort their catch.

The issuance of EFPs will allow vessels to delay sorting of groundfish catch in excess of cumulative trip limits and prohibited species until offloading. These activities are otherwise prohibited by regulation. For 2004, video cameras that are provided by NMFS, will be used to monitor full retention at sea. Information gathered from video cameras may be used to assess the effectiveness of video monitoring for full retention monitoring programs.

Delaying sorting until offloading will allow samplers located at the processing facilities to collect incidental catch data for total catch estimates and will enable whiting quality to be maintained. Without an EFP, groundfish regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(b) require vessels to sort their prohibited species catch and return them to sea as soon as practicable with minimum injury. Similarly, regulations at 50 CFR 660.306(f) prohibit the retention of groundfish in excess of the published trip limits.

In addition to providing information that will be used to monitor the attainment of the shore-based whiting allocation, information gathered through these EFPs is expected to be used in a future rulemaking. For 2005, NMFS intends to implement, through federal regulation, a monitoring program for the shore-based Pacific whiting fleet. The Council recommended using EFPs only until a permanent monitoring program can be developed and implemented. NMFS is developing a preliminary draft Environmental Assessment which includes a range of alternative monitoring systems for the shore-based Pacific whiting fishery. At its September 2003 meeting, the Council considered a preliminary range of alternatives for a monitoring program which focus on three major issues: (1) the monitoring program (i.e., federal observers, state monitors, video cameras, or a combination thereof); (2) tracking and disposition of prohibited species and groundfish overages; and (3) mechanisms for funding of the monitoring program. At its April 2004 meeting, the Council is expected to adopt a revised range of alternatives for public review that cover these same issues. At its September 2004 meeting, the Council is expected to make final recommendations to NMFS regarding this monitoring program. NMFS will then prepare a proposed rule, that will include a public comment period, followed by a final rule implementing a monitoring program before the start of the 2005 shore-based primary Pacific whiting season.

The following listed species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) are covered in this notice:

Sockeye salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka ): endangered Snake River (SR).

Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ): endangered natural and artificially propagated upper Columbia River (UCR); threatened natural and artificially propagated SR spring/summer (spr/sum); threatened SR fall; threatened lower Columbia River (LCR).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): threatened SR; threatened middle Columbia River (MCR); endangered UCR, threatened LCR.

Coho Salmon ( O. kisutch ): threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC).

Authority

Scientific research permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits/modifications based on findings that such permits and modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is seeking to modify its 5-year permit covering five studies that, among them, would annually take adult and juvenile endangered UCR spring chinook salmon (natural and artificially propagated) and UCR steelhead (natural and artificially propagated) at various points in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima River watersheds and other points in eastern Washington State. The research was originally conducted under Permit 1119, which was in place for 5 years (63 FR 27055) with two amendments (65 FR 11288, 66 FR 38641); it expired on December 31, 2002. A new permit was granted for the research in 2003, and the FWS is seeking to modify that permit to change the take allotment and add a sixth study. Over the years, there have been some changes in the research (e.g., the aforementioned amendments) and they are reflected in this proposal. Nonetheless, the proposed projects are largely continuations of ongoing research. They are: Study 1-Recovery of ESA-listed Entiat River Salmonids through Improved Management Actions; Study 2-From extirpation to colonization: an attempt to restore salmon back to their former streams; Study 3-Entiat Basin Spawning Ground Surveys; Study 4-Snorkel Surveys in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and Other Waterways of Eastern Washington; Study 5-Fish Salvage Activities in the Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, Okanogan, and Yakima Watersheds and other Waterways of Eastern Washington; Study 6-Icicle Creek Salmonid Production and Life History Investigations. Under these studies, listed adult and juvenile salmon and steelhead would be variously (a) captured (using nets, traps, and electrofishing equipment) and anesthetized; (b) sampled for biological information and tissue samples; (c) tagged with passive integrated transponders (PIT tags) or other identifiers; (d) marked and recaptured to determine trap efficiency, and (e) released.

The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purposes of the research are to (a) gain current information on the status and productivity of various fish populations (to be used in determining the effectiveness of restoration programs); (b) collect data on the how well artificial propagation programs are helping salmon recovery efforts (looking at hatchery and wild fish interactions); (c) support the aquatic species restoration goals found in several regional plans; and (d) fulfill ESA requirements for several fish hatcheries. The fish would benefit through improved recovery actions, better designs for hatchery supplementation programs, and by being rescued outright when they are stranded by low flows in Eastern Washington streams. The FWS does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe is seeking to renew a 5-year permit to annually take threatened juvenile and adult SR spr/sum chinook salmon and steelhead during the course of two research projects in the Salmon River subbasin: The Snake River Habitat Enhancement (SRHE) project and the Idaho Supplementation Studies (ISS) project. Under the two ongoing projects (the SRHE was initiated in 1984, the ISS in 1998), the fish would be variously observed, captured, anesthetized, handled, implanted with passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, allowed to recover, and released back to the habitats from which they were taken.

The purposes of the research are to (a) monitor adult and juvenile fish in key upper SR basin watersheds, (b) assess the utility of hatchery chinook salmon in increasing natural populations in the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers, and (c) evaluate the genetic and ecological impacts of hatchery chinook salmon on natural populations. The fish will primarily benefit from the research in two ways. First, the research will broadly be used to help guide restoration and recovery efforts throughout the SR basin. Second, and more specifically, the research will be used to determine how hatchery supplementation can be used as a tool for salmon recovery. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but some may die as an unintended result of the research.

The Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (OCFWRU) is asking to modify its 5-year permit allowing it to annually take juvenile threatened SR fall chinook salmon; juvenile threatened SR spring/summer chinook salmon (natural and artificially propagated); juvenile endangered UCR spring chinook salmon (natural and artificially propagated); juvenile threatened LCR chinook salmon; juvenile endangered UCR steelhead (natural and artificially propagated); juvenile threatened LCR steelhead; juvenile threatened MCR steelhead; juvenile threatened SR steelhead; and juvenile endangered SR sockeye salmon at various dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. The research is largely a continuation of four ongoing studies in the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers, but only one, Study 4 Evaluation of Migration and Survival of Juvenile Salmonids Following Transportation would be modified. Under this study, juvenile listed salmonids would be variously (a) captured using lift nets or dipnets at the dams (or acquired from Columbia River Smolt Monitoring Program or NMFS personnel at Bonneville Dam), (b) sampled for biological information or tagged with radiotransmitters, and (c) released. The OCFWRU does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The research has many purposes and would benefit listed salmon and steelhead in different ways. In general, the purpose of the research is to compare biological and physiological indices of wild and hatchery juvenile fish exposed to stress during bypass, collection, and transportation activities at the dams. The research will benefit the listed species by helping determine what effects the dams and their associated structures and management activities transportation, in particular have on the outmigrating salmonids and using that information modify those factors in ways that increase salmonid survival.

The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) is requesting a 5-year permit to annually take juvenile threatened SR steelhead, fall chinook salmon, spr/sum chinook salmon, and endangered SR sockeye salmon during the course of two research projects designed to ascertain the condition of many Idaho streams and determine the degree to which they meet certain critical stream health parameters. The fish will largely be captured using backpack electrofishing equipment (though boat electrofishing equipment may also be used), weighed and measured (some may be anesthetized to limit stress), and released. The IDEQ does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The purposes of the research are to (a) determine whether aquatic life is being properly supported in Idaho's rivers, streams and lakes, and (b) assess the overall condition of Idaho's surface waters. The fish will benefit from the research because the data it produces will be used to inform decisions about how and where to protect and improve water quality in the State.

The Ecosystems Research Institute (ERI) is requesting a 2-year research permit to annually handle threatened juvenile SONCC coho salmon in the Applegate River. The purpose of the research is to measure outmigration rates from the Applegate Reservoir to determine current fish entrainment and mortality. The ERI is proposing to construct a hydroelectric power plant on the Applegate Dam. The study is needed to determine the impacts the project's hydroelectric turbines would have on outmigrating reservoir fish. The research will benefit natural SONCC coho by providing current outmigration estimates of artificially propagated coho and gamefish that may affect the SONCC population through genetic introgression and by predation. The ERI proposes to capture the fish (using a screw trap), anesthetize them, check them for the presence of an adipose clip, measure them, allow to them recover, and release them. The ERI does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small percentage may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI or Board) under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). This statute directs BPAI to “on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patent and shall determine priority and patentability of invention in interferences.” BPAI has the authority under 35 U.S.C. 134, 135, 306, and 315 to review ex parte and inter partes appeals and interferences. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 6 establishes the membership of BPAI as the Director, the Deputy Director, the Commissioner for Patents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and the Administrative Patent Judges, one of which serves as the Chief Judge and another as the Vice Chief Judge. Each appeal and interference is heard by a merits panel of at least three members of the Board.

Under the statute, the Board's two main responsibilities include the review of ex parte appeals from adverse decisions of examiners in those situations where a written appeal is taken by a dissatisfied applicant, and the administration of interferences to “determine priority” (or decide who is the first inventor) whenever an applicant claims the same patentable invention that is already claimed by another applicant or patentee. In inter partes reexamination appeals, BPAI reviews decisions adverse to a patent owner or a third-party requestor.

BPAI does not currently collect appeal and interference information electronically, but is working on a pilot program that would provide electronic filing in contested cases. Once the pilot program is completed, the results of this program will be analyzed to determine whether electronic filing will be beneficial enough to deploy a production system. BPAI disseminates opinions and decisions to the public through the USPTO's Web site, as well as disseminating them through various publications and databases.

Publication of opinions and binding precedent is governed by BPAI's Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 4) for the “Publication of Opinions and Binding Precedent,” effective March 29, 2000. Opinions are categorized as either precedential opinions, which when published provide the criteria and authority that BPAI uses to determine all related cases (unless overruled or changed by statute), or as non-precedential opinions that the authoring judge or panel determines may be published. These opinions are not binding on BPAI, and the authoring judge or panel can also decide that they should not be published. Since public policy favors a widespread publication of opinions, BPAI publishes many of its opinions, even those that are not binding precedent.

Certain opinions and decisions in decided appeals and interference cases are published. Public availability to records involved in terminated and pending cases varies, depending upon statute and regulation. The public can inspect terminated interference files and application and patent files involved in terminated interferences subject to statutory and regulatory limitations on their availability. Pending interference files are not available to the public (although pending application files may be available, subject to eighteen-month publication requirements).

The USPTO has determined that the forms for the Requests for Oral Hearing Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (PTO/SB/32) and the Notices of Appeal (PTO/SB/31), which are currently approved by OMB under 0651-0031 Patent Processing (Updating), should be moved into this new collection since these forms are used for requesting appeals and interferences. Therefore, the USPTO requests that these forms be moved into this new collection. In addition, this new collection contains two requirements, Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause and Requests for Interferences, which have not previously been submitted separately to OMB for review and approval.

There are no forms associated with the Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause or the Requests for Interference. However, both are governed by rules, specifically 37 CFR 1.136(b), 1.604, and 1.607. Failure to comply with the appropriate rule may result in dismissal or denial of the paper.

By mail or hand delivery when parties file Notices of Appeal, Requests for Oral Hearings Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Requests for Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause, or Requests for an Interference.

OMB Number: 0651-00XX.

Form Number(s): PTO/SB/31 and PTO/SB/32.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for profit; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, local or tribal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 17,410 total responses per year. Of this total, it is estimated that 750 Requests for Oral Hearings Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, 16,500 Notices of Appeal, 10 Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause, and 150 Requests for an Interference will be submitted per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: The USPTO estimates that it will take approximately 12 minutes (0.20 hours) each to complete the Requests for Oral Hearings Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and Notices of Appeal, 4 hours to complete the Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause, and 16 hours to complete Requests for an Interference.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours: 5,890 hours per year.

Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost Burden: $1,838,140. The USPTO believes that the Requests for Oral Hearings Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Notices of Appeal, the Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause, and the Requests for an Interference will be completed by associate attorneys. The USPTO estimates that the typical professional hourly rate for the associate attorneys completing the Requests for Oral Hearings Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Notices of Appeal, and the Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause will be $286, and that the professional hourly rate for the associate attorneys completing the Request for an Interference will be $350. Therefore, the USPTO estimates that the salary costs for the attorneys completing these requirements will be $1,838,140 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Respondent Cost Burden: $5,000,847. There are postage costs and filing fees associated with this information collection. This collection has no capital start-up, operation or maintenance costs.

There are postage costs of $8,547 for mailing the requirements in this collection to the USPTO.

There are filing fees associated with the Requests for an Oral Hearing Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the Notices of Appeal; the Extensions of Time on a Showing of Good Cause and the Requests for an Interference do not have filing fees. The total filing fees associated with this information collection are $4,992,300.

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

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

The current limit for Category 363 is being decreased for carryforward applied in 2003.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 63070, published on November 7, 2003.

The current limit for Categories 347/348/647/648 is being adjusted for carryforward used.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 68597, published on December 9, 2003.

The proposed action (shock trial) would subject a SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) Class Amphibious Assault Ship to no more than four explosive charges, approximately 10,000 pounds each, while monitoring the effects on the ship. The EIS/OEIS will thoroughly address reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the existing environments of the proposed test areas, and the impact to the environment at those areas. An initial evaluation identified beyond the 600-foot depth curve (no closer than 9 nm from shore) and within 120 nm of Jacksonville, FL; Pascagoula, MS; and Norfolk, VA, as potential shock trial locations because they effectively meet the operational criteria necessary to conduct a shock trial on an amphibious ship. The proposed shock trial is planned for the late 2006/early 2007 timeframe.

The EIS/OEIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the test locations. Issues to be addressed will include, but are not limited to, the following resource areas: Wildlife including threatened and endangered species and marine mammals, fisheries including an analysis of water quality, air quality, commercial fishing, commercial shipping, recreation, and socioeconomics. The evaluation will include an evaluation of the direct, indirect, short-term, and cumulative impacts. No decision will be made to conduct a shock trial until the NEPA process is completed.

The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues that should be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Federal, state, local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern for consideration in the EIS/OEIS. The Navy will consider these comments in determining the scope of the EIS/OEIS.

Written comments on the scope of the EIS/OEIS should be submitted by May 20, 2004, and should be mailed to: LPD 17 Program Manager, C/O Booz Allen Hamilton, 1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22202, Attn: LPD 17 EIS.

The proposed action (shock test) would subject a VIRGINIA (SSN 774) Class submarine to no more than five explosive charges, approximately 10,000 pounds each, while monitoring the effects on the submarine. The EIS/OEIS will thoroughly address reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, the existing environments of the proposed test areas, and the impact to the environment at those areas. An initial evaluation identified areas at the 400-foot depth curve and within 100 nm of Kings Bay, GA/Mayport, FL; and Norfolk, VA, as potential shock test locations, because they effectively meet the operational criteria necessary to conduct a shock test on a submarine. The proposed shock test is scheduled to occur between May 1, 2006, and September 30, 2006, with a maximum of one test event per week.

The EIS/OEIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the test locations. Issues to be addressed will include, but are not limited to, the following resource areas: wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and marine mammals, fisheries, including an analysis of water quality, air quality, commercial fishing, commercial shipping, recreation, and socioeconomics. The EIS/OEIS will include an evaluation of the direct, indirect, short-term, and cumulative impacts. No decision will be made to conduct a shock test until the NEPA process is completed.

The Navy is initiating the scoping process to identify community concerns and local issues that should be addressed in the EIS/OEIS. Federal, State, local agencies, and interested persons are encouraged to provide oral and/or written comments to the Navy to identify specific issues or topics of environmental concern for consideration in the EIS/OEIS. The Navy will consider these comments in determining the scope of the EIS/OEIS.

Written comments on the scope of the EIS/OEIS should be submitted by May 21, 2004, and should be mailed to: VIRGINIA (SSN 774) Class Program, C/O Booz Allen Hamilton, 1725 Jefferson Davis HWY, Suite 1100, Arlington, VA 22202, Attn: VIRGINIA (SSN 774) Class EIS.

Section 483 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), requires the Secretary, “in cooperation with agencies and organizations involved in providing student financial assistance,” to “produce, distribute and process free of charge a common financial reporting form to be used to determine the need and eligibility of a student under” the Title IV, HEA Programs. This form is the FAFSA. In addition, section 483 authorizes the Secretary to include non-financial data items that assist States in awarding State student financial assistance.

The draft 2005-2006 FAFSA (posted to the IFAP Web site) incorporates four new data elements in preparation for a potential match with IRS data. These new data elements are on page 3 of the form, questions 18-21. To allow room for these new data elements we are recommending the number of schools an applicant lists on the FAFSA be reduced from six to four. This recommendation is based on comments received during the previous clearance cycle. Other suggestions to fit these additional questions included removing some of the instructions on the form. The Secretary requests comments on ways to further simplify the application for students, parents, and schools, as well as suggestions for incorporating these new data elements.

The Secretary is publishing this request for comment under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S. C. 3501 et seq. Under that Act, ED must obtain the review and approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before it may use a form to collect information. However, under procedure for obtaining approval from OMB, ED must first obtain public comment of the proposed form, and to obtain that comment, ED must publish this notice in the Federal Register .

In addition to comments requested above, to accommodate the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Secretary is interested in receiving comments with regard to the following matters: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department, (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner, (3) is the estimate of burden accurate, (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The FAFSA collects identifying and financial information about a student applying for Title IV, HEA program funds. This information is used to calculate the student's expected family contribution, which is used to determine a student's financial need. The information is also used for determining a student's eligibility for State and institutional financial aid programs.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2465. When you access the information collection, click on “Download attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address Vivian.Reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

This package contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-5115; (2) Package Title: Contractor Legal Management Requirements; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: The collection of this information continues to be necessary to provide a basis for DOE decisions on requests, from applicable contractors, for reimbursement of litigation and other legal expenses.; (5) Respondents: 36; (6) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: The burden hours for this collection are estimated to be approximately 465 to 570 hours on an annual basis. This estimate is based on the estimate that preparation of the initial plan is 15-30 hours and that no more than 20% of the 36 contractors will need to submit a legal management plan in any given year. The estimate for the total also includes an estimate of the approximately 10 hours for an annual budgetary update, which would be submitted by all contractors.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number SFUND-2004-0003, which is available for public viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket . Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, 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 within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to superfund.Docket@epa.gov , or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington DC 20460.

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, confidnetial 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 .

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are State and local agencies and members of the public.

Title: CAMEO Software Usability Evaluation Survey, EPA ICR No. 2132.01, OMB Control No. 2050.XXXX.

Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (OEPPR), is requesting an Information Collection Request (ICR) to conduct a nationwide survey of Computer-aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) Web site listserv members and users to determine user satisfaction with the CAMEO software and its features. CAMEO is a system of software applications used widely to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies. It is one of the tools developed by EPA to assist front-line chemical emergency planners and responders. Users can employ CAMEO to access, store, and evaluate information critical for developing emergency plans. In addition, CAMEO supports regulatory compliance by helping users meet the chemical inventory reporting requirement of SARA Title III. CAMEO has been in use by local emergency planners, first responders, state and tribal groups, and industry personnel since 1988. During the intervening years, EPA surveyed CAMEO users in 1994 and 1997 to identify needed changes and enhancements. While these previous surveys were the starting point of the current CAMEO survey, survey materials have been modified to capture emerging needs of users, particularly as they relate to the availability of Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA) and Risk Management Program Rule data.

The survey will be conducted via the Internet after 600 names are randomly selected from the CAMEO Listserv. EPA will send prior notification to the entire Listserv (6,000-7,000 names) informing users of the survey and the process. EPA will send a message to the 600 selected participants with a link to the Web-based survey; there will be no passwords to access the survey. In completing the survey, EPA will not require participants to provide any identifying information.

The primary goals of this research are to: (i) Evaluate customer satisfaction with CAMEO; (ii) probe current user practices and preferences regarding several important sets of issues, including the effectiveness of selected Agency products and services, required reporting requirements, and new homeland security responsibilities; and (iii) identify emerging user needs. EPA will use the information collected through this survey to judge the success and efficacy of the Agency's chemical emergency technical assistance efforts and improve program implementation.

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. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Burden Statement: The proposed survey will take advantage of an existing, CAMEO on-line listserv of respondents. Thus, the only burden imposed by the survey on respondents will be the time required to complete the survey. Based upon pretest interviews, EPA estimates that this will involve an average of one-half hour (0.5 hours) per respondent. With 600 respondents completing the survey, EPA estimates the total burden to be 300 hours. Based on an average hourly rate of $70.60 (including employer costs of all employee benefits), the one-time total cost to all respondents will be $21,180. Because this information collection is voluntary and does not involve any special equipment, respondents will not incur any capital or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

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: CAMEO Users.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

Frequency of Response: One-time.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 300.

Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O&M Cost Burden: $0.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1049.

Title: Digital Broadcast Content Protection, MB Docket No. 02-230.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 1,520.

Estimated Hours Per Response: 2 to 40 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 3,800 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: On November 4, 2003, the FCC released the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Order”), In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Content Protection, MB Docket No. 02-230, FCC 03-273, The Order established a redistribution control content protection system for digital broadcast television in order to prevent the widespread indiscriminate redistribution of high value digital broadcast content and to assure the continued availability of such content to broadcast outlets. The Order adopted the use of an ATSC flag, which can be embedded in DTV content to signal to consumer electronics devices to protect such content from indiscriminate redistribution. In order for this protection system to work, demodulators integrated within, or produced for use in, DTV reception devices, including PC and IT products, (“Covered Demodular Products”) must recognize and give effect to the ATSC flag pursuant to certain compliance and robustness rules. In particular, content that is marked within the ATSC flag must be handled in a protected fashion through the use of digital content protection and recording technologies. In order to ensure that digital content is being adequately protected, such technologies must be reviewed and approved for use. The Order established interim procedures by which proponents of digital content protection and recording technologies can certify to the Commission that such technologies and appropriate for use in Covered Demodulator Products, subject to public notice and comment.

To facilitate enforcement and compliance, the Order adopted a written commitment regime whereby manufacturers or importers of ATSC demodulators obtain from buyers of such products a written commitment that they will incorporate such demodulators into compliant and robust devices or sell or distribute them to third parties that have also made such written commitment. The Order also adopted a written commitment regime to ensure that manufacturers or importers of Peripheral TSP Products (products where the demodulator and transport stream processor are physically separate) will abide by the Demodulator Products compliance and robustness rules. The interim approval process for digital content protection and recording technologies and the written commitment regime are essential components of the Commission's redistribution control content protection system for digital broadcast television. These information collections ensure objectivity and transparency as a part of this process.

This is a summary of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice released on February 6, 2004. The complete text of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice, including attachments, is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com . This document is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site: http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/52/ .

1. The Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice announces that Auction No. 52, an auction of licenses to use the Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) service allocation in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, has been rescheduled for July 14, 2004. In addition, in the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) announces the procedures and minimum opening bids for Auction No. 52 and sets forth a revised list of the DBS licenses available in the auction. On March 3, 2003, in accordance with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Commission released a public notice seeking comment on reserve prices or minimum opening bids and the procedures to be used for Auction No. 52. Four comments and two reply comments were submitted in response to the Auction No. 52 Comment Public Notice , 68 FR 12906, March 18, 2003.

2. The Commission first established DBS service rules in 1982 by adopting “interim” rules that were codified in Part 100 of its regulations. The first applications for authority to construct, launch, and operate DBS satellite systems were also accepted in 1982. In 1995, the Commission adopted new service rules for DBS. At the same time, the Commission adopted competitive bidding rules for the DBS service. The first DBS auctions were held in January 1996.

3. On April 11, 2002, the Bureau, acting under delegated authority, streamlined the DBS competitive bidding rules by conforming them with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1 of the Commission's rules. On June 13, 2002, the Commission released the Part 100 R&O , 67 FR 51110, August 7, 2002, in which it further streamlined the regulation of DBS and moved the DBS rules from part 100 to part 25.

4. On January 15, 2004, the Commission released an Order affirming its conclusion in the Auction No. 52 Comment Public Notice that the FCC's authority to auction the DBS licenses has not been altered by regulatory and statutory actions taken since DBS auctions were last held, and declining to impose eligibility restrictions on the three available licenses to operate at the western orbit locations of 175° W.L., 166° W.L., and 157° W.L. The Commission did not address in this Order the question of whether any eligibility restrictions are appropriate for the license to use the two available channels at the eastern orbit location of 61.5° W.L. but instead deferred the resolution of this matter to a subsequent Order.

5. Auction No. 52 will include three licenses for unassigned channels at orbit locations of 175° W.L., 166° W.L., and 157° W.L. The license to use the two available channels at the eastern orbit location of 61.5° W.L., which was included in the list of licenses available for auction in the Auction No. 52 Comment Public Notice , will not be offered in Auction No. 52 because there remains pending the issue of whether any eligibility restrictions are appropriate for this license. In addition, in May 2003 the International Bureau authorized EchoStar to use three channels at the 157° W.L. orbit location. The license available for auction at that orbit location will therefore authorize the use of 29 channels, rather than 32 as previously announced in the Auction No. 52 Comment Public Notice .

6. The licenses included in Auction No. 52 will be subject to the Commission's DBS service rules, including the geographic service rules at 47 CFR 25.148(c). A complete list and description of the licenses available in Auction No. 52 is included as Attachment A of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

7. Prospective applicants must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's rules relating to the DBS service contained in title 47, part 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and those relating to application and auction procedures, contained in title 47, part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Prospective applicants must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions (collectively, “terms”) contained in the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice ; the Auction No. 52 Comment Public Notice ; and the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order , 65 FR 52323, August 29, 2000, (as well as prior and subsequent Commission proceedings regarding competitive bidding procedures).

8. The terms contained in the Commission's rules, relevant orders, and public notices are not negotiable. The Commission may amend or supplement the information contained in our public notices at any time, and will issue public notices to convey any new or supplemental information to applicants. It is the responsibility of all prospective bidders to remain current with all Commission rules and with all public notices pertaining to this auction.

9. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction process, § 1.2105(c) of the Commission's rules prohibits applicants for any of the same geographic license areas from communicating with each other during the auction about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements unless such applicants have identified each other on their FCC Form 175 applications as parties with whom they have entered into agreements under § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii). Because all three licenses available in Auction No. 52 have overlapping service areas, this prohibition will apply to all applicants. Thus, all applicants (unless they have identified each other on their FCC Form 175 applications as parties with whom they have entered into agreements under § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii)) must affirmatively avoid all discussions with or disclosures to each other that affect, or in their reasonable assessment have the potential to affect, bidding or bidding strategies. This prohibition begins at the short-form application filing deadline and ends at the down payment deadline after the auction. For purposes of this prohibition, § 1.2105(c)(7)(i) defines applicant as including all controlling interests in the entity submitting a short-form application to participate in the auction, as well as all holders of partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest amounting to 10 percent or more of the entity, or outstanding stock, or outstanding voting stock of the entity submitting a short-form application, and all officers and directors of the entity.

10. Because all three licenses available in Auction No. 52 have overlapping service areas, all applicants are encouraged to avoid using the same individual as an authorized bidder. A violation of the anti-collusion rule could occur if an individual acts as the authorized bidder for two or more applicants and conveys information concerning the substance of bids or bidding strategies between the applicants he or she is authorized to represent in the auction. A violation could similarly occur if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization ( e.g. , law firm or consulting firm). In such a case, at a minimum, applicants should certify on their applications that precautionary steps have been taken to prevent communication between authorized bidders and that applicants and their bidding agents will comply with the anti-collusion rule. However, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that collusive behavior has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted.

11. The Commission's anti-collusion rules allow applicants to form certain agreements during the auction, provided the applicants have not applied for licenses covering any of the same geographic areas. In Auction No. 52, applicants will not be able to take advantage of these rule provisions because all three available licenses have overlapping service areas. However, all applicants may enter into bidding agreements before filing their FCC Form 175, as long as they disclose the existence of the agreement(s) in their Form 175. If parties agree in principle on all material terms prior to the short-form filing deadline, those parties must be identified on the short-form application pursuant to § 1.2105(c), even if the agreement has not been reduced to writing. If the parties have not agreed in principle by the filing deadline, an applicant would not include the names of those parties on its application, and may not continue negotiations with any other applicants. By signing their FCC Form 175 short-form applications, applicants are certifying their compliance with § 1.2105(c).

12. In addition, § 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires an applicant to maintain the accuracy and completeness of information furnished in its pending application and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance to that application. Thus, § 1.65 requires auction applicants that engage in communications of bids or bidding strategies that result in a bidding agreement, arrangement or understanding not already identified on their short-form applications to promptly disclose any such agreement, arrangement or understanding to the Commission by amending their pending applications. In addition, § 1.2105(c)(6) requires all auction applicants to report prohibited discussions or disclosures regarding bids or bidding strategy to the Commission in writing immediately but in no case later than five business days after the communication occurs, even if the communication does not result in an agreement or understanding regarding bids or bidding strategy that must be reported under § 1.65.

13. A summary listing of documents issued by the Commission and the Bureau addressing the application of the anti-collusion rules may be found in Attachment F of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

14. In 2000, the Commission allocated the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for non-geostationary satellite orbit (“NGSO”) fixed-satellite service (“FSS”) downlinks on a primary basis. At the same time, the Commission authorized the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (“MVDDS”) as a new service under the existing primary status fixed service allocation in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission concluded that MVDDS could operate in the 12 GHz band on a co-primary non-harmful interference basis with incumbent DBS providers. In the MVDDS Second R&O , 67 FR 43031, June 26, 2002, the Commission established service rules for MVDDS, including technical criteria that will protect DBS providers from interference. An auction of MVDDS licenses concluded on January 27, 2004.

15. All DBS licensees must comply with the provisions of the International Telecommunication Union (“ITU”) Region 2 Band Plan for Ku-band DBS satellites. They must also comply with §§ 25.114(c)(23) and 25.111(c) of the Commission's rules. These rules require DBS licensees to provide technical information and analyses to the Commission where it may be necessary to request a modification of the ITU Region 2 Band Plan.

16. Potential applicants are reminded that there are matters pending with the Commission that could affect the licenses scheduled to be offered in Auction No. 52. These matters may involve applications (including those for modification), petitions for rulemaking, requests for special temporary authority (“STA”), waiver requests, petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, and applications for review that may be pending before the Commission and relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees. In addition, certain judicial proceedings that may relate to particular applicants or incumbent licensees, or the licenses available in Auction No. 52, may be commenced, or may be pending, or may be subject to further review. We note that resolution of these matters could have an impact on the availability of spectrum in Auction No. 52. In addition, although the Commission will continue to act on pending applications, requests and petitions, some of these matters may not be resolved by the time of the auction. To aid potential bidders, on February 24, 2004, the Bureau issued a Due Diligence Announcement listing matters pending before the Commission that relate to licenses or applications in these services. However, the Commission makes no representations or guarantees that the matters listed in the Due Diligence Announcement are the only pending matters that could affect spectrum availability in these services.

17. Potential applicants are solely responsible for identifying associated risks and for investigating and evaluating the degree to which such matters may affect their ability to bid on, otherwise acquire, or make use of licenses available in Auction No. 52.

18. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success. Applicants and interested parties should perform their own due diligence before proceeding, as they would with any new business venture.

19. As is the case with many business investment opportunities, some unscrupulous entrepreneurs may attempt to use Auction No. 52 to deceive and defraud unsuspecting investors.

20. Information about deceptive telemarketing investment schemes is available from the FTC at (202) 326-2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942-7040. Complaints about specific deceptive telemarketing investment schemes should be directed to the FTC, the SEC, or the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060. Consumers who have concerns about specific proposals regarding Auction No. 52 may also call the FCC Consumer Center at (888) CALL-FCC ((888) 225-5322).

21. Licensees must comply with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

22. The auction will begin on July 14, 2004. The initial schedule for bidding will be announced by public notice at least one week before the start of the auction. Unless otherwise announced, bidding on all licenses will be conducted on each business day until bidding has stopped on all licenses.

23. Auction No. 52—Direct Broadcast Satellite Service.

24. The bidding methodology for Auction No. 52 will be simultaneous multiple round bidding. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet. Telephonic bidding will also be available, and the FCC Wide Area Network will be available as well. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically.

25. The following is a list of important dates related to Auction No. 52:

26. Any entity wishing to participate in the auction must:

• Submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175) electronically by 6 p.m. ET, May 21, 2004.

• Submit a sufficient upfront payment and an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159) by 6 p.m. ET, June 18, 2004.

• Comply with all provisions outlined in the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

27. The following is a list of general contact information related to Auction No. 52:

28. Guidelines for completion of the short-form (FCC Form 175) are set forth in Attachment D of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

29. All applicants must comply with the uniform part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, in completing FCC Form 175, applicants will be required to provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules.

30. Applicants will be required to identify on their short-form applications any parties with whom they have entered into any consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the licenses being auctioned, including any agreements relating to post-auction market structure. Applicants will also be required to certify on their short-form applications that they have not entered into any explicit or implicit agreements, arrangements or understandings of any kind with any parties, other than those identified, regarding the amount of their bids, bidding strategies, or the particular licenses on which they will or will not bid.

31. A party holding a non-controlling, attributable interest in one applicant will be permitted to acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other applicants provided that (i) the attributable interest holder certifies that it has not and will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it has formed a consortium or entered into a joint bidding arrangement; and (ii) the arrangements do not result in a change in control of any of the applicants. While the anti-collusion rules do not prohibit non-auction-related business negotiations among auction applicants, applicants are reminded that certain discussions or exchanges could touch upon impermissible subject matters because they may convey pricing information and bidding strategies.

32. Each applicant must certify on its FCC Form 175 application under penalty of perjury that the applicant, its controlling interests, its affiliates, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110, are not in default on any Commission licenses (including down payments) and not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. In addition, each applicant must attach to its FCC Form 175 application a statement made under penalty of perjury indicating whether or not the applicant, its affiliates, its controlling interests, or the affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110, have ever been in default on any Commission licenses or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Applicants must include this statement as Exhibit C of the FCC Form 175.

33. “Former defaulters”— i.e. , applicants, including their attributable interest holders, that in the past have defaulted on any Commission licenses or been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, but that have since remedied all such defaults and cured all of their outstanding non-tax delinquencies—are eligible to bid in Auction No. 52, provided that they are otherwise qualified. However, as discussed infra in section III.D.iii, former defaulters are required to pay upfront payments that are 50 percent more than the normal upfront payment amounts.

34. Neither installment payment plans nor bidding credits will be available in Auction No. 52.

35. Applicants owned by minorities or women, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(2), may attach an exhibit (Exhibit D) regarding this status. This applicant status information is collected for statistical purposes only and assists the Commission in monitoring the participation of “designated entities” in its auctions. Applicants wishing to submit additional information may do so on Exhibit E.

36. After the short-form filing deadline (6 p.m. ET May 21, 2004), applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. Applicants will not be permitted to make major modifications to their applications ( e.g. , change their license selections or proposed orbit location, change the certifying official, or change control of the applicant). See 47 CFR 1.2105. Applicants must make these modifications to their FCC Form 175 electronically and submit a letter, briefly summarizing the changes, by electronic mail to the attention of Margaret Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access Division, at the following address: auction52@fcc.gov. The electronic mail summarizing the changes must include a subject or caption referring to Auction No. 52. The Bureau requests that parties format any attachments to electronic mail as Adobe® Acrobat® (pdf) or Microsoft® Word documents.

37. A separate copy of the letter should be faxed to the attention of Kathryn Garland at (717) 338-2850.

38. Section 1.65 of the Commission's rules requires applicants to maintain the completeness and accuracy of the information in their pending applications and to notify the Commission within 30 days of any substantial change that may be of decisional significance. Amendments reporting substantial changes of possible decisional significance in information contained in FCC Form 175 applications, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2105(b)(2), will not be accepted and may in some instances result in the dismissal of the FCC Form 175 application.

39. On Thursday, May 13, 2004, the FCC will sponsor a free seminar for Auction No. 52 at the Federal Communications Commission, located at 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The seminar will provide attendees with information about pre-auction procedures, conduct of the auction, the FCC Automated Auction System, and DBS service and auction rules.

40. In order to participate in this auction, applicants must first submit an FCC Form 175 application. This application must be submitted electronically and received at the Commission no later than 6 p.m. ET on May 21, 2004. Late applications will not be accepted.

41. Applicants must file their FCC Form 175 applications electronically. Applications may generally be filed at any time beginning at noon ET on May 13, 2004, until 6 p.m. ET on May 21, 2004. Applicants are strongly encouraged to file early and are responsible for allowing adequate time for filing their applications. Applicants may update or amend their electronic applications multiple times until the filing deadline on May 21, 2004.

42. Applicants must press the “SUBMIT Application” button on the “Submission” page of the electronic form to successfully submit their FCC Form 175s. Any form that is not submitted will not be reviewed by the FCC. Information about accessing the FCC Form 175 is included in Attachment C of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice. Technical support is available at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (text telephone (TTY)); hours of service are Monday through Friday, from 8 AM to 6 PM ET. In order to provide better service to the public, all calls to the hotline are recorded.

43. Applicants should carefully review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must complete all items on the FCC Form 175. Instructions for completing the FCC Form 175 are in Attachment D of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

44. The FCC Form 175 electronic review system may be used to locate and print applicants' FCC Form 175 information. There is no fee for accessing this system. See Attachment C of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice for details on accessing the review system.

45. Applicants may also view other applicants' completed FCC Form 175s after the filing deadline has passed and the FCC has issued a public notice explaining the status of the applications. NOTE: Applicants should not include sensitive information ( i.e. , TIN/EIN) on any exhibits to their FCC Form 175 applications.

46. After the deadline for filing the FCC Form 175 applications has passed, the FCC will process all timely submitted applications to determine which are acceptable for filing, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying: (i) Those applications accepted for filing; (ii) those applications rejected; and (iii) those applications which have minor defects that may be corrected, and the deadline for filing such corrected applications.

47. In order to be eligible to bid in the auction, applicants must submit an upfront payment accompanied by an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159, Revised 2/03). All upfront payments must be received at Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA by 6 p.m. ET on June 18, 2004. Failure to deliver the upfront payment by the June 18, 2004 deadline will result in dismissal of the application and disqualification from participation in the auction. For specific details regarding upfront payments, see section III D. of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice.

48. Wire transfer payments must be received by 6 p.m. ET on June 18, 2004. To avoid untimely payments, applicants should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make the wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline.

49. Applicants must fax a completed FCC Form 159 to Mellon Bank at (412) 209-6045 at least one hour before placing the order for the wire transfer (but on the same business day). On the cover sheet of the fax, write “Wire Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction Event No. 52.” In order to meet the Commission's upfront payment deadline, an applicant's payment must be credited to the Commission's account by the deadline. Applicants are responsible for obtaining confirmation from their financial institution that Mellon Bank has timely received their upfront payment and deposited it in the proper account.

50. In the Part 1 Order, 62 FR 13540, March 21, 1997, the Commission delegated to the Bureau the authority and discretion to determine appropriate upfront payment(s) for each auction. In addition, in the Part 1 Fifth Report and Order, 65 FR 52323, August 29, 2000, the Commission ordered that “former defaulters,” i.e. , applicants that have ever been in default on any Commission license or have ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency, be required to pay upfront payments 50 percent greater than non-“former defaulters.” For purposes of this calculation, the “applicant” includes the applicant itself, its affiliates, its controlling interests, and affiliates of its controlling interests, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules.

51. The amount of the upfront payment will determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids. In order to bid on a license, otherwise qualified bidders that applied for that license on Form 175 must have an eligibility level that meets or exceeds the number of bidding units assigned to that license. At a minimum, therefore, an applicant's total upfront payment must be enough to establish eligibility to bid on at least one of the licenses applied for on Form 175, or else the applicant will not be eligible to participate in the auction. An applicant does not have to make an upfront payment to cover all licenses for which the applicant has applied on Form 175, but rather to cover the maximum number of bidding units that are associated with licenses on which the bidder wishes to place bids and hold high bids at any given time.

52. For Auction No. 52 the Commission adopts upfront payments of $50,000 per channel for the licenses at the 175° W.L. and 166° W.L. orbit locations, and $100,000 per channel for the license at the 157° W.L. orbit location. Given 32 channels at 175° W.L. and 166° W.L., and 29 channels at 157° W.L., the Commission adopts upfront payments of $1,600,000 for the 175° W.L. and 166° W.L. licenses, and $2,900,000 for the 157° W.L. license.

53. The specific upfront payments for each license are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice. Attachment A of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice also includes the number of bidding units for each license.

54. In calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant should determine the maximum number of bidding units on which it may wish to be active (bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder has the standing high bid from the previous round and licenses on which the bidder places a bid in the current round) in any single round, and submit an upfront payment covering that number of bidding units. In order to make this calculation, an applicant should add together the upfront payments for all licenses on which it seeks to bid in any given round. Applicants should check their calculations carefully, as there is no provision for increasing maximum eligibility after the upfront payment deadline.

55. Former defaulters should calculate their upfront payment for all licenses by multiplying the number of bidding units they wish to purchase by 1.5. In order to calculate the number of bidding units to assign to former defaulters, the Commission will divide the upfront payment received by 1.5 and round the result up to the nearest bidding unit.

56. The Commission will use wire transfers for all Auction No. 52 refunds. To ensure that refunds of upfront payments are processed in an expeditious manner, the Commission is requesting that the following pertinent information be supplied to the FCC: Name of Bank; ABA Number; Contact and Phone Number; Account Number to Credit; Name of Account Holder; FCC Registration Number (FRN); Taxpayer Identification Number; Correspondent Bank (if applicable); Account Number. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159 unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.

57. Approximately ten days before the auction, the FCC will issue a public notice announcing all qualified bidders for the auction. Qualified bidders are those applicants whose FCC Form 175 applications have been accepted for filing and have timely submitted upfront payments sufficient to make them eligible to bid on at least one of the licenses for which they applied.

58. All qualified bidders are automatically registered for the auction. Registration materials will be distributed prior to the auction by two separate overnight mailings, one containing the confidential bidder identification number (BIN) and the other containing the SecurID cards, both of which are required to place bids. These mailings will be sent only to the contact person at the contact address listed in the FCC Form 175.

59. Applicants that do not receive both registration mailings will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified applicant that has not received both mailings by noon on Wednesday, July 7, 2004, should contact the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2888. Receipt of both registration mailings is critical to participating in the auction, and each applicant is responsible for ensuring it has received all of the registration material.

60. Qualified bidders should note that lost bidder identification numbers or SecurID cards can be replaced only by appearing in person at the FCC headquarters, located at 445 12th St., SW., Washington, DC 20554. Only an authorized representative or certifying official, as designated on an applicant's FCC Form 175, may appear in person with two forms of identification (one of which must be a photo identification) in order to receive replacements. Qualified bidders requiring replacements must call technical support prior to arriving at the FCC.

61. The Commission will conduct this auction over the Internet, and telephonic bidding will also be available. As a contingency plan, bidders may also dial in to the FCC Wide Area Network. Qualified bidders are permitted to bid telephonically or electronically. Each applicant should indicate its bidding preference—electronic or telephonic—on the FCC Form 175. In either case, each authorized bidder must have its own SecurID card, which the FCC will provide at no charge. For security purposes, the SecurID cards and the FCC Automated Auction System user manual are only mailed to the contact person at the contact address listed on the FCC Form 175. Each SecurID card is tailored to a specific auction; therefore, SecurID cards issued for other auctions or obtained from a source other than the FCC will not work for Auction No. 52. The telephonic bidding phone number will be supplied in the first overnight mailing, which also includes the confidential bidder identification number.

62. All qualified bidders will be eligible to participate in a mock auction on Friday, July 9, 2004. The mock auction will enable applicants to become familiar with the FCC Automated Auction System prior to the auction. Participation by all bidders is strongly recommended. Details will be announced by public notice.

63. The first round of bidding for Auction No. 52 will begin on Wednesday, July 14, 2004. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction.

64. The Commission will award all licenses in Auction No. 52 in a simultaneous multiple round auction. Unless otherwise announced, bids will be accepted on all licenses in each round of the auction. This approach, we believe, allows bidders to take advantage of any synergies that may exist among licenses and is administratively efficient.

65. The amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the initial maximum eligibility (as measured in bidding units) for each bidder.

66. Note that each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A on a bidding unit per dollar basis. The total upfront payment defines the maximum number of bidding units on which the applicant will be permitted to bid and hold high bids in a round. As there is no provision for increasing a bidder's eligibility after the upfront payment deadline, prospective bidders are cautioned to calculate their upfront payments carefully. The total upfront payment does not affect the total dollar amount a bidder may bid on any given license.

67. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction.

68. A bidder's activity level in a round is the sum of the bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder is active. A bidder is considered active on a license in the current round if it is either the high bidder at the end of the previous bidding round and does not withdraw the high bid in the current round, or if it submits a bid in the current round ( see “Minimum Acceptable Bids and Bid Increments” in section IV.B.iii). The minimum required activity is expressed as a percentage of the bidder's current bidding eligibility, and increases by stage as the auction progresses. Because these procedures have proven successful in maintaining the pace of previous auctions (as set forth under “Auction Stages” in section IV.A.iii and “Stage Transitions” in section IV.A.iv), we adopt them for Auction No. 52.

69. The Commission will conduct the auction in three stages and employ an activity rule. Listed are the activity levels for each stage of the auction. The FCC reserves the discretion to further alter the activity percentages before and/or during the auction.

Stage One: During the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility will be required to be active on licenses representing at least 50 percent of its current bidding eligibility in each bidding round. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by two.

Stage Two: During the second stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 75 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the bidder's current activity (the sum of bidding units of the bidder's standing high bids and bids during the current round) by four-thirds (4/3).

Stage Three: During the third stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 100 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the required activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). In this final stage, reduced eligibility for the next round will be set at current round activity. For example, if a bidder does not have a standing high bid, does not place a bid in the current round, and does not have any activity rule waivers remaining, its eligibility will be reduced to zero, thereby eliminating the bidder from the auction.

Caution: Since activity requirements increase in each auction stage, bidders must carefully check their current activity during the bidding period of the first round following a stage transition. This is especially critical for bidders that have standing high bids and do not plan to submit new bids. In past auctions, some bidders have inadvertently lost bidding eligibility or used an activity rule waiver because they did not re-verify their activity status at stage transitions. Bidders may check their activity against the required activity level by using the bidding system's bidding module.

70. Because the foregoing procedures have proven successful in maintaining proper pace in previous auctions, we adopt them for Auction No. 52.

71. The auction will generally advance to the next stage ( i.e. , from Stage One to Stage Two, and from Stage Two to Stage Three) after two consecutive rounds in which only one new high bid is placed in each round. The Bureau will retain the discretion to change stages unilaterally by announcement during the auction and retain the discretion not to make a transition to the next stage when the conditions are met.

72. Thus, the Bureau will retain the discretion to regulate the pace of the auction by announcement. This determination will be based on a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentages of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue. We believe that these stage transition rules are appropriate for use in Auction No. 52.

73. Each bidder will be provided three activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during the course of the auction. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license.

74. The FCC Automated Auction System assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any round where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (i) There are no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements. If a bidder has no waivers remaining and does not satisfy the required activity level, the current eligibility will be permanently reduced, possibly eliminating the bidder from the auction.

75. A bidder with insufficient activity that wants to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the round by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding system. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described in “Auction Stages” ( see section IV.A.iii discussion). Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.

76. Finally, a bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the FCC Automated Auction System) during a round in which no bids are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. However, an automatic waiver triggered during a round in which there are no new bids or withdrawals will not keep the auction open.

77. For Auction No. 52, the Commission will employ a simultaneous stopping rule, and retain discretion to invoke a modified version of the stopping rule. The modified version of the stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder.

78. In addition, the Bureau may reserve the right to declare that the auction will end after a designated number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds. The Bureau may exercise these options only in certain circumstances, such as where the auction is proceeding very slowly, where there is minimal overall bidding activity, or where it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time.

79. By public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair conduct of competitive bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. Exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureau and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers.

80. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in the public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction. Each bidding round is followed by the release of round results. Multiple bidding rounds may be conducted in a given day. Details regarding round results formats and locations will also be included in the qualified bidders public notice.

81. The FCC has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors.

82. For Auction No. 52, the Commission will adopt minimum opening bids of $100,000 per channel for the licenses at the 175° W.L. and 166° W.L. orbit locations, and $200,000 per channel for the license at the 157° W.L. orbit location. Given 32 channels at 175° W.L., and 166° W.L., and 29 channels at 157° W.L., the Commission adopts minimum opening bids of $3,200,000 for the 175° W.L. and 166° W.L. licenses, and $5,800,000 for the 157° W.L. license.

83. The minimum opening bids we adopt for Auction No. 52 are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. We emphasize, however, that such discretion will be exercised, if at all, sparingly and early in the auction, i.e. , before bidders lose all waivers and begin to lose substantial eligibility. During the course of the auction, the Bureau will not entertain any requests to reduce the minimum opening bid on specific licenses.

84. The specific minimum opening bids for each license available in Auction No. 52, are set forth in Attachment A of the Auction No. 52 Procedures Public Notice .

85. In Auction No. 52, the Commission will employ the use of a 10 percent bid increment. This means that the minimum acceptable bid for a license is approximately 10 percent greater than the previous standing high bid received on the license. The minimum acceptable bid amount is calculated by multiplying the standing high bid times one plus the increment percentage— i.e. , (standing high bid) * (1.10). The result is rounded using the Bureau's standard rounding procedures for minimum acceptable bid calculations: Results above $10,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000; results below $10,000 but above $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $100; and results below $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10. The Bureau will retain the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if circumstances so dictate.

86. In each round, each eligible bidder will be able to place a bid on a particular license for which it applied in any of nine different amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System will list the nine bid amounts for each license.

87. Once there is a standing high bid on a license, the FCC Automated Auction System will calculate a minimum acceptable bid for that license for the following round. The difference between the minimum acceptable bid and the standing high bid for each license will define the bid increment— i.e. , bid increment = (minimum acceptable bid) —(standing high bid). The nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum acceptable bid (the standing high bid plus one bid increment) and additional amounts calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the standing high bid plus two times the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the standing high bid plus three times the bid increment, etc.).

88. At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. Corresponding additional bid amounts will be calculated using bid increments defined as the difference between the minimum opening bid times one plus the percentage increment, rounded as described, and the minimum opening bid— i.e. , bid increment = (minimum opening bid)(1 + percentage increment) {rounded}—(minimum opening bid). At the start of the auction and until a bid has been placed on a license, the nine acceptable bid amounts for each license consist of the minimum opening bid and additional amounts are calculated using multiple bid increments ( i.e. , the second bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus the bid increment, the third bid amount equals the minimum opening bid plus two times the bid increment, etc).

89. In the case of a license for which the standing high bid has been withdrawn, the minimum acceptable bid will equal the second highest bid received for the license. The additional bid amounts are calculated using the difference between the second highest bid times one plus the minimum percentage increment, rounded, and the second highest bid.

90. The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments and the methodology for determining the minimum acceptable bids and bid increments if it determines that circumstances so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the FCC Automated Auction System. The Bureau may also use its discretion to adjust the minimum bid increment without prior notice if circumstances warrant.

91. At the end of each bidding round, the high bids will be determined based on the highest gross bid amount received for each license. A high bid from a previous round is sometimes referred to as a “standing high bid.” A “standing high bid” will remain the high bid until there is a higher bid on the same license at the close of a subsequent round. Bidders are reminded that standing high bids count towards bidding activity.

92. In the event of identical high bids on a license in a given round ( i.e. , tied bids), a Sybase® SQL pseudo-random number generator based on the L'Ecuyer algorithm will be used to assign a random number to each bid. The tied bid having the highest random number will become the standing high bid. The remaining bidders, as well as the high bidder, will be able to submit a higher bid in a subsequent round. If no bidder submits a higher bid in a subsequent round, the high bid from the previous round will win the license. If any bids are received on the license in a subsequent round, the high bid will once again be determined on the highest gross bid amount received for the license.

93. During a round, a bidder may submit bids for as many licenses as it wishes (subject to its eligibility), withdraw high bids from a previous bidding round, remove bids placed in the same bidding round, or permanently reduce eligibility. Bidders also have the option of making multiple submissions and withdrawals in each round. If a bidder submits multiple bids for a single license in the same round, the system takes the last bid entered as that bidder's bid for the round. Bidders should note that the bidding units associated with licenses for which the bidder has removed or withdrawn its bid do not count towards the bidder's activity at the close of the round.

94. Please note that all bidding will take place remotely either through the FCC Automated Auction System or by telephonic bidding. (Telephonic bid assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. Telephonic bidders are therefore reminded to allow sufficient time to bid by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. Normally, four to five minutes are necessary to complete a bid submission.)

95. A bidder's ability to bid on specific licenses in the first round of the auction is determined by two factors: (i) The licenses applied for on FCC Form 175 and (ii) the upfront payment amount deposited. The bid submission screens will allow bidders to submit bids on only those licenses for which the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175.

96. In order to access the bidding functions of the FCC Automated Auction System, bidders must be logged in during the bidding round using the bidder identification number provided in the registration materials, and the passcode generated by the SecurID card. Bidders are strongly encouraged to print bid confirmations for each round after they have completed all of their activity for that round.

97. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place bids on a given license in any of nine different amounts. For each license, the FCC Automated Auction System interface will list the nine acceptable bid amounts in a drop-down box. Bidders may use the drop-down box to select from among the nine bid amounts. The FCC Automated Auction System also includes an import function that allows bidders to upload text files containing bid information.

98. Finally, bidders should use caution in selecting their bid amounts because, as explained in the following section, bidders who withdraw a standing high bid from a previous round, even if mistakenly or erroneously made, are subject to bid withdrawal payments.

99. For Auction No. 52 the Commission adopts bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. With respect to bid withdrawals, the Commission will limit each bidder to withdrawals in no more than one round during the course of the auction. The round in which withdrawals are used would be at the bidder's discretion.

100. Procedures. Before the close of a bidding round, a bidder has the option of removing any bids placed in that round. By using the “remove bid” function in the bidding system, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to withdrawal payments. Removing a bid will affect a bidder's activity for the round in which it is removed, i.e. , a bid that is removed does not count towards bidding activity. These procedures will enhance bidder flexibility during the auction.

101. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in a later round, a bidder may withdraw standing high bids from a previous round using the withdraw bid function in the FCC Automated Auction System (assuming that the bidder has not reached its withdrawal limit). A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round during the auction is subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g).

102. The Bureau will limit the number of rounds in which bidders may place withdrawals to one round. This round will be at the bidder's discretion and there will be no limit on the number of bids that may be withdrawn in the round. Withdrawals during the auction will be subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g). Bidders should note that abuse of the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures could result in the denial of the ability to bid on a license.

103. Calculation. Generally, the Commission imposes payments on bidders that withdraw high bids during the course of an auction. If a bidder withdraws its bid and there is no higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s), the bidder that withdrew its bid is responsible for the difference between its withdrawn bid and the high bid in the same or subsequent auction(s). In the case of multiple bid withdrawals on a single license, within the same or subsequent auctions(s), the payment for each bid withdrawal will be calculated based on the sequence of bid withdrawals and the amounts withdrawn. No withdrawal payment will be assessed for a withdrawn bid if either the subsequent winning bid or any of the intervening subsequent withdrawn bids, in either the same or subsequent auctions(s), equals or exceeds that withdrawn bid. Thus, a bidder that withdraws a bid will not be responsible for any withdrawal payments if there is a subsequent higher bid in the same or subsequent auction(s).

104. In instances in which bids have been withdrawn on a license that is not won in the same auction, the Commission will assess an interim withdrawal payment equal to 3 percent of the amount of the withdrawn bids. The 3 percent interim payment will be applied toward any final bid withdrawal payment that will be assessed after subsequent auction of the license. The Part 1 Fifth Report and Order provides specific examples showing application of the bid withdrawal payment rule.

105. Bids placed during a round will not be made public until the conclusion of that bidding period. After a round closes, the Bureau will compile reports of all bids placed, bids withdrawn, current high bids, new minimum acceptable bids, and bidder eligibility status (bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), and post the reports for public access. Reports reflecting bidders' identities for Auction No. 52 will be available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders will know in advance of this auction the identities of the bidders against which they are bidding.

106. The FCC will use auction announcements to announce items such as schedule changes and stage transitions. All FCC auction announcements will be available by clicking a link on the FCC Automated Auction System.

107. After bidding has ended, the Commission will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed, identifying winning bidders, down payments and any withdrawn bid payments due.

108. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, each winning bidder must submit sufficient funds (in addition to its upfront payment) to bring its total amount of money on deposit with the Commission for Auction No. 52 to 20 percent of its winning bids. In addition, by the same deadline all bidders must pay any bid withdrawal payments due under 47 CFR 1.2104(g), as discussed in “Bid Removal and Bid Withdrawal,” section IV.B.vi. (Upfront payments are applied first to satisfy any withdrawn bid liability, before being applied toward down payments.)

109. Each winning bidder will be required to submit the balance of its winning bids within 10 business days after the deadline for submitting down payments.

110. Within 30 days after release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must submit a properly completed long-form application (FCC Form 312) and required exhibits for each license won through Auction No. 52. Further filing instructions will be provided to auction winners at the close of the auction.

111. Any high bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of the auction ( i.e. , fails to remit the required down payment within the prescribed period of time, fails to submit a timely long-form application, fails to make full payment, or is otherwise disqualified) will be subject to the payments described in 47 CFR 1.2104(g)(2). In such event the Commission may re-auction the license or offer it to the next highest bidder (in descending order) at its final bid. In addition, if a default or disqualification involves gross misconduct, misrepresentation, or bad faith by an applicant, the Commission may declare the applicant and its principals ineligible to bid in future auctions, and may take any other action that it deems necessary, including institution of proceedings to revoke any existing licenses held by the applicant.

112. All applicants that submitted upfront payments but were not winning bidders for a license in Auction No. 52 may be entitled to a refund of their remaining upfront payment balance after the conclusion of the auction. No refund will be made unless there are excess funds on deposit from that applicant after any applicable bid withdrawal payments have been paid. All refunds will be returned to the payer of record, as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless the payer submits written authorization instructing otherwise.

113. Bidders that drop out of the auction completely may be eligible for a refund of their upfront payments before the close of the auction. Qualified bidders that have exhausted all of their activity rule waivers, have no remaining bidding eligibility, and have not withdrawn a high bid during the auction must submit a written refund request. If a bidder has completed the refund instructions electronically, then only a written request for the refund is necessary. If not, the request must also include wire transfer instructions, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and FCC Registration Number (FRN). Send refund request to: Federal Communications Commission, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, Gail Glasser or Tim Dates, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-C863 Washington, DC 20554.

114. Bidders are encouraged to file their refund information electronically using the refund information portion of the FCC Form 175, but bidders can also fax their information to the Auctions Accounting Group at (202) 418-2843. Once the information has been approved, a refund will be sent to the party identified in the refund information.

In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOU's between FDA and others shall be published in the Federal Register , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.

In accordance with 21 CFR 20.108(c), which states that all written agreements and MOUs between FDA and others shall be published in the Federal Register , the agency is publishing notice of this MOU.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Lender Qualifications for Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP).

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0541.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) was initiated by the Department in May 2000. MAP is a procedure that permits approved lenders to prepare, process, and submit loan applications for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) multifamily mortgage insurance. An FHA-approved multifamily Lender wishing to participate in MAP must submit a MAP application package so that HUD may determine whether or not it meets the additional qualifications required of a MAP Lender. The Quality Control Plan is now a required exhibit in the Lender application package. Current MAP Lenders will also be required to submit Quality Control Plans.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: None.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The annual number of respondents is 25 for new MAP Lender approval applications, and 114 for existing MAP Lenders submitting Quality Control Plans. The hours per response is 20 hours for the MAP Lender application, and 10 hours for the Quality Control Plan. The total estimated annual burden hours is 1,640.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.).

Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.

Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Where property is described as for “off-site use only” recipients of the their own expense. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Shirley Kramer, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.

For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.

For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.

Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Kathy Burruss at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the Federal Register , the landholding agency, and the property number.

For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice ( i.e., acreage, floor plan, existing sanitary facilities, exact street address), providers should contact the appropriate landholding agencies at the following addresses: AGRICULTURE: Ms. Marsha Pruitt, Realty Officer, Department of Agriculture, Reporters Building, 300 7th Street, SW., Rm. 310B, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-4335; ARMY: Ms. Julie Jones-Conte, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Program Integration Office, Attn: DAIM-MD, Room 1E677, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0600; (703) 692-9223; COAST GUARD: Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Attn: Teresa Sheinberg, 2100 Second St., SW., Rm. 6109, Washington, DC 20593-0001; (202) 267-6142; ENERGY: Mr. Tom Knox, Department of Energy, Office of Engineering & Construction Management, CR-80, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-8715; NAVY: Mr. Charles C. Cocks, Director, Department of the Navy, Real Estate Policy Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington Navy Yard, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20374-5065; (202) 685-9200; (These are not toll-free numbers).

In enforcing requirements of HUD's housing and section 8 housing assistance payments programs, the Department must from time to time notify owners that they are in violation of a regulatory agreement on a HUD multifamily housing project or property, or that they are in default of a housing assistance payments contract. This notice advises that the General Counsel is redelegating to the Director of the DEC and, concurrently, to the Director of the DEC Satellite Offices the authority to issue such notices.

This notice advises that the General Counsel is also redelegating to the Director of the DEC and, concurrently, to the Directors of the DEC Satellite Offices the authority to impose civil money penalties and take all other action under 24 CFR 30.45 and 30.68. Further, the General Counsel is redelegating authority to the Director of the DEC to impose civil money penalties and take all other action under 24 CFR 30.36.

Accordingly, the General Counsel hereby retains and redelegates authority as follows:

Section A. Redelegation of Authority to Director of DEC and Directors of DEC Satellite Offices: The Director of the DEC and the Directors of the DEC Satellite Offices are hereby redelegated authority to issue a notice of violation under the terms of a regulatory agreement and a notice of default under the terms of a section 8 housing assistance payments contract. Authority is redelegated to the Director of the DEC and the Directors of the DEC Satellite Offices to take all actions permitted under 24 CFR 30.45 and 30.68.

Section B. Redelegation of Authority to Director of DEC: Authority is redelegated to the Director of the DEC to take all actions permitted under 24 CFR 30.36.

Section C. Further Redelegation: The Director of the DEC and the Directors of the DEC Satellite Offices are not authorized to redelegate the authority described in Sections A and B.

Section D. Authority Excepted: The authority redelegated does not include authority to waive any regulations issued under the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

Section E. Revocation of Authority: The General Counsel may revoke the authority authorized herein, in whole or in part, at any time.

In administering HUD's housing and section 8 housing assistance payments programs, the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner has authority to issue a notice of violation of a regulatory agreement on a HUD multifamily housing project or property, and a notice of default of a housing assistance payments contract. The Assistant Secretary for Housing also has authority to impose civil money penalties for certain contractual violations and for violations of certain program requirements.

On August 20, 2003, the Assistant Secretary for Housing published a redelegation of authority (68 FR 50173-50174) that redelegated to HUD's General Counsel the authority to issue a notice of violation of a regulatory agreement and a notice of default of a housing assistance payments contract. The preamble to that redelegation of authority explained the process by which such notices are issued and described the consequences that may result when regulatory agreement violations and housing assistance payments contract defaults are not remedied. The August 20, 2003, notice also redelegated authority to the General Counsel to take all available actions under civil money penalty regulations at 24 CFR 30.45, 30.36, and 30.68.

Since the redelegation of authority was published on August 20, 2003, it was determined that certain language may have been better stated for clarity purposes to clearly reflect that the General Counsel has been redelegated authority described above. To clarify any ambiguity as to the nature of the authority that has been redelegated, the Assistant Secretary for Housing is issuing this redelegation. The authority redelegated to the General Counsel herein may be further redelegated.

Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner hereby retains and redelegates authority as follows:

Section A. Redelegation of Authority: Authority is redelegated to the General Counsel to issue a notice of violation under the terms of a regulatory agreement and a notice of default under the terms of a housing assistance payments contract. Authority is redelegated to the General Counsel to take all actions permitted under 24 CFR 30.45, 30.36, and 30.68.

Section B. Further Redelegation: The General Counsel is authorized to redelegate the authority described in Section A.

Section C. Authority Excepted: The authority redelegated does not include authority to waive any regulations issued under the authority of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner.

Section D. Revocation of Authority: The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner may revoke the authority authorized herein, in whole or in part, at any time.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Alaska. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include:

• Status of land use planning in Alaska.

• National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) integrated activity plans.

• NPR-A Research and Monitoring Subcommittee.

• North Slope Science Initiative.

• Other topics the Council may raise.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allotted for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact BLM.

This survey was requested by the National Park Service.

The lands we surveyed are:

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion of the boundary of Tract Nos. 113-32, Parcels 1 and 2, 113-33, and 118-01 of the New River Gorge National River, Raleigh County, West Virginia, and was accepted March 4, 2004.

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information.

If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest.

We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals.

The MMS in conjunction with the State of Wyoming for oil and the State of Texas for gas from section 8(g) leases in the Gulf of Mexico initiated the pilots as part of the continuing effort to follow through on the recommendations of the Royalty-In-Kind Feasibility Study published by MMS in 1997. Both reports have been previously released as drafts. The MMS received relatively few comments.

In Wyoming, the MMS coordinated with the State and began taking in kind and offering for sale oil from leases in the Big Horn and Powder River Basins in October 1998. The Report summarizes and analyzes the results of the first three 6-month sales. The Report includes an addendum responding to comments received concerning the indices used in the analysis.

The gas RIK pilot undertaken jointly by the State of Texas General Land Office and MMS, began in June 1999. The pilot included 13 of the 40 leases offshore Texas subject to section 8(g) of the OCS Lands Act. The Report summarizes and analyzes the results of the sales for the first 19 months—June 1999 through December 2000.

Many of the lessons learned during the Wyoming oil and the Texas 8(g) pilots have been carried over to the expansion of the gas RIK pilots to the entire Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

The internet posting and availability of the Report in hard copy are being announced by a press release as well as in this Federal Register notice.