Agenda items for the March 19 meeting include: (1) Updates on the Sierra Nevada Plan Amendment ROD and the Healthy Forest Initiative; (2) Sub-committee reports including monitoring and stewardship contracting; (3) Misc. activities and updates on funded projects, and, (4) Future meeting schedule/logistics/agenda. Agenda items, in addition to those noted in the summary, will be developed at a later date. The meetings are open to the public and individuals may address the Committee after being recognized by the Chair. Other RAC information including previous meeting agendas and minutes may be obtained at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/pay2states.

The meeting will include a presentation on the Siskiyou Bioregion. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

Agenda topics for the meeting include approval of the March 1, 2003, minutes. The meeting will be held at Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California on Monday, April 5, 2004, from 6 to 8 p.m. Time will be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

Title: Servicing Cases Where Unauthorized Loan or Other Financial Assistance Was Received—Multiple Family Housing.

OMB Number: 0575-0104.

Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2004.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The regulation promulgates the policies and procedures for actions to be taken in cases where unauthorized financial assistance in the form of a loan, grant, interest subsidy benefit created through use of an incorrect interest rate, interest credits, or rental assistance has been extended to a Multiple Family Housing borrower or grantee by the Rural Housing Service (RHS).

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.14 hours per response.

Respondents: Individuals, State or local governments, and small businesses or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 700.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 700.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 800 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Tracy Givelekian, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0039.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RHS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RHS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Tracy Givelekian, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-0742. 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.

Section 351.214(i)(1) of the regulations requires the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated, and the final results of review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. However, if the Department determines the issues are extraordinarily complicated, section 351.214(i)(2) of the regulations allows the Department to extend the deadline for the preliminary results to up to 300 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated.

On August 14, 2003, the Department received timely requests from Shanghai R&R Imp./Exp. Co., Ltd. and Changshan Import/Export Co., Ltd., pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper reviews under the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paintbrushes and brush heads from the PRC. This order has a February anniversary month, and, therefore, an August semiannual anniversary month. On September 30, 2003, the Department initiated these two new shipper reviews. See Natural Bristle Paintbrushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 68 FR 57875 (October 7, 2003).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department may extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. The Department has determined that these cases are extraordinarily complicated, and the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. The Department finds that these new shipper reviews are extraordinarily complicated because there are a number of issues that must be addressed. For example, the Department is in the process of issuing supplemental questionnaires requesting additional information concerning affiliation and the bona fides of the sales. Given the issues in this case, the Department may find it necessary to request even more information in these new shipper reviews. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.214(i)(2) of the regulations, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of preliminary results to three hundred days. The preliminary results will now be due no later than July 26, 2004.

This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

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 (2004).

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 grounds that the determination is erroneous.

Export Trade Certificate of Review No. 97-00003, was issued to AARQ on January 21, 1998 (63 FR 4220, January 28, 1998) and last amended November 19, 2002 (68 FR 8739, February 25, 2003).

AARQ's Export Trade Certificate of Review has been amended to:

1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of § 325.2(l) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(l)): Itochu International Inc., New York, New York (a subsidiary of Itochu Corporation, Tokyo, Japan); and Veetee Rice Inc., Springfield, Virginia (a subsidiary of Veetee Investments, Nassau, Bahamas).

2. Change the listing of the following Members: “California Commodity Traders, LLC, Robbins, California, and its affiliate American Commodity Company, LLC, Robbins, California” to read “American Commodity Company, LLC, Robbins, California”; “Cargill Americas, Inc., Wayzata, Minnesota” to read “Cargill Americas, Inc., Coral Gables, Florida”; “ConAgra Foods, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, and its subsidiary, Alliance Grain, Inc., Voorhees, New Jersey” to read “ConAgra Foods, Inc., Omaha, Nebraska, and its subsidiary, Alliance Grain, Inc., Marlton, New Jersey”; “Gulf Pacific, Inc., and its subsidiaries, Gulf Pacific Rice Co., Inc., and Gulf Rice Milling, Inc., Houston, Texas” to read “Gulf Pacific Rice Co., Inc., Gulf Rice Milling, Inc., Houston, Texas, and Harvest Rice, Inc., McGehee, Arkansas (each a subsidiary of Gulf Pacific, Inc., Houston, Texas)”; “Rickmers Rice USA, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri” to read “Rickmers Rice USA, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee”; “Sunshine Rice, Inc., Stockton, California (a subsidiary of Sunshine Business Enterprise, Inc.)” to read “KD International Trading, Inc., Stockton, California (a subsidiary of Sunshine Business Enterprises, Inc.)”; and “Uncle Ben's Inc., Greenville, Mississippi” to read “Masterfoods USA a Mars, Incorporated Company, Greenville, Mississippi.”

The effective date of the amended certificate is December 4, 2003. A copy of the amended 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.

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

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

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

The applicant requests authorization to obtain California sea lion and Pacific harbor seal pups post-rehabilitation, stranded in the earlier stages of maternal care with decreased chances of post-release survival due to their extended period of human care and possible imprintation on people. California sea lion pups would be primarily females. Harbor seal pups of either sex will be considered. The applicant requests this permit for the purpose of public display. The receiving facility, Animal Training and Research, International is: (1) open to the public on regularly scheduled basis with access that is not limited or restricted other than by charging for an admission fee; (2) offers an educational program based on professionally accepted standards of the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums; and (3) holds an Exhibitor's License, number 93-C-0626, issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2131-59).

In addition to determining whether the applicant meets the three public display criteria, NMFS must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed activity is humane and does not represent any unnecessary risks to the health and welfare of marine mammals; that the proposed activity by itself, or in combination with other activities, will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the species or stock; and that the applicant's expertise, facilities and resources are adequate to accomplish successfully the objectives and activities stated in the application.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

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

NOAA Fisheries is responsible for protecting, managing and conserving marine, estuarine, and anadromous fish resources and their habitats. The watersheds of the United States where sand and gravel mining takes place provide essential spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish including salmon, shad, sturgeon, and striped bass. A national guidance document on gravel extraction will assist NOAA Fisheries staff in determining whether proposed gravel extraction operations will be conducted in a manner that is consistent with Federal law, and that eliminates or minimizes any adverse impacts to anadromous fish and their habitats.

The recommendations incorporated into the guidance document are suggestions, and are not intended to be binding in any way. This guidance does not specify the measures, if any, that would need to be implemented by parties engaged in gravel extraction activities in any given case to comply with applicable statutory requirements. In formulating its recommendations or prescriptions, NOAA Fisheries will determine the acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with statutory requirements based on information available to the agency, as appropriate under the circumstances presented. As such, the language of the guidance document should not be read to establish any binding requirements on agency staff or the regulated community. The recommendations should not be regarded as static or inflexible, and are meant to be revised as the science upon which they are based improves and areas of uncertainty are resolved. Furthermore, the recommendations are meant to be adapted for regional or local use, so a degree of flexibility in their interpretation and application is necessary.

The Army's recently implemented Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement (MS ELA) consolidates software purchases, licenses and upgrades across the Army. This is a result of an Army Chief Information Office (CIO/G-6) initiative begun in 2001 to improve management and oversight of the Army Enterprise Infostructure (AEI) environment.

In May 2003, collaboration among the CIO/G-6, the Army Small Computer Program (ASCP), the Army Contracting Agency (ACA), the Information Technology E-Commerce & Commercial Contract Center (ITEC4), and the Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) resulted in the award of an Enterprise Software Consolidation contract (Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement) to Softmart Government Services, Inc., of Downingtown, Pa. The award based on a best-value evaluation of offers from eight Department of Defense Enterprise Software Initiative (DOD ESI) vendors. The MS ELA is centrally funded for desktop and certain enterprise server software including upgrades. The award, valued at $471 million over a 6-year period, standardizes Microsoft software Army-wide, and provides the Army with substantial savings.

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

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

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

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: Evaluation of the Transition to Teaching Grant Program.

Frequency: One-time.

Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs (primary). Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 859. Burden Hours: 859.

Abstract: The purpose of the Transition to Teaching (TTT) Grant Program evaluation is to assess how well the 94 grantees funded in 2002 have met the goals of the program: to recruit participants from three eligible groups, to retain TTT participants in teaching for 3 years; and to facilitate full certification of participants. This request is to gather program-level data from the project directors and to conduct a survey from a sample of TTT participants in 2004.

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 2480. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Sections 6141 through 6144 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7315-7315c) allow the Secretary to grant State-Flex authority, on a competitive basis, to up to seven SEAs. The Secretary will select the State-Flex States on the basis of the selection criteria in the State-Flex application package.

Under State-Flex, an SEA receives the authority to consolidate certain Federal education funds that are provided for State-level activities and State administration and use those funds for any educational purpose authorized under the ESEA in order to meet its State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and advance the education priorities of the State and its LEAs. A State-Flex State may also specify how its LEAs will use funds received under Part A of Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs) of the ESEA. In addition, an SEA with State-Flex authority enters into local performance agreements with four to ten of its LEAs (at least half of which must be high-poverty LEAs), giving those LEAs the flexibility to consolidate certain Federal education funds for any educational purpose permitted under the ESEA in order to meet the State's definition of AYP and specific, measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps.

Sections 6151 through 6156 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7321-7321e) authorize the Secretary to enter into Local-Flex agreements with up to eighty LEAs. These agreements, like the local performance agreements under State-Flex, give the LEAs the authority to consolidate certain Federal education funds and to use those funds for any purpose under the ESEA in order to assist the LEAs in meeting the State's definition of AYP and specific, measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps. The Secretary will select the remaining Local-Flex LEAs on the basis of the selection criteria in the Local-Flex application package.

Competitive Preference in Future Grant Competitions: Because State-Flex and Local-Flex participants have undergone comprehensive planning to improve teacher quality and the academic achievement of all students, especially disadvantaged students, and are held to a higher degree of accountability, the Secretary intends to give them a competitive preference in future grant competitions for Federal education funding in which SEAs and LEAs are eligible applicants, to the extent that the competitive preference would further the intent and purposes of the respective grant programs. Where appropriate, the Secretary plans to establish the competitive preferences in the individual program notices announcing future competitions.

We invite you to submit comments regarding the proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, selection criteria, requirements, and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, selection criterion, requirement or definition your comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirements of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this proposed priority in room 3E316 at 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or printer magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

We will announce the final priority, selection criteria, requirements, and definitions in a notice in the Federal Register . We will determine the final priority, selection criteria, requirements, and definitions after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing or funding additional priorities, other selection criteria, or other requirements, or changing definitions, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority we give competitive preference to an application by either (1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the competitive priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority we are particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

The SS/HS grant program draws on the best practices of the education, justice, social service, and mental health systems to promote enhanced resources for prevention programs and prosocial services for youth. The SS/HS grant program is based on evidence that a comprehensive, integrated community-wide approach is an effective way to promote healthy child development and address the problems of school violence and alcohol and other drug abuse. Key to the grant program is the creation and implementation of a comprehensive plan that addresses violence and alcohol and other drug abuse and promotes prosocial skills and healthy child development for youth.

A critical feature of SS/HS is the linking and integration of existing and new services and activities into a comprehensive approach to violence prevention and healthy child development that reflects an overall vision for the community, not the isolated objectives of a single activity, particularly the reliance on security devices alone. The primary objectives of a community's SS/HS plan should be to present a thoughtful, well-coordinated strategy that will unify and enhance existing programs and services and to develop a systematic approach for sustaining those activities, curricula, programs, and services that prove to be effective.

This proposed priority would support the projects of local educational agencies proposing to implement an integrated, comprehensive community-wide plan designed to create safe and drug-free schools and promote prosocial skills and healthy childhood development in youth. Plans must focus activities, curricula, programs, and services in a manner that responds to all of the following six elements:

• Element One —Safe school environment— Note: We propose that no more than 10 percent of the total budget for each year may be used to support costs associated with (1) security equipment and personnel, and (2) minor remodeling of school facilities to improve school safety;

• Element Two —Alcohol and other drugs and violence prevention and early intervention programs;

• Element Three —School and community mental health preventive and treatment intervention services;

• Element Four —Early childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs;

• Element Five —Supporting and connecting schools and communities; and

• Element Six —Safe school policies.

The SS/HS grant program was established in 1999 with the award of 54 grants. The SS/HS grant program was created to provide Federal financial assistance to school districts and communities to promote ongoing partnerships as a way of enhancing and expanding their existing activities relating to youth violence prevention and healthy child development. Since the original competition in 1999 two additional competitions have been held (FY 2001 and FY 2002). Our experience with competitions, peer reviewers, applicants, and funded grantees demonstrates the need to develop selection criteria that more adequately represent the qualities of successful SS/HS grantees. For example, selection criteria used in previous competitions may have unintentionally limited the opportunity for reviewers to evaluate the existence of an applicant's partnership and its capacity to use Federal financial assistance efficiently and effectively to enhance and expand current activities.

To improve the program we held focus groups with current grantees and other professionals with a working knowledge of the SS/HS program to identify key qualities of successful SS/HS grantees and gathered related input from the Federal program staff who monitor SS/HS grants. All of these factors were used to develop the following proposed selection criteria.

We propose the following selection criteria for this program:

(a) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, opportunities, and/or resources have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project and the nature and magnitude of those gaps and weaknesses are based on quantitative and qualitative data for the district, students, families and the community. An example of the kinds of problems that might be identified and addressed would be a high number of truant students, in relation to comparable jurisdictions, and a lack of truancy officers and programs.

(b) The extent to which existing services, infrastructure, opportunities and resources are described and integrated with the proposed project. An example citing existing services would be the number of after school programs available to students that would be improved by adding supplemental services and staff through the proposed project.

(c) The extent to which the applicant will serve the entire school district or the extent to which sufficient rationale is provided for selecting particular schools and/or areas and why a district-wide approach is not feasible or appropriate.

(d) The extent to which the target population is clearly identified and defined in terms of the number of students/families/staff to be served.

(a) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and performance indicators for the project are related to data provided in the “Community Assessment” section.

(b) The extent to which the applicant includes at least one measurable and attainable performance indicator for each of the six elements in the priority and at least one performance indicator for the SS/HS partnership, for a total of at least seven performance indicators.

(c) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and performance indicators are reflected in proposed programs, curricula, and other activities.

(d) The extent to which the applicant includes baseline data and a source of data for the periodic measuring of progress of project-specific performance indicators and for required Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators.

(a) The extent to which the project design builds upon community assessment data, and/or identified gaps or weaknesses in existing services, infrastructure, opportunities, and resources.

(b) The extent to which the applicant can demonstrate that programs, training, curriculum, and other activities selected for the project reflect current research and use evidence-based and effective practices and that they are responsive to the targeted population to be served, including meeting cultural and linguistic needs.

(c) The extent to which the proposed short- and long-term strategies will promote healthy child development and school environments that are safe, disciplined, and drug-free.

(d) The extent to which the proposed short- and long-term strategies allow for systematic development of infrastructure that builds organizational, community, and individual capacity to sustain outcomes beyond the life of the grant.

(e) The extent to which the project design addresses the six elements of the priority, integrating existing and new services into a comprehensive approach to violence prevention and healthy childhood development.

(a) The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the existence of an active school-community partnership prior to planning and submitting its SS/HS application. Examples of how to demonstrate the existing partnership can include a description of the history of the partnership, including the circumstances around its creation and accomplishments to date.

(b) The extent to which the applicant will engage multiple and diverse sectors of the community in its strategic planning process. Examples of possible community participants include but are not limited to nonprofit community groups, faith-based organizations, private schools, teachers, youth, parents, and supervisory and line staff of social service agencies.

(c) The extent to which the applicant's memorandum of agreement for SS/HS Partners includes: A mission statement for the SS/HS partnership; a delineation of the roles and responsibilities of each partner; a process for communicating and sharing resources; and other pertinent information to evaluate the partnership's likelihood of successfully implementing the project.

(d) The extent to which the applicant's memorandum of agreement for mental health services demonstrates the willingness of the mental health authority to provide administrative oversight of mental health services. This agreement describes a process for securing mental health providers and procedures to be used for referral, treatment, and follow-up for children and adolescents with serious mental health problems. This agreement provides evidence that there will be integration, coordination, and resource sharing with mental health and social service providers by schools and other community-based programs.

(a) The extent to which the applicant describes an appropriate evaluation design—using both quantitative and qualitative methods, including: (1) What types of data will be collected; (2) when various types of data will be collected; (3) what evaluation methods will be used and why; (4) what instruments will be developed and when; (5) how the data will be analyzed; (6) when reports of results and outcomes will be available; (7) how data and other information will be used for strategic planning, measuring progress, making programmatic adjustments, and keeping the proposed strategy focused on its overall objective of promoting healthy childhood development and preventing violence and alcohol and other drug abuse; and (8) how the applicant will use the information collected through the evaluation to support SS/HS GPRA indicators.

(b) The extent to which the individual or organization that has been selected or will be sought to serve as the local evaluator has adequate qualifications and experience to conduct the local evaluation.

(c) The extent to which the applicant allocates an appropriate and reasonable level of resources to local project evaluation. Please note: Consistent with funding restrictions established for the program, a minimum of 7 percent of the total budget must be designated for local evaluation activities.

(a) The extent to which the roles and responsibilities of key staff, including the full-time project director, and partners are defined.

(b) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time, including clearly defined timelines with reasonable dates for implementing and accomplishing project tasks.

(c) The adequacy of procedures for communicating and sharing information among all partners, to ensure feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the project.

(a) The extent to which the proposed budget and narrative correspond to the project design and provide adequate documentation and justification for how funds will be used and how costs were calculated.

(b) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates current fiscal control and accounting procedures to ensure prudent use, proper and timely disbursement, and accurate accounting of funds received under the grant.

We propose to consider the following two factors in selecting an application for an award: (1) Geographic distribution and diversity of activities addressed by the projects; and (2) equitable distribution of funds among urban, suburban and rural local educational agencies.

SS/HS applicants from prior competitions have suggested that we clarify certain of the SS/HS application and other requirements. These include: Eligibility requirements; requirements that must be met for an application to be forwarded to peer review; the maximum funding that may be requested; and the limits on the amount of funds that may be used for certain grant activities. Accordingly we propose the following requirements:

Application and Eligibility. We propose that, before we will submit an SS/HS application for peer review, the applicant must meet the following requirements:

(1) The local educational agency/applicant must not have received funds or services under the SS/HS initiative under any previous fiscal years.

(2) The applicant's request for funding must not exceed the maximum amount established for its defined urbancity. The maximum request for SS/HS funds is $3 million for urban schools for a 12-month period; $2 million for suburban schools for a 12-month period; and $1 million for rural and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools for a 12-month period. To determine urbancity and the maximum amount they are eligible to apply for, all applicants except BIA schools must use the district locale code on the National Public School and School District Locator website and the definitions established for rural, suburban and urban to determine urbanicity. A BIA school's request must not exceed $1 million.

(3) The applicant must include in its application two memoranda of agreement demonstrating the commitment of the required SS/HS partners. Two agreements must be signed by the required partners (as described below) and dated no earlier than six months prior to the SS/HS application deadline. Applicants must also include information in the application that supports the selection of the identified local law enforcement and juvenile justice partner and describe how those partners' activities will support and be integrated in the SS/HS strategy. Applicants must contact their State Department of Mental Health to identify the relevant local public mental health authority. Mental health entities that have no legal authority in the administrative oversight of the delivery of mental health services are not acceptable as the sole mental health partner. Each SS/HS application must include the local public mental health authority (as defined elsewhere in this notice) as a partner. (The local public mental health authority is not required to provide mental health services to the target population but must provide administrative control or oversight of the delivery of mental health services.)

(a) The first of these two agreements is the Memorandum of Agreement for the SS/HS Partners. This agreement must contain the signatures of the school superintendent and authorized representatives for the local public mental health authority and local law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies. This agreement must include the following information: A mission statement for the SS/HS partnership; the goals and objectives of the partnership; desired outcomes for the partnership; a description of how information will be shared among partners; and a description of the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Applicants submitting as a consortium of LEAs must demonstrate partnership with the relevant local law enforcement agency (or agencies), public mental heath authority (or authorities) and juvenile justice agency (or agencies) for each of the participating LEAs in the consortium. Applicants must indicate those instances where a local law enforcement agency, public mental health authority, or juvenile justice agency has authority or jurisdiction for one or more of the participating LEAs in the consortium.

(b) The second of these two agreements is the Memorandum of Agreement for Mental Health Services. This agreement must contain the signatures of the school superintendent and the authorized representative of the local public mental health authority. The local public mental health authority must agree to provide administrative control and/or oversight of the delivery of mental health services. This agreement also must state procedures to be used for referral, treatment, and follow-up for children and adolescents with serious mental health problems. Applicants submitting as a consortium of LEAs must demonstrate partnership with the relevant public mental health authority (or authorities) for each of the participating LEAs in the consortium. Applicants must indicate those instances where a local public mental health authority has authority/jurisdiction for one or more of the participating LEAs in the consortium.

We propose that no less than 7 percent of a grantee's budget for each year may be used to support costs associated with local evaluation activities.

Several important terms associated with this competition are not defined in the statute. We propose the following definitions:

1. Authorized representative—We propose defining the term authorized representative as the official within an organization with the legal authority to give assurances, make commitments, enter into contracts, and execute such documents on behalf of the organization as may be required by the Department of Education (the Department), including certification that commitments made on grant proposals will be honored and that the applicant agrees to comply with the Department's regulations, guidelines, and policies.

2. Local law enforcement agency—We propose defining the term local law enforcement agency as the agency (or agencies) that has law enforcement authority for the LEA. Examples of local law enforcement agencies include: municipal, county, and state police; tribal police and councils; and sheriffs' departments.

3. Local public mental health authority—We propose defining the term local public mental health authority as the entity legally constituted (directly or through contract with the State mental health authority) to provide administrative control or oversight of mental health services delivery within the community.

4. Local juvenile justice agency—We propose defining the term local juvenile justice agency as an agency or entity at the local level that is officially recognized by state or local government to address juvenile justice system issues in the communities to be served by the grant. Examples of juvenile justice agencies include: Juvenile justice task forces; juvenile justice centers; juvenile or family courts; juvenile probation agencies; and juvenile corrections agencies.

5. Urban districts—We propose defining the term urban districts as those with a designated locale code of Large Central City (1) or Mid-Size Central City (2) using the National Center for Education Statistics' National Public School and School District Locator (available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ ).

6. Suburban districts—We propose defining the term suburban districts as those with a designated local code of Urban Fringe of Large City (3) or Urban Fringe of Mid-Size City (4) using the National Center for Education Statistics' National Public School and School District Locator (available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ ).

7. Rural districts—We propose defining the term rural districts as those with a designated local code of Large Town (5), Small Town (6) or Rural, outside MSA (7), or Rural, inside MSA (8) using the National Center for Education Statistics' National Public School and School District Locator (available online at http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ ).

This notice of proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.

The potential costs associated with the notice of proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.

In assessing the potential costs and benefits—both quantitative and qualitative—of this notice of proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements and definitions we have determined that the benefits of the proposed priority justify the costs.

We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

Summary of potential costs and benefits: The potential costs associated with this proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements, and definitions are minimal while the benefits are significant. Grantees may anticipate costs with completing the application process in terms of staff and partner time, copying, and mailing or delivery.

The benefit of this proposed priority, selection criteria, requirements, and definitions is that grantees that develop a comprehensive, community-wide SS/HS plan may receive significant Federal assistance to support the implementation and enhancement of prevention and intervention activities, programs and services that create safe and drug-free schools and promote healthy childhood development.

This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of the proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and action for this program.

The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 98, 99, and 299.

You may view this document, as well as other Department of Education documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under Section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the congressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. In addition, Congress expanded the Advisory Committee's agenda in the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 in several important areas: Access, Title IV modernization, distance education, and early information and needs assessment. Specifically, the Advisory Committee is to review, monitor and evaluate the Department of Education's progress in these areas and report recommended improvements to Congress and the Secretary.

The FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2673), which was signed into law on January 23, 2004, directs the Advisory Committee to examine the federal financial aid formula and application forms in order to simplify and streamline the programs to make the system easier, more responsive, and fairer for students and families. The Advisory Committee is well suited to conduct this study, drawing upon the expertise of its eleven members and its experience conducting other broad studies on financial aid issues. The Advisory Committee also has the particular mission of examining the impact of these issues on low- and moderate-income students, a specific goal of the study.

The Advisory Committee has scheduled this regional field hearing to gather additional feedback about financial aid simplification. The proposed agenda includes expert testimony and discussion of the following issues: (a) The impact of complexities in the financial aid process on access to postsecondary education, particularly for low-income students; (b) opportunities for simplification in the financial aid process and forms; and (c) specific issues related to financial aid simplification, such as early notification of financial aid eligibility. The agenda also includes an afternoon session during which the general public is invited to provide oral and/or written testimony to the Advisory Committee on these issues. The Advisory Committee also invites the public to submit written comments regarding this study to the following e-mail address: ADV_COMSFA@ed.gov. We must receive your comments on or before April 23, 2004.

Space at the hearing is limited and you are encouraged to register early if you plan to attend the hearing. You may register through the Internet by e-mailing the Advisory Committee at ADV_COMSFA@ed.gov or at Tracy.Deanna.Jones@ed.gov. Please include your name, title, affiliation, complete address (including Internet and e-mail—if available), and telephone and fax numbers. If you are unable to register electronically, you may mail or fax your registration information to the Advisory Committee staff office at (202) 219-3032. Also, you may contact the Advisory Committee staff at (202) 219-2099. The registration deadline is Monday, April 5, 2004.

Records are kept of all Committee proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Capitol Place, 80 F Street, NW., Suite 413, Washington, DC from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Information regarding the simplification study will also be made available on the Advisory Committee's Web site, www.ed.gov/ACSFA.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may be of particular interest to anyone who may be affected if the AEGL values are adopted by government agencies for emergency planning, prevention, or response programs, such as EPA's Risk Management Program under the Clean Air Act and amendments section 112r. It is possible that other Federal agencies besides EPA, as well as State agencies and private organizations, may adopt the AEGL values for their programs. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2004-0076. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at EPA's Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. EPA's Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. EPA's Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA's Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

For additional information on the scheduled meeting, the agenda of the NAC/AEGL Committee, or the submission of information on chemicals to be discussed at the meeting, contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee will be open to the public. Oral presentations or statements by interested parties will be limited to 10 minutes. Interested parties are encouraged to contact the DFO to schedule presentations before the NAC/AEGL Committee. Since seating for outside observers may be limited, those wishing to attend the meeting as observers are also encouraged to contact the DFO at the earliest possible date to ensure adequate seating arrangements. Inquiries regarding oral presentations and the submission of written statements or chemical-specific information should be directed to the DFO.

Another meeting of the NAC/AEGL Committee is scheduled for June 14-16, 2004.

The FDIC is publishing for notice and comment proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations as well as proposed Guidelines for Appeals of Deposit Insurance Assessment Determinations. The FDIC considers it desirable in this instance to garner comments regarding these guidelines, although notice and comment rulemaking may not be employed in making future amendments.

The proposed revised Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations would be effective upon adoption and would supersede the FDIC's current Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations that were adopted by the FDIC's Board of Directors on March 21, 1995. The proposed guidelines would incorporate changes to the composition of the SARC, reducing it from five to three voting members, and would make changes to the existing procedures governing SARC appeals. These amendments include new rules under which the FDIC's Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection (“DSC”) would issue written decisions if it denies requests for review of material supervisory determinations; if dissatisfied with the division's determination, institutions would decide for themselves whether to appeal to the SARC; and SARC decisions would be published, with exempt material redacted. The types of determinations that are eligible for review by the SARC and the standards by which such appeals are decided would remain unchanged.

The AAC provides for FDIC appellate review of assessment payment computation and assessment risk classification determinations. The proposed Guidelines for Appeals of Deposit Insurance Assessment Determinations will change the composition of the AAC, reducing it from seven to five voting members, and will set forth procedures to be followed by insured depository institutions that choose to appeal adverse assessment determinations they have received from the appropriate FDIC division. As with the SARC, AAC decisions would be published, with exempt material redacted. The types of determinations that are eligible for review by the AAC and the standards by which such appeals are decided would remain unchanged.

The FDIC has sought to conform the SARC and AAC structures and procedures to the extent appropriate, making both processes easier for institutions to navigate and the FDIC to administer.

Section 309(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-325, 108 Stat. 2160) (“Riegle Act”) required the FDIC (as well as the other Federal banking agencies and the National Credit Union Administration Board) to establish an independent intra-agency appellate process to review material supervisory determinations. On March 21, 1995, the FDIC's Board of Directors adopted Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations, which established and set forth procedures governing the SARC, whose purpose was to consider and decide appeals of material supervisory determinations as required by the Riegle Act.

As set forth in the original guidelines, the SARC consisted of the FDIC Vice Chairperson (as chair of the SARC), the Director of the Division of Supervision (“DOS”), the Director of the Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs (“DCA”), the Ombudsman, and the General Counsel (or their designees).

The SARC guidelines were amended to add the Director of the Division of Insurance (now the Director of the Division of Insurance and Research (“DIR”)) as a voting SARC member, to provide formally that the Directors of DOS and DCA (now the DSC Director) would not vote on cases brought before the SARC by their respective (now consolidated) divisions, to provide that designees would be limited to the most senior members of a SARC member's staff, and to include Truth-in-Lending (Regulation Z) restitution. In addition, the SARC was expressly authorized to consider appeals of denied filings as set forth in 12 CFR 303.11(f) for which a Request for Reconsideration has been granted, other than denials of a change in bank control, change in senior executive officer or board of directors, or denial of an application pursuant to section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDI Act”) (which are contained in 12 CFR 308, subparts D, L, and M, respectively), if the filing was originally denied by the Director, Deputy Director or Associate Director of DSC.

While the current guidelines satisfy the Riegle Act's requirement to establish an independent appellate process for the review of material supervisory determinations, the proposed changes, based on eight years' experience since approval of the original 1995 guidelines, should serve to facilitate the disposition of SARC appeals and further underscore the perception of the SARC as a fair and independent high-level body for review of material supervisory determinations within the FDIC.

The FDIC is proposing to modify its guidelines and change the composition of the SARC so that division directors and the Ombudsman no longer serve on the SARC, and new SARC members are drawn from the most senior levels of the Corporation. The Director of the DSC, who is responsible for the operations of two former divisions (DOS and DCA) and who represents the division that made the material supervisory determination under review, the Director of DIR, as well as the Ombudsman, would no longer be SARC members. As revised, the SARC membership would consist of three (3) voting members: (1) One FDIC Board member, either the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson, or the Director (Appointive), as designated by the FDIC Chairperson (this person would serve as the Chairperson of the SARC); (2) and (3) one deputy to each of the FDIC Board members who are not designated as the SARC Chairperson. The General Counsel would be the fourth, and non-voting, member of the SARC. The FDIC Chairperson would designate alternate member(s) to the SARC if vacancies occur so long as the alternate member was not directly or indirectly involved in making or affirming the material supervisory determination under review. In addition, a member of the SARC could designate and authorize the most senior member of his or her staff—within the substantive area—to act on his or her behalf in SARC matters.

The DSC Director would retain the delegated authority formerly granted, respectively to the DOS and DCA Directors under the current SARC guidelines, to grant requests for review of material supervisory determinations in favor of banks dissatisfied with a decision made by their respective divisions.

The current guidelines preclude the Ombudsman from considering the merits of any material supervisory determination for which an appeal had been initiated or a final decision made by the SARC, other than in the Ombudsman's role as a SARC member. Under the proposed guidelines, the subject matter of a material supervisory determination that has been appealed to the SARC or that has been resolved in a final SARC decision is similarly ineligible for consideration by the Ombudsman. Any other problems, however, that an institution may have in dealing with the FDIC are eligible for consideration by the Ombudsman.

Under the current SARC guidelines, if the Director of DSC determines not to grant a request for review of a material supervisory determination, no written determination is issued. Instead, the Director must forward that request directly to the SARC for its appellate determination. In this sense, the institution's request for review is also its appeal to the SARC, if the DSC Director does not grant the request. This process of automatic appeal to the SARC differs from the AAC process, under which an institution must file an appeal to the AAC if it wishes to obtain further review of a determination received at the division level.

Under the proposed SARC guidelines, an automatic appeal to the SARC is eliminated. Instead, institutions that wish to obtain SARC review of material supervisory determinations would be required to file an appeal—within 30 calendar days from the date of the division director's written determination—to the SARC. The FDIC believes that this procedural change will benefit both institutions seeking review of material supervisory determinations and the FDIC. Unlike the present process, institutions would receive a written determination issued by DSC within 30 days, setting forth the reasons for the division's denial. Based on DSC's determination, institutions could then decide for themselves whether to appeal to the SARC. Institutions may, for example, decide that the issue presented is not one that merits expending the time or effort of seeking a SARC determination. The SARC could also benefit from a diminished caseload since not every institution that receives a denial at the division level may choose to file a SARC appeal. Finally, the appeal requirement for SARC will bring that process closer in line with the AAC process, making both easier for institutions to navigate and the FDIC to administer.

An appeal to the SARC would be considered filed if received by the FDIC within 30 calendar days from the date of the determination being appealed or if placed in the United States mail within 30 calendar days from the date of that determination. Institutions would include their name and address, the name and address of any representative, a copy of the determination being appealed, and all of the reasons, factual or legal, why the institution disagrees with the DSC Director's determination. FDIC staff would analyze the filing for the SARC. Any FDIC staff analysis would be considered part of the intra-agency deliberative process and would not be disclosed to insured institutions. The decision of the SARC would be provided to the institution and would set forth the rationale for the agency's determination.

The original SARC guidelines permitted the institution to request an appearance before the SARC to present evidence or otherwise support its position, which the SARC may allow in its discretion. Under the proposed guidelines, the SARC would have the discretion, whether or not a request is made, to determine to allow an oral presentation. If an institution wishes to make an oral presentation, it should include in its appeal a statement to that effect. Oral presentations would generally be granted only if the SARC determines in its discretion that the oral presentation would be helpful or would otherwise be in the public interest. At the oral presentation, the institution would present its position and respond to any questions the SARC might have. The SARC could also require that FDIC staff participate in the oral presentation as the SARC deems appropriate.

Only matters previously reviewed at the division level, resulting either in a written determination or direct referral to the SARC, could be appealed to the SARC. Submission of new evidence not presented at the division level would be prohibited unless authorized by the SARC Chairperson. No discovery or other such rights would be created in the SARC process.

The current guidelines also provide that while SARC decisions constitute the final supervisory determination of the FDIC, the SARC can reconsider its decision if new information is presented and good cause is shown why that information is material to the dispute. In practice, however, such new information has never been presented to the SARC, and therefore the FDIC proposes to eliminate this reconsideration provision. In doing so, the FDIC notes that both the SARC and the AAC have implicit authority to correct errors or omissions that may have occurred in the administrative process and to revise final decisions as necessary.

The types of determinations that are eligible for review by the SARC and the standards by which SARC appeals are decided remain unchanged.

The FDIC Board of Directors created the AAC in 1999 to provide a high-level process for considering all deposit insurance assessment appeals brought from determinations made by the appropriate FDIC Divisions. Responsibility for deposit insurance assessments is shared by the Division of Finance (“DOF”), DIR and, in some respects, DSC. DOF is responsible for calculating the assessments owed by individual insured institutions based on assessment risk classifications assigned by DIR, which in turn uses supervisory information provided by DSC. To calculate an institution's assessment, DOF applies the assessment rate that corresponds to the institution's assessment risk classification to that institution's assessment base. DOF determines the assessment base from deposit and other data submitted in the institution's Report of Condition or Thrift Financial Report. An insured institution may request revision of its quarterly assessment payment by following the procedures set forth at 12 CFR 327.3(h); similarly, an insured institution may request review of its assessment risk classification by following the procedures set forth at 12 CFR 327.4(d). Having complied with those procedures and received a determination from the appropriate division, an institution dissatisfied with that division's determination may file an appeal with the AAC. After reviewing the determination made at the division level, the AAC will issue a final determination.

As presently constituted, the AAC membership consists of the Vice Chairperson of the Board (as Chairperson of the AAC), the Deputy to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (“OCC”) member on the FDIC's Board of Directors, the Deputy to the Office of Thrift Supervision's (“OTS”) member on the FDIC's Board of Directors; the General Counsel, the Director of the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection; the Deputy to the Chairperson and Chief Financial Officer or the DOF Director; and the DIR Director. Any member may designate the most senior members of his or her staff to act in the member's stead. If a member's division made the determination that is subject to appeal, that member or designee does not vote with respect to that appeal.

Since its creation in 1999, the AAC membership has included individuals who are knowledgeable and experienced in matters related to the FDIC's assessment activities, bringing to the AAC the necessary experience and judgment to make well-informed decisions concerning determinations on appeal. The FDIC believes that the long-range interests of both the agency and the institutions it insures are best served by assuring that all assessment determinations are as fair and accurate as possible, both in practice and in perception.

The FDIC is now proposing to modify the composition of the AAC by eliminating the division directors and drawing new members from the most senior levels of the Corporation. As revised, the AAC would consist of five (5) voting members: (1) One FDIC Board member, either the Vice Chairperson or the Director (Appointive), as designated by the FDIC Chairperson (this person would serve as Chairperson of the AAC); (2) a deputy to the FDIC Chairperson, to be designated by the FDIC Chairperson; (3) a deputy to the OCC member on the FDIC's Board of Directors; (4) a deputy to the OTS member on the FDIC's Board of Directors; and (5) a deputy to either the Vice Chairperson or the FDIC Director (Appointive), whoever is not the AAC Chairperson. The General Counsel would be the sixth, and non-voting, member of the AAC. The FDIC Chairperson would designate alternate member(s) to the AAC if vacancies occur so long as the alternate member was not directly or indirectly involved in making or affirming the determination under review. A member of the AAC could designate and authorize the most senior member of his or her staff within the substantive area to act on his or her behalf in AAC matters.

The proposed changes, which would eliminate division directors as AAC members, should serve to underscore the perception of the AAC as a fair and independent high-level body for review of assessment disputes.

Under the FDIC's assessment regulations, institutions that dispute the computation of their quarterly assessment payments must comply with the filing requirements set forth at 12 CFR 327.3(h) and institutions that dispute their risk classification must comply with the filing requirements set forth at 12 CFR 327.4(d).

Current § 327.3(h) provides that an institution may request revision of the computation of its quarterly assessment payment and sets out the procedures for doing so. Any such request must be made within 60 days of the quarterly assessment invoice for which a revision is requested, or within 60 days of detection of an error in the institution's quarterly Call Report and must include any supporting documentation. Assessment audit and assessment refund determinations are also subject to review under section 327.3(h), although not expressly mentioned in the rule. Any additional information requested by the FDIC must be provided within 21 days. Section 327.3(h) mandates that the FDIC respond within 60 days and provides that the response should include the FDIC's determination wherever feasible; otherwise, the FDIC's determination—rendered by the Chief Financial Officer or designee (usually DOF)—is to be made as promptly as possible.

Under current § 327.4(d), an institution may request review of its assessment risk classification within 90 days from the date it receives notice of that classification by the FDIC. Supporting documentation must be included with the request. Any additional information requested by the FDIC must be provided within 21 days. The FDIC—through the appropriate division—either DIR or DSC—must promptly notify the institution of its determination.

An insured depository institution that is dissatisfied with the determination made by the appropriate division pursuant to 12 CFR 327.3(h) or 327.4(d) may appeal that determination to the AAC. The AAC will review the determination being appealed and, unless the AAC determines to refer the matter to the FDIC Board of Directors for consideration, render a final determination which will constitute final agency action. FDIC staff would analyze the filing for the AAC. Any FDIC staff analysis would be considered part of the intra-agency deliberative process and would not be disclosed to insured institutions. The decision of the AAC would be provided to the institution and would set forth the rationale for the agency's determination.

As with the SARC, the AAC would have the discretion, whether or not a request is made, to determine to allow an oral presentation. The institution's appeal should contain a statement regarding whether it wishes to make an oral presentation. Oral presentations would generally be granted only if the AAC determines in its discretion that oral presentation would be helpful or would otherwise be in the public interest. At the oral presentation, the institution would present its position and respond to any questions the AAC might have. The AAC could also require that FDIC staff participate as the AAC deems appropriate.

Only matters previously reviewed at the division level would be subject to AAC review. Submission of new evidence not presented at the division level would be prohibited unless authorized by the AAC Chairperson. No discovery or other such rights would be created in the AAC process.

Like the SARC, the AAC has implicit authority to correct errors that may have occurred in the administrative process and to revise final decisions as necessary.

For the aforementioned reasons, the FDIC Board of Directors proposes the Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations be revised as set forth below. The Board's proposed Guidelines for Appeals of Deposit Insurance Assessment Determinations immediately follow the proposed revisions to the Guidelines for Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations.

On November 18, 2003, ADUFA (Public Law 108-130) was enacted. ADUFA amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and requires FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications, products, establishments, and sponsors. It also requires the agency to grant a waiver from or a reduction of fees in certain circumstances.

The purpose of the guidance document is to provide guidance on the types of fees FDA is authorized to collect and how to request waivers and reductions from FDA's animal drug user fees. It describes the types of fees and fee waivers and reductions, what information FDA recommends you submit in support of a request for a fee waiver or reduction, how to submit such a request, and FDA's process for reviewing requests.

FDA is making this guidance document immediately available because prior public participation was not feasible or appropriate. ADUFA's user fee provisions are already in effect, and it is essential for the agency to provide guidance on how to request fee waivers and reductions as quickly as possible. Although it was not feasible or appropriate to obtain comments before issuing the guidance, in accordance with this agency's procedures, FDA will accept comments on the guidance at any time.

FDA is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Guidance for Industry: Animal Drug User Fees and Fee Waivers and Reductions” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the emergency processing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA). According to the PRA, a collection of information should display a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0910-0540. It expires on September 30, 2004. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

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

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

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain this guidance from the CVM home page at http://www.fda.gov/cvm .

The Office of the National Ombudsman of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has asked each Federal agency to adopt a policy that the agency will not retaliate against small businesses that question or complain about the way the agency does business. On February 11, 2004, the head of our agency, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, approved the following statement of Coast Guard policy:

Small businesses generally are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. If you need help determining whether or not your business qualifies as a “small business”, contact the SBA's Office of the National Ombudsman using the information given in the preceding paragraph.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Therefore, in preparation for submission of clearance of the following information collection, TSA solicits comments in order to—

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

TSA plans to conduct a pilot technology program in 2004, in a limited number of airports, to test and evaluate the merits of the Registered Traveler (RT) concept. This pilot program (RT Pilot) is designed to positively identify qualified, known travelers via advanced identification technologies for the purposes of expediting those passengers' travel experience at the airport security checkpoints and thereby enabling TSA to improve the allocation of its limited security resources.

TSA will collect and retain a minimal amount of personal information from individuals who volunteer to participate in the RT Pilot that will be used to verify an applicant's claimed identity, complete a background check, and, if applicable, issue an identification token prior to enrollment in the program. In addition, TSA will administer two instruments to measure customer satisfaction and to collect data on the effectiveness of the pilot technologies and business processes. The first instrument will be a survey of a representative percentage of the RT Pilot participants. The second instrument will be an interview conducted with the key stakeholders at sites participating in the RT Pilot. All surveys and interviews will be voluntary and anonymous.

The collection of information from individuals who volunteer to participate in the RT Pilot will be gathered electronically. This not only fulfills the requirements of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, but it also facilitates the collection and processing of the data and provides an efficient means of retrieving credential information. Due to operational constraints and practical considerations, the RT customer service surveys and interviews will be conducted manually. RT surveys will be distributed at airports and the respondents may freely choose not to participate. The respondents who choose to participate in the surveys will be asked to return the completed survey in less than 30 days from the time of receipt; they may choose not to comply with this request. Key stakeholders involved in the RT Pilot will be asked to designate representative(s) to participate in short, individual interview sessions intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the RT Pilot from the stakeholders' perspective and to gather any additional feedback the stakeholder may wish to share. Stakeholders who choose to participate in the interview sessions will be asked to schedule an interview with TSA no later than 30 days after the completion of the RT Pilot. Interview sessions will be conducted on a one-on-one basis at mutually agreed upon locations. Stakeholders may choose not to participate in the interview sessions.

For the initial RT Pilot program volunteer enrollments, we expect a total of 5,000 respondents and, based on an estimate of a 10-minute burden per respondent, a maximum total burden program-wide of 833 hours. For the survey submissions, we expect a total of 750 respondents and, based on an estimate of a 15-minute burden per respondent, a maximum total burden program-wide of 187.5 hours. For the stakeholder interview sessions, we expect approximately 20 stakeholder representatives to participate and, based on an estimate of a 45-minute burden per interview, a maximum total burden of 15 hours.

I. Submission of Comments on This Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) Fax transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through OSHA Web page. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems there may by significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimized, collection instruments are understandable, and OSHA's estimate of the information-collection burden is correct.

Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “OSH Act”) (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health administration (“OSHA” or the “Agency”) to conduct directly, or through grants and contracts, education and training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the Act, provide them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working conditions.

Under section 21, the Agency awards grants to non-profit organizations to provide part of the required training. To obtain such as grant, an organization must complete the training grant application. OSHA uses the information in this application to evaluate: The organization's competence to provide the proposed training (including the qualifications of the personnel who manage and implement the training); the goals and objectives of the proposed training program; a workplan that describes in detail the tasks that the organization will implement to meet these goals and objectives; the appropriateness of the proposed costs; and compliance with Federal regulations governing nonprocurement debarment and suspension, maintaining a drug-free workplace, and lobbying activities. Also required is a program summary that Agency officials use to review and evaluate the highlights of the overall proposal.

After awarding a training grant, OSHA uses the workplan and budget information provided in the application to monitor the organization's progress in meeting training goals and objectives, as well as planned renewals at one-year intervals. An organization must submit separate applications for the initial award and for each renewal award.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA proposes to extend OMB's approval of the collection of information (paperwork) requirements specified in the Training Grant Application. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements.

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

Title: Training Grant Application.

OMB Number: 1218-0020.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 200.

Frequency: Annually.

Total Responses: 200.

Average Time Per Response: 59 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 11,050.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $398,327.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of material by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e., employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is correct.

Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “OSH Act”) (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or the “Agency”) to conduct directly, or through grants and contracts, education and training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the Act, provide them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and employees to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working conditions.

Under Section 21, OSHA awards training grants to nonprofit organizations to provide part of the required training. The Agency requires organizations that receive these grants to submit quarterly progress reports that provide information on their grant-funded training activities; these reports allow OSHA to monitor the grantee's performance and to determine if an organization is using grant funds as specified in its grant application. Accordingly, the Agency compares the information provided in the quarterly progress report to the quarterly milestones proposed by the organization in the workplan and budget that accompanied the grant application. This information includes: Identifier data (organization name and grant number); the date and location where the training occurred; the length of training (hours); the number of employees and employers attending training sessions provided by the organization during the quarter; a description of the training provided; a narrative account of the grant activities conducted during the quarter; and an evaluation of progress regarding planned versus actual work accomplished. This comparison permits OSHA to determine if the organization is meeting the proposed program goals and objectives, and spending funds in the manner described in the proposed budget.

Requiring these reports on a quarterly basis enables OSHA to identify workplan, training and expenditure discrepancies in a timely fashion so that it can implement appropriate action. In addition, this information permits the Agency to access an organization's ability to meet projected milestones and expenditures; this ability serves as one of the criteria used by the Agency in determining whether or not to renew the organization's training grant for subsequent years.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.

OSHA is proposing to extend the information-collection (paperwork) requirements specified in the Grantee Quarterly Progress Report. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary, along with the comments, in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information-collection requirements.

Title: Grantee Quarterly Progress Report.

OMB Number: 1218-0100.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 67.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Total Responses: 67.

Average Time Per Response: 12 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 3,216.

(Operations and Maintenance): $0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (N1-510-02-1, 7 items, 4 temporary items). Outputs and copies of electronic records associated with the Executive Secretariat Controlled Correspondence System. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of correspondence, master data files, and related documentation.

2. Department of Homeland Security, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (N1-563-04-9, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Voluntary submissions of Critical Infrastructure Information that does not meet the requirements for protection contained in Section 214 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Records are received in all media and formats.

3. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (N1-311-04-2, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing relating to agreements with foreign governments to exchange emergency management expertise. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for permanent retention.

4. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-04-1, 14 items, 14 temporary items). Subject files, acquisition plans, contract files, unsolicited proposal files, contract dispute files, reports, and policy files accumulated by the Office of Acquisitions. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

5. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-03-4, 18 items, 17 temporary items). Records of the Office of the Ombudsman relating to complaints made by air travelers and agency employees. Records include administrative files, subject files, field office reports, complaints, investigative case files, training materials, and promotional materials. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of records relating to substantive inquiries, investigations, and independent reviews.

6. Department of Justice, Justice Management Division (N1-60-04-3, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Contact information concerning former agency employees. Records may be maintained in paper or as electronic records.

7. Department of State, Bureau of Administration (N1-59-04-1, 12 items, 12 temporary items). Records relating to G-8 Summit planning, including such records as program files, reports, meeting minutes, and informational videos and web pages used to disseminate information about the summit. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail.

8. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (N1-318-04-1, 7 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to strategic planning and capital investment initiatives. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail or word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of records relating to the agency's five-year strategic plan, capital portfolio documents, and files relating to major capital investment projects.

9. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (N1-318-04-5, 15 items, 6 temporary items). Status reports and other facilitative records relating to testing currency products, counterfeit deterrence, and currency design. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of records relating to such matters as policy and research, counterfeit deterrence, and currency design.

10. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (N1-318-04-14, 11 items, 11 temporary items). Records of the Inventory and Materials Division relating to managing the use of materials and forecasting future material requirements for the production of currency and other products. Records include material requirement plans, requisitions, inventory records, and material testing files. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

11. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (N1-318-04-15, 17 items, 16 temporary items). Records of the Engineering and Maintenance Division relating to equipment and facility operations and maintenance, including electronic systems. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of drawings, plans, and related files pertaining to buildings owned by the agency.

12. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (N1-318-04-16, 22 items, 21 temporary items). Records of the Currency Standards Division relating to the mutilation of currency, including electronic tracking systems. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of the Currency Verification and Destruction Manual.

13. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Office of Labor Management Grants Administration (N1-280-04-01, 17 items, 17 temporary items). Records relating to agency grant programs, including case files, grant applications, contractual agreements, and grant contract dispute reviews. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

14. Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency-wide, (N1-142-03-4, 80 items, 80 temporary items). Paper and electronic records relating to environmental matters, including air quality, asbestos abatement, drinking water safety, the management of hazardous wastes, and oil spills. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

1. Date: April 2, 2004.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Humanities Projects in Museums and Historical Organizations, submitted to the Division of Public Programs at the February 3, 2004, deadline.

2. Date: April 8, 2004.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Special Projects, submitted to the Division of Public Programs at the February 3, 2004, deadline.

3. Date: April 19, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for College and University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

4. Date: April 20, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for School Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

5. Date: April 20, 2004.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for We the People Challenge Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the February 2, 2004, deadline.

6. Date: April 22, 2004.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review applications for We the People Challenge Grants, submitted to the Office of Challenge Grants at the February 2, 2004, deadline.

7. Date: April 22, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for School Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

8. Date: April 23, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for College and University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

9. Date: April 26, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for College and University Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

10. Date: April 27, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for School Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

11. Date: April 29, 2004.

Time: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Room: 315.

Program: This meeting will review applications for Summer Seminars and Institutes for School Teachers, submitted to the Division of Education Programs at the March 1, 2004, deadline.

On page 2743, near the bottom of the second column the notice starting with “Florida Power and Light,” and ending in the third column with “NRC Section Chief: Allen G. Howe,” should read as follows:

Date of amendment request: December 2, 2003.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to allow a reduction in the minimum reactor coolant system flow, corresponding to an increase in the steam generator tube plugging limit from 15 percent to 30 percent.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the SEC's Public Reference Branch.

1. Excelsior is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware and is a business development company as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act (“BDC”). Excelsior has an effective registration statement on Form N-2 on file with the SEC. The investment objective of Excelsior is to seek long-term capital appreciation by primarily investing in private domestic companies in which the equity is closely held by company founders, management or a limited number of institutional investors. Excelsior also intends to invest, to a lesser extent, in domestic and international venture capital, buyout and other private equity funds managed by third parties, negotiated private investments in public companies and foreign companies in which the equity is closely held by company founders, management or a limited number of institutional investors. The foregoing investments are referred to collectively herein as “Direct Investments.”

2. U.S. Trust Company, N.A. Asset Management Division is a separately identified division of U.S. Trust Company, N.A., a national bank organized under the laws of the United States. U.S. Trust Company, N.A. Asset Management Division serves as Excelsior's investment adviser pursuant to an investment advisory agreement with Excelsior. U.S. Trust—New York Fund Asset Management Division is a separately identified division of United States Trust Company of New York, a state chartered bank and trust company. U.S. Trust—New York Fund Asset Management Division serves as the investment sub-adviser to Excelsior pursuant to an investment sub-advisory agreement among the Investment Sub-Adviser, the Investment Adviser and Excelsior. U.S. Trust Company, N.A. and United States Trust Company of New York are wholly-owned subsidiaries of U.S. Trust Corporation, a registered bank holding company. U.S. Trust Corporation and its subsidiaries are referred to collectively herein as “U.S. Trust.”  1 Under the supervision of Excelsior's board of managers (the “Board of Managers”), the Investment Adviser and Investment Sub-Advisers are responsible for finding, evaluating, structuring and monitoring Excelsior's investments and for providing or arranging for management and administrative services for Excelsior. The Investment Adviser and the Investment Sub-Adviser are each registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act.

3. Pursuant to Excelsior's Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement (the “Operating Agreement”), the business and affairs of Excelsior are managed under the direction of its Board of Managers. The Board of Managers consists of four persons and, as required by Section 56(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, three of the managers are not “interested persons” of Excelsior within the meaning of Section 2(a)(19) of such Act.

4. Excelsior's members consist of individual and institutional investors and one registered investment company which functions as a feeder fund, Excelsior Venture Investors III, LLC (the “Feeder Fund”). Investors with accounts established at U.S. Trust hold approximately 92% of the units of membership interest in Excelsior and approximately 97% of the units in the Feeder Fund. Most other members of Excelsior and the Feeder Fund are investors with accounts at Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., a registered broker-dealer and an affiliate of U.S. Trust Corporation. Each member of Excelsior other than the Feeder Fund met certain requirements, including that such investor's net assets were valued at $1,000,000 or more, and that the amount subscribed for did not exceed 10% of such investor's net assets. The Feeder Fund holds approximately 63.48% of the net assets of Excelsior. Each member of the Feeder Fund met certain requirements, including that such investor's net assets were valued at $500,000 or more, and that the amount subscribed for did not exceed 10% of such investor's net assets.

5. The Operating Agreement provides that items of income, gain, loss, deduction and expense of Excelsior will be determined and allocated as of the end of each tax year (typically December 31) to reflect the economic interests of its members and the Investment Adviser. Capital gains are allocated first to the Investment Adviser until the cumulative amount of all gains allocated to the Investment Adviser from the commencement of operations equals the Incentive Carried Interest calculated through the end of the period for which the allocation is being made. 2 The Investment Adviser will distribute a portion of the Incentive Carried Interest to the Investment Sub-Adviser. All remaining items of income, gain, loss, deduction and expense are allocated to Excelsior members pro rata in accordance with their capital investments.

6. The Operating Agreement provides for the distribution of all cash and other property, including an in-kind distribution of securities, received by Excelsior that the Board of Managers does not expect to use in the operation of Excelsior's business. The Investment Adviser generally will be entitled to a distribution equal to the Incentive Carried Interest. Excelsior's members generally will be entitled to all amounts remaining for distribution pro rata in accordance with their capital investments.

7. The Operating Agreement provides that (i) Any property that is distributed in kind to one or more members shall be deemed to have been sold for cash equal to its fair market value, (ii) the unrealized gain or loss inherent in such property shall be treated as recognized gain or loss for purposes of determining profits and losses, (iii) such gain or loss shall be allocated pursuant to the Operating Agreement, and (iv) such in-kind distribution shall be made after giving effect to such allocation. To date, however, no in-kind distributions have been made by Excelsior.

8. Excelsior's Board of Managers will declare an in-kind distribution when it determines that such distribution is in the best interests of Excelsior and its members. Each member will be allocated securities distributed in kind in proportion to the member's ownership interest in Excelsior. Cash will be distributed in lieu of fractional share interests.

9. Securities distributed in kind by Excelsior in conjunction with this Application will be listed on a national securities exchange or on the NASDAQ Stock Market and will not be subject to legal or contractual restrictions on their resale. These securities will be valued at the average of the closing bid and ask price, or in the case of exchange traded securities the closing price, of the five days immediately preceding the distribution. Market liquidity will be an important factor in declaring distributions and Excelsior will not distribute securities at any one time in an amount that is more than 5% of the outstanding shares of an issuer. In those relatively infrequent situations when this restriction does not permit all of Excelsior's holdings of an issuer to be distributed at one time, Applicants will closely monitor the market prior to any subsequent distribution to assure that the prior distribution is no longer significantly impacting the price of the securities. Excelsior's Board of Managers will, in acting upon each proposed distribution, consider whether a distribution of cash proceeds from a sale of securities would be of greater benefit to its members, including the Feeder Fund, than a distribution of the securities in more than one distribution, as described above.

10. At the time Excelsior's Board of Managers declares an in-kind distribution, the Feeder Fund's Board of Managers will simultaneously declare an in-kind distribution having the same record date and distribution date to its members. From the securities allocated to the Feeder Fund, Feeder Fund members will be entitled to receive shares, and cash-in-lieu of fractional share interests, in proportion to their interests in the Feeder Fund. The Feeder Fund will notify Excelsior of the number of shares to be distributed and the amount of cash-in-lieu payments to be made to each Feeder Fund member and will instruct Excelsior to make a distribution directly to Feeder Fund members as of the distribution date. The Applicants will provide notice to Excelsior and Feeder Fund members of the in-kind distribution and will facilitate obtaining members' brokerage instructions or establishing a brokerage account for the receipt of the securities distributed in kind. Any cash-in-lieu payment for fractional securities will be made within five business days of the distribution date to all Excelsior members and Feeder Fund members.

1. Section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act prohibits any investment adviser, unless exempt from registration pursuant to section 203(b), from entering into a contract that provides for compensation based upon “a share of capital gains upon or capital appreciation of the funds or any portion of the funds of the client,” commonly referred to as a “performance fee.”

2. Section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act excepts from the performance fee prohibition of section 205(a)(1) a contract between an investment adviser and a BDC that provides for compensation not in excess of “20 per centum of the realized capital gains upon the funds of the [BDC] over a specified period or as of definite dates, computed net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation.” Applicants assert that section 205(b)(3) recognizes the appropriateness of a performance fee as compensation for advisers' activities in light of the special nature of BDCs.

3. Section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act, however, permits a performance fee only with respect to realized capital gains and does not contemplate the procedures set forth in the Operating Agreement whereby unrealized gains or losses will be deemed to be realized under certain conditions for purposes of calculating the Incentive Carried Interest. Excelsior's performance fee is prohibited by section 205(a)(1) and does not fall within the exception set out in section 205(b)(3).

4. Section 206A of the Advisers Act authorizes the SEC by order upon application to conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, or transactions, from any provision of the Advisers Act “if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of [the Advisers Act].”

5. Applicants request that the SEC grant an exemption from section 205(a)(1) of the Advisers Act to permit Excelsior to deem realized any unrealized gains or losses attributable to securities distributed in kind to its members for purposes of payment of the performance fee to the Investment Adviser and Investment Sub-Adviser.

6. Applicants assert that their exemption from section 205(a)(1) is consistent with the standards of section 206A regarding investor protection and the purposes of the Advisers Act. Applicants argue that Congress has already found it appropriate to permit a performance fee in the case of an investment adviser to a BDC. Applicants argue further that, to the extent that section 205(b)(3) of the Advisers Act requires such a fee to be based on net realized capital gains, Applicants' proposal is consistent with the statutory purposes. Once the in-kind distribution is made, Excelsior's members and the members of the Feeder Fund will have the exclusive ability to liquidate such investments and realize any gains or losses. Applicants also assert that there should be no concern over the proper valuation of the securities upon which the fee is based, because Applicants are requesting exemptive relief only with respect to in-kind distributions of securities for which a trading market exists on a national securities exchange or on the NASDAQ Stock Market.

7. Applicants state that they believe that it is in the best interests of the members of Excelsior and the members of the Feeder Fund, and in the public interest, for Excelsior to make in-kind distributions of securities. Applicants state that they believe that an in-kind distribution would enable Excelsior's members and the members of the Feeder Fund to maximize their investment. First, Applicants state that the alternative to an in-kind distribution is the sale of the securities and argue that such sales may have a negative effect on the price of the shares in the market. Second, Applicants represent that the securities to be distributed will be freely transferable and will not be subject to either legal or contractual restrictions on their sale. Moreover, Applicants represent that a distribution of securities will not constitute a taxable event with respect to Excelsior, its members, and members of the Feeder Fund, so that the members of Excelsior and the Feeder Fund will, in determining whether to hold or sell the securities, control the timing of realization of capital gains or losses. Finally, Applicants assert that as a venture capital fund, Excelsior and its advisers have not held themselves out as having experience with respect to publicly traded securities, and therefore its members do not lose any benefit of management expertise by receiving an in-kind distribution of securities.

Applicants agree that the order granting the requested relief shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The relief will only apply to the distribution in kind by Excelsior of securities that are traded on a national securities exchange or on the NASDAQ Stock Market and are subject to no legal or contractual restriction on their sale.

2. Securities distributed in kind pursuant to the relief will be valued at the average of the closing bid and asked price (or in the case of exchange-traded securities, the closing sale price) at which the relevant securities were quoted on the relevant exchange or system during the five trading days immediately preceding the distribution. Members will receive notice of the basis for the valuation at the time of or before distribution.

3. Excelsior agrees to use all reasonable endeavors to ensure that securities that are the subject of an in-kind distribution are transferred to its members as soon as practicable following their valuation in connection with the allocation of the Incentive Carried Interest, and in any event within 30 days thereof. 3 Distributions will be recommended by Applicants, and the Board of Managers of Excelsior will approve each distribution and establish its record date, which will also be the valuation date. Prior to an in-kind distribution, members who are not account holders at U.S. Trust will be requested to provide brokerage instructions or establish an account if necessary, and procedures will be followed to assure that members who respond on a timely basis will receive the portfolio securities promptly. Members that hold accounts at U.S. Trust will receive distributions within five (5) business days of the record date.

The public hearings concern the Commission's proposed Regulation NMS. As more fully described in the Proposing Release  1 (available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/34-49325.htm ), Regulation NMS would incorporate four substantive proposals that are designed to enhance and modernize the regulatory structure of the U.S. equity markets. First, the Commission has proposed a uniform rule for all national market system (“NMS”) market centers that, subject to certain exceptions, would require a market center to establish, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent “trade-throughs”—the execution of an order in its market at a price that is inferior to a price displayed in another market. Second, the Commission has proposed a market access rule that would modernize the terms of access to quotations and execution of orders in the NMS. The third proposal would prohibit market participants from accepting, ranking, or displaying orders, quotes, or indications of interest in a pricing increment finer than a penny, except for securities with a share price of below $1.00. Finally, the Commission has proposed amendments to the rules and joint industry plans for disseminating market information to the public that, among other things, would modify the formulas for allocating plan net income to reward markets for more broadly based contributions to public price discovery. The Commission also has proposed to redesignate the NMS rules adopted under Section 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Regulation NMS. The Commission will consider the hearing record in connection with its rulemaking proposals.

The Commission will publish a schedule of appearances for the April 1st hearing on or about March 26, 2004 and for the April 21st hearing on or about April 12, 2004. Based on the number of requests received, the Commission may not be able to accommodate all requests. The Commission may limit the time for formal presentations or group presentations into a series of panels. Time will be reserved for members of the Commission and Commission staff to pose questions to each witness concerning his or her testimony as well as other matters pertaining to the Proposing Release. The Commission has designated Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary of the Commission, as the hearing officer.

The FHWA, in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation, will prepare a supplement to the EIS on a proposal for a new river crossing, including the reconstruction of bridge approach roadways, on TH 36/STH 64 from TH 5 in Oak Park Heights, Washington County, Minnesota to approximately 150th Avenue on STH 35/64 in Houlton, St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Mn/DOT is the lead State agency.

The original EIS for the river crossing (FHWA-MN-EIS-90-92-F) was approved on April 5, 1995 with a Board of Decision issued on July 10, 1995. In 1996, the National Park Service issued an adverse effect finding for the project under section 7(a) of the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Therefore, resource agency permits were unable to be issued for the project.

In June 2003, discussion regarding scoping alternatives was reinitiated as part of a Stakeholder Resolution Process. The Stakeholder Group includes Federal, State and Local agencies, environmental groups, historic preservation groups, and other interested organizations. At the Stakeholder Group meetings, all alternatives previously studied, as well as new alternatives, were reconsidered. Through the Stakeholder Resolution Process, five alternatives were identified as having the best potential for meeting the project's transportation needs and environmental and historical impact concerns. A “2003 Amended Scoping Document and 2003 Amended Draft Scoping Decision Document” were released in November 2003. Public scoping meetings were held in December 2003. Based on public, agency and Stakeholder Group comments on the document, four alternatives, in addition to the No-Build alternative, have been identified for study in the supplemental Draft EIS. Therefore, the supplemental EIS will evaluate the social, economic, transportation an environmental impacts of alternatives, including: (1) No-Build, (2) Alternative B—construction of a new four-lane bridge (two through-traffic lanes in each direction) located approximately 6,500 feet south of the existing lift bridge (South Ravine Option), (3) Alternative C—construction of a new four-lane bridge (two through-traffic lanes in each direction) located approximately 3,900 feet south of the existing lift bridge, (4) Alternative D— construction of a new four-lane bridge (two through-traffic lanes in each direction) located approximately 700 feet south of the existing lift bridge on the Minnesota shore and meeting the Wisconsin bluff near the existing lift bridge crossing, and (5) Alternative E—construction of a new two-lane bridge (two through-traffic lanes for eastbound traffic) located approximately 500-700 feet south of the existing lift bridge on the Minnesota shore and meeting the Wisconsin bluff near the existing lift bridge crossing. The existing lift bridge would be used as a two-lane roadway for westbound traffic.

It is anticipated that the final “2003 Amended Scoping Decision Document” will be published in March 2004. Coordination has been initiated and will continue with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies and private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the proposed action. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the supplemental EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ALYAN is:

Intended Use: “Sailing charters with six or less passengers for recreation and or sailing instruction.”

Geographic Region: “New Jersey to Maine.”

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel BLACK TIE is:

Intended Use: “Occasional charters.”

Geographic Region: “US East Coast and New England.”

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel DOTSEA is:

Intended Use: “Lunch and/or Dinner Cruises.”

Geographic Region: “Eastern Coastal waters of the U.S. and U.S. Virgin Islands.”

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GENEVIEVE is:

Intended Use: “Private passenger cruises.”

Geographic Region: “Grand Traverse Bay and Northern Lake Michigan.”

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel LOOKFAR is:

Intended Use: “Sailing charters in uninspected vessel.”

Geographic Region: “Gulf of Mexico.”

As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel VIAGGIO is:

Intended Use: “Term charters for cruising.”

Geographic Region: “The Great Lakes and the East Coast of the United States from Maine to Florida.”

The technical report evaluates changes made by vehicle manufacturers to light trucks (pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles), which were required to meet a crush resistance standard for side doors beginning September 1, 1993. Data from calendar years 1989 through 2001 of the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) were used. Effectiveness was determined by comparing changes in the number of fatalities in side impacts relative to those in frontal impacts.

The effectiveness of side door beams for front outboard occupants was estimated to be 19 percent in all single vehicle side impacts, which would result in the saving of 151 lives in those type crashes if all light trucks were equipped with the side beams. Looking at single vehicle nearside impacts only, the effectiveness of the beams was estimated to be 25 percent. Little or no effectiveness was found in multi-vehicle crashes.

Results were consistent with those found for passenger cars in a 1982 NHTSA study, An Evaluation of Side Structure Improvements in Response to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 214 (DOT HS 806 314, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/806314.html), (47 FR 54839).

NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report and invites reviewers to submit comments about the data and the statistical methods used in the analyses. NHTSA will submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate, additional analyses that supplement or revise the technical report.

Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number of this document (NHTSA-2004-17224) in your comments.

Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management, submit them electronically, fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. If you submit your comments electronically, log onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov and click on “Help” to obtain instructions. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Marie C. Walz, Evaluation Division, NPO-321, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5208, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 (alternatively, FAX to 202-366-2559 or e-mail to mwalz@nhtsa.dot.gov ). She can check if your comments have been received at the Docket and she can expedite their review by NHTSA.

If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NCC-01, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or submit them electronically.

In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.

Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

You may read the comments by visiting Docket Management in person at Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.

You may also see the comments on the Internet by taking the following steps:

A. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation ( http://dms.dot.gov) .

B. On that page, click on “Simple Search.”

C. On the next page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm/ ) type in the five-digit Docket number shown at the beginning of this Notice (17224). Click on “Search.”

D. On the next page, which contains Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may also download the comments.

Title: Treasury International Capital Form D, Report of Holdings of, and Transactions in, Financial Derivatives Contracts with Foreign Residents.

OMB Control Number: NEW.

Abstract: Form D will be part of the Treasury International Capital (TIC) reporting system, which is required by law (22 U.S.C. 286f; 22 U.S.C. 3103; E.O. 10033; 31 CFR part 128) for the purpose of providing timely information on international capital movements other than direct investment by U.S. persons. Form D is a quarterly report used to cover holdings and transactions in derivatives contracts undertaken between foreign resident counterparties and major U.S.-resident participants in derivatives markets. This information is necessary for compiling the U.S. balance of payments and international investment position accounts, and for formulating U.S. international financial and monetary policies.

Current Actions: (a) All derivatives contracts with foreign residents that meet the FASB Statement Nos. 133 and 149 (FAS 133 and 149) definition of a derivatives contract are to be reported on Form D. (b) Form D has three columns. The first column reports the aggregate total fair value at the end of each calendar quarter of all reportable derivatives contracts with a positive fair value. The second column reports the aggregate total fair value at the end of each calendar quarter of all reportable derivatives contracts with a negative fair value. The third column reports the net of all cash receipts (+) and payments (−) during that same reporting quarter for the acquisition, sale, or final closeout of derivatives, including all settlement payments under the terms of derivatives contracts. (c) In part 1 of the form, the grand totals of the three columns described in (b) are divided between over-the-counter (OTC) contracts and exchange-traded contracts. (d) In part 1 of the form, the OTC contracts are broken down into three categories: Single-Currency Interest Rate Contracts, Foreign Exchange Contracts, and Other Contracts. In addition, the interest rate and foreign exchange contract categories each are further broken down into three categories: Forwards, Swaps and Options. (e) In part 1 of the form, the exchange-traded contracts are broken down into three categories: Own Contracts on Foreign Exchanges, U.S. Customers' Derivatives Contracts on Foreign Exchanges, and Foreign Counterparties' Derivatives Contracts on U.S. Exchanges. (f) In part 1 of the form, three memorandum rows report information on contracts with own foreign offices, contracts with foreign official institutions (FOI), and contracts of U.S. depository institutions with foreigners. However, while the first two columns of fair values are required for all three of these rows, the third column of net settlements is only required for the FOI row. (g) In part 2 of the form, the grand totals of the three columns in part 1 each are broken down by the country of residence of the direct foreign counterparty to the contracts. (h) The reporting panel is expected to consist of all U.S.-resident participants in derivatives markets, where each reporter holds derivatives having a total notional value in excess of $100 billion, measured on a consolidated-worldwide accounting basis. The worldwide total includes all derivatives contracts with both U.S. and foreign residents, and all contracts in the accounts of both the reporter and the reporter's customers. (i) Once the exemption level of $100 billion is exceeded, a reporter must submit reports for that quarter and each of the remaining quarters in the current calendar year. (j) In order to reduce the reporting burden associated with implementing this information collection, these mandatory reporting requirements will be phased in over a period of 3 quarters. In phase 1, reporting will begin for all fair value positions in the first two columns, and net settlements for only OTC foreign exchange contracts. This phase will be effective beginning with the March 2005 reporting date, which covers the first quarter of 2005. In phase 2, reporting will begin for net settlements data for all exchange-traded contracts and will be effective beginning with the June 2005 report date, which covers the second quarter of 2005. In the final phase, reporting will begin for all of the remaining net settlements data (OTC Interest Rate Contracts, other OTC contracts, contracts with FOIs, and the country breakout in part 2 of the form). This Phase will be implemented beginning with the September 2005 report date, which covers the third quarter of 2005.

Type of Review: NEW.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit organizations. Form D (NEW).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 40.

Estimated Average Time per Respondent: Thirty (30) hours per respondent per filing, effective with the report as of September 2005 when mandatory reporting is fully implemented.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,800 hours, based on 4 reporting periods per year.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. The public is invited to submit written comments concerning: (a) whether Form D is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Office, including whether the information will have practical uses; (b) the accuracy of the above estimate of the burdens; (c) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the reporting and/or record keeping burdens on respondents, including the use of information technologies to automate the collection of the data; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs of operation, maintenance and purchase of services to provide information.

Title: Request for Extension of Time To File Information Returns.

OMB Number: 1545-1081.

Form Number: Form 8809.

Abstract: Form 8809 is used to request an extension of time to file Forms W-2, W-2G, 1042-S, 1098, 1099, 5498, or 8027. The IRS reviews the information contained on the form to determine whether an extension should be granted.

Current Actions: There are no changes being made to the form at this time.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals, not-for-profit institutions, farms, and Federal, State, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 3 hours, 15 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 162,500.

The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the 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 of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.