The Federal Government's intellectual property rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public interest to so license this invention as Southern States Cooperative, Inc. has submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within ninety (90) days from the date of this published Notice, the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Title: Request for Aerial Photography.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0176.

Expiration Date: March 31, 2005.

Type of Request: Revision and extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The information collected under OMB Control Number 0560-0176, as identified above, is needed to enable the Department of Agriculture to effectively administrate the Aerial Photography Program. APFO has the authority to coordinate aerial photography and remote sensing programs and the aerial photography flying contract programs. The film secured by FSA is public domain and reproductions are available at cost to any customer with a need. All receipts from the sale of aerial photography products and services are retained by FSA. The FSA-441, Request for Aerial Imagery, is the form FSA supplies to its customers for placing an order for aerial photography products and services.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 3.3 hours per response.

Respondents: Farmers, ranchers and other USDA customers who wish to purchase photography products and services.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 12,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 8,000 hours.

Proposed topics for comment include: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information from those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503, and to Kenneth Koehler at the address listed above.

All comments will become a matter of public record.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA determines whether new animal drugs proposed for use in food producing animals are safe for those animals, and establishes tolerances for residues of such drugs that remain in the edible tissues of treated animals. The term “new animal drug” is defined in FDA's regulation in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 510.3(g). For new animal drugs approved prior to 1976, FDA established residue tolerances for each edible tissue of food producing animals. Since 1976, however, FDA has been establishing tolerances for new animal drugs using a marker residue. In a guideline published by FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM), “General Principles for Evaluating the Safety of Compounds Used in Food-Producing Animals” (CVM Guideline #3, http://www.fda.gov/cvm/guidance/guideline3toc.html ), the term “marker residue” is defined as the residue selected for assay whose concentration is in a known relationship to the total residue of toxicological concern in the last tissue to deplete to its permitted concentration.

Marker residues serve as sentinels for levels of residues of toxicological concern associated with a drug (parent and metabolites) in edible tissues of a food producing animal. In more general terms, a marker residue is the residue that reflects the depletion of animal drug residues in edible tissues. A target tissue (typically the liver or kidney or, more rarely, the muscle or fat) is the edible tissue from which residues deplete most slowly, and the tissue used for regulatory surveillance. When the concentration of the marker residue in the target tissue is equal to or less than the target tissue tolerance, the residue concentration reached in each edible tissue will be at a safe concentration.

If FSIS inspection personnel identify an animal as suspect for any condition where animal drug misuse is possible, and a suitable in-plant test is available, an initial screen test is performed at the federal establishment to determine whether the animal drug is present. If the screen test is positive, the target tissue of the animal is analyzed in a FSIS laboratory to verify that the drug is present, as well as to quantify the amount of the drug that is present. If the target tissue contains violative levels of the animal drug, FSIS tests the muscle tissue of the animal to determine whether it also contains a violative residue level. If the target tissue is found to contain a violative residue level, but the muscle tissue is not found to contain a violative residue level, FSIS condemns only the target tissue and releases the muscle tissue for human consumption. Likewise, if the target tissue does not contain violative levels of residue, but the muscle tissue does, only the muscle tissue is condemned.

On August 6, 2001, FSIS issued a Federal Register notice (66 FR 40964) that announced its intent to harmonize its procedures with those of FDA with respect to applying FDA's target tissue/marker residue policy regarding the testing of meat carcasses for residues of new animal drugs and disposition of tissues thereafter. In the notice, FSIS stated that it had reviewed its approach regarding the testing of meat carcasses for new animal drug residues and the disposition of meat carcasses containing violative residues and had determined that it was not consistent with FDA's approach. FSIS is now implementing the approach discussed in its August 2001 notice.

For the new animal drugs for which FDA has established a marker residue tolerance in a specific target tissue without also establishing a tolerance for a residue in muscle tissue or an official analytical method for muscle residues, FSIS will only test the target tissue that is identified in FDA's regulations (21 CFR Part 556 Subpart B—Specific Tolerances for Residues of New Animal Drugs). If the residue concentration in the target tissue exceeds the FDA's established tolerance, FSIS will consider the entire carcass to be adulterated, and condemn it, and not allow it to be distributed for human food purposes. If, however, FDA has established an animal drug residue tolerance in muscle tissue and an official analytical method for detecting muscle residues, FSIS will test the muscle tissue using the official analytical method to determine whether the concentration of residue in the muscle is at or below the established muscle tolerance. If the residue concentration in the muscle does not exceed the tolerance, FSIS will release the muscle tissue and allow it to be distributed in commerce for human consumption.

For the new animal drugs where tolerances have been established for all edible tissues, but for which a target tissue has not been identified, FSIS will continue to collect and monitor multiple edible tissues and allow those that have animal drug residue levels equal to or less than the established tolerances to be distributed in commerce for human consumption.

FSIS received several comments about the intended change that it announced on August 6, 2001. FSIS has carefully considered the comments and is now responding to them.

Several commenters asked whether the intended change had a scientific rationale. They stated that it was important that the change be based on public health concerns, and that FSIS not discard safe tissues or place unnecessary burdens on producers and processors. Others stated that the change would not enhance public health.

FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has the primary responsibility for establishing and codifying tolerances for new animal drugs. In establishing tolerances, FDA relies on human food safety studies, including analysis of toxicological, total residue depletion, and metabolic data submitted by individual new animal drug sponsors. In a letter from the Office of New Animal Drug Evaluation (NADE), Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM states that a tolerance represents the concentration of an indicator (marker residue) of the total residues in all edible tissue below which FDA has a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to a consumer through daily exposure to the residues in food over a lifetime. Thus, all of the animal drug tolerances established in 21 CFR part 556 are based on human safety considerations. When the tolerance in the target tissue is exceeded, FDA considers the entire carcass to be adulterated because the residue in the target tissue is imputed to the rest of the animal. 1

FSIS does not establish animal drug tolerances. However, it does have authority over a food animal once it is presented for slaughter at an official federal establishment. FSIS conducts ante-mortem inspections of animals. The ante-mortem inspections screen for visible diseases and pathological conditions in an animal that could pose a public health risk if the meat from the animal entered the food supply. FSIS also conducts post-mortem inspection of animals. On post-mortem inspection, FSIS inspectors check an animal carcass for indications of animal drug use, including examining the carcass for injection sites, septicemia, endocarditis, mastitis, pneumonia, or other conditions that may indicate the animal was medicated. If such conditions are identified, the carcass and parts of the animal are retained, and appropriate tissue samples are submitted to a FSIS Food Service Laboratory for further testing. FSIS believes that these procedures, and the modifications it is now implementing, will ensure that meat containing unsafe levels of chemical residues are not being released into commerce.

Many commenters asked why FSIS does not use the “maximum residue limit” (MRL) established by CODEX for the drugs that do not have established tolerances for muscle tissue. They stated that FSIS should harmonize its procedures with CODEX.

FDA has the authority to regulate veterinary drugs and to establish and codify animal drug tolerance levels. FDA has determined that its method for establishing tolerance levels for muscle tissue is more reflective of consumption patterns in the U.S. than the MRLs established by CODEX. FSIS does not establish or codify animal drug tolerance levels. FSIS enforces the tolerances established by FDA and relies upon FDA's determination of what are appropriate tolerance levels.

One commenter stated that it is important that FSIS develop beef muscle residue testing methods since the European Union is requiring testing of beef for violative residues before entry into the European beef market.

FSIS does not itself develop residue testing methods. The Agency does not believe that it needs to develop them itself since there are validated methods available for its use. The tests for beef muscle residues that are used by FSIS are based on the testing methods developed by drug sponsors as part of the FDA approval process. These methods are used for tissue residue determinations once the FDA method trial has validated their use for this purpose.

A commenter stated that imported beef should be subjected to a limited amount of residue testing to verify that the beef is free of violative residues.

Through its National Residue Program (NRP), FSIS tests meat and poultry products imported into the United States for violative residues. In addition, every country that exports meat or poultry to the United States is required to have a residue control program that is equivalent to that of the United States. This program needs to include laws and regulations that control the use of animal drugs, pesticides, and environmental contaminants and an organizational structure to implement those requirements; a residue sampling and testing program equivalent to the United States' residue program (the National Residue Program); and the ability to take enforcement actions when residue violations are detected.

A few commenters suggested that muscle tissue should be tested to see if it contains residues that exceed the science-based standards set by FDA. They argued that if the muscle tissue is not tested, or if FDA has not established an official analytical method for testing, a “blanket” condemnation of carcasses could occur.

Muscle tissue will be tested if there is an FDA established tolerance for muscle tissue and an analytical method for detection established by FDA. If not, action on the carcass will be based on the marker residue findings in the target tissue. Carcasses will be condemned only if the residue in the target tissue exceeds the applicable tolerance. This is an appropriate outcome because if a violative animal drug residue level is found in a target tissue for a drug for which there is no muscle tolerance established, FSIS cannot determine that the carcass is not adulterated.

FSIS does not believe that its approach will result in a blanket condemnation of carcasses. FSIS has reviewed the potential impact of its modified testing approach and has concluded that the percentage of carcass condemnation as a result of this change will be only 2% (see economic review). Additionally, there are only seven commonly used veterinary drugs that do not have established muscle tolerances or an analytical method for detection.

One commenter stated that FSIS' current procedure of testing muscle tissue meets FSIS statutory obligations.

FSIS has tried to maintain an equitable residue program. While the Agency considered its approach appropriate, the Agency has now determined that the better, more scientific approach is to harmonize its residue policy procedures with those of FDA with respect to target tissue/marker residues.

One commenter expressed concerns about the downstream discovery of residues after slaughter and the lack of responsibility and traceback.

In a November 28, 2000, Federal Register notice (65 FR 70809), FSIS discussed meetings that it had held with a coalition of industry members, trade associations, and other interested parties to discuss concerns related to residue violations and laboratory reporting procedures. As a result of those meetings and FSIS' response, several slaughter establishments indicated that they would begin to explore how to effectively institute the best preventive practices available to slaughterers. These included ensuring, through the use of a receiving critical control point in their HACCP Plans, that all animals brought into an establishment for slaughter were identified so they would be traced back to the producer; notifying animal producers in writing of violative levels of residue findings, making clear the issues involved, the purchaser's expectations, and the fact that repeat violators would not be future suppliers; exploring the possibility of establishing state-certified, and possibly USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service-verified, voluntary residue avoidance programs comparable to those developed by major producer trade organizations, and requiring suppliers to participate in such programs and to supply certifications to that effect; and exploring the possibility of live animal testing. FSIS believes that adoption of these types of practices by packers will facilitate accountability and traceback.

Two commenters suggested that if a tolerance and analytical methodology for muscle have been developed for one species, it should be used for other species when there are no tolerances or detection methods developed for them.

Tolerance levels are derived from an evaluation of residue and metabolism studies for each species for which data are provided to FDA. Because there are significant differences among species, applying a tolerance level established for one species to another species without metabolic studies would be inappropriate.

One commenter suggested that it is premature to change existing rules until other tasks have been completed.

FSIS is not changing any rules in this proceeding. Rather, it is announcing a change in how it will determine whether a product is not adulterated and thus eligible to bear the mark of inspection.

One commenter asked whether FSIS will issue a directive or provide additional training to all inspectors.

FSIS will issue a new directive to its inspectors that clearly explains this procedural change and their responsibilities.

Two commenters requested that the procedural change be implemented at a later time. One argued that it needed sufficient time to discuss the feasibility of muscle tolerances for certain compounds with a pharmaceutical company and FDA. Another stated that there is a lack of a strategy within FDA for establishing tolerances for drugs for which muscle tolerances are currently not established.

In the August 6, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 40964; confirmed 68 FR 540 (1/6/03)), FSIS asked for comments on its intent to change its current procedures to be consistent with FDA's marker residue/target tissue policy for new animal drugs. In a November 8, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 FR 56533), FSIS reopened the comment period on this issue for an additional thirty days. More than two years have passed since FSIS published its initial notice. FSIS believes that it has allowed adequate time for comments on, and consideration of, this change. Therefore, FSIS will begin operating in accordance with the marker residue/target tissue policy on June 7, 2004.

One commenter stated that FSIS' changed approach does not give producers an incentive to stop inappropriately administering veterinary drugs, while it continues to punish the packer. Another commenter stated that packers do not have the option of buying food animals that have been pre-screened for veterinary drugs.

On August 6, 2001, FSIS published “Residue Testing Procedures; Response to Comments” (66 FR 40965), which announced its policy effective as of September 5, 2001, on repeat chemical residue violators and announced the public availability of the list of repeat violators on the Agency's Web site ( http://www.fsis.usda.gov ). This list will enable slaughter establishments to incorporate into their purchasing practices control measures that are designed to decrease the likelihood of purchasing animals from producers and sellers that violate the Federal law by inappropriately administering veterinary drugs.

FSIS received a comment from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that raised four specific concerns. First, SBA asserted that FSIS' August 6, 2001, residue policy notice (66 FR 40964) did not simply announce a change in FSIS' procedures but in fact was a rulemaking action that FSIS needed to publish in the Federal Register and give interested persons an opportunity to comment upon, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Second, SBA stated that FSIS had to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and certify, as well as provide a factual basis for the certification, that the procedural changes would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Third, based on their calculations, SBA contended that FSIS” intended action had a potential to be economically significant under Executive Order 12866, and that FSIS needed to prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis. Lastly, SBA stated that it believed FSIS should suspend the August 6, 2001, notice and republish it as a proposed rule.

FSIS does not agree with any of SBA's statements. The action announced in the August 6, 2001, Federal Register notice is not a rulemaking. It does not impose any regulatory requirements on industry. FSIS' residue policy notice simply provides information on the procedures the Agency will use to ensure that meat establishments do not distribute meat containing unsafe levels of animal drug residues. Thus, there is no reason for FSIS to republish its August 6, 2001, notice as a proposed rule. Further, although not required, FSIS has, in fact, employed a notice and comment procedure in adopting its residue policy. The policy was not implemented when it was announced in August of 2001. Rather, at that time, the Agency simply announced how it intended to proceed. It is only now after FSIS solicited, received, and has responded to comments that the announced policy is being implemented. In regard to SBA's RFA and E.O. 12866 concerns about the economic impact of the procedural changes FSIS is implementing, FSIS does not expect its action will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or will be economically significant.

Of the veterinary drugs commonly used in swine and cattle there are only seven for which the FDA has established a marker residue tolerance in a specific target tissue without also establishing a tolerance for the residue of the drug in the muscle tissue or an analytical method for detecting muscle animal drug residues. These seven drugs are: apramycin, carbadox, fenbendazole, melengestrol acetate, morantel tartrate, oxfendazole, and tiamulin. Four of these are ones that the FDA has established and codified tolerances for the liver; two are ones for which the FDA has established and codified tolerances for the kidney; and one is one for which the FDA has established and codified tolerances for fat (See Tables 1 and 2).

A limited number of individual copies of the Draft or Final SEIS may also be obtained by contacting Jerry Hubbard. Copies are also available for inspection at public libraries and Forest Service or BLM offices in western Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California.

Three alternatives, including no action, were considered in detail in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). The decision in the ROD selects Alternative 2, which would remove the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure. The additional mitigation that was identified in the Final SEIS for Alternative 2 is not selected. This decision amends the management direction in all 28 Forest Service land and resource management plans and BLM resource management plans in the Northwest Forest Plan area as well as for the Coquille Forest (managed by the Coquille Tribe).

Readers should note that the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and the Environment and the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management are the responsible officials for this proposed action. Therefore, no administrative review (“appeal”) through the Forest Service will be available on the Record of Decision under 36 CFR part 217 and no administrative review (“protest”) through the BLM was available on the Proposed Decision under 43 CFR 1610.5-2.

Agenda topics include review and approval of project proposals, and an open public forum. The meeting is open to the public.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each service will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

On March 12, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (69 FR 11833) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions and deletion on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

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

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for additions and deletion to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

On March 19, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (69 F.R.13019) of a proposed deletion to the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

1. The action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service deleted from the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is deleted from the Procurement List:

On August 11, 1995, the Department published the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods from Argentina. See Antidumping Duty Order: Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , 60 FR 41055 (August 11, 1995). On September 2, 2003, United States Steel Corporation (petitioner) requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of sales of the subject merchandise made by Siderca.

On September 30, 2003, the Department initiated the administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review , 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 2003).

On September 30, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping duty questionnaire to Siderca. In response, Siderca stated in an October 22, 2003 submission that it had no consumption entries of subject merchandise during the POR, and requested that the Department rescind the review with respect to Siderca.

On March 11, 2004 the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Siderca. In our March 11, 2004 supplemental questionnaire the Department attached a list of shipments of OCTG from Argentina that entered the United States during the POR that the Department had reason to believe had been manufactured by Siderca or its affiliates. We obtained this list by doing an IM-115 run of entries recorded by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. We asked Siderca to explain why it believed these entries were not subject to this administrative review. Siderca submitted its response on March 22, 2004. Siderca explained that all of the entries were merchandise that were either no longer covered under the antidumping duty order or were not entries for consumption. Siderca submitted supporting documentation along with its explanation. We asked interested parties to submit any comments by April 23, 2004. We received no comments.

The POR is August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2003.

Oil country tubular goods (OCTG) are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products).

This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium. Drill pipe was excluded from this order beginning August 11, 2001. See Continuation of Countervailing and Antidumping Duty Orders on Oil Country Tubular Goods From Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico, and Partial Revocation of Those Orders From Argentina and Mexico With Respect to Drill Pipe , 66 FR 38630 (July 25, 2001).

The OCTG subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50.

The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. Our written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

On October 22, 2003, Siderca informed the Department that it did not ship OCTG to the United States during the POR, and requested rescission of the administrative review. Furthermore, in response to a subsequent inquiry from the Department, Siderca presented documentation demonstrating that none of the sales the Department had identified as manufactured by Siderca or its affiliates and entered into U.S. Customs territory during the POR were subject to the order. Based upon Siderca's explanation and the evidence on the record, we are satisfied that Siderca has not made any consumption entries, exports, or sales of subject merchandise during the POR. Accordingly, we are rescinding the review.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. Since the evidence shows that there were no entries of OCTG made by Siderca during the POR, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On January 2, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of a sunset review of the antidumping finding on Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). 1 On January 16, 2004, the Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate on behalf of American Spring Wire Corporation, Insteel Wire Products Company and Sumiden Wire Products Corporation (collectively, “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as U.S. producers of a domestic like product. We received a complete substantive response in the sunset review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in the Department's regulations under section 351.218(d)(3)(i).

We did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party to this proceeding. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C) of the Department's regulations, the Department conducted an expedited, 120-day review of this finding.

The products covered in this sunset review are shipments of steel wire strand, other than alloy steel, not galvanized, which are stress-relieved and suitable for use in prestressed concrete. Such merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item number 7312.10.30.12. The HTS item number is provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in this case by the domestic interested parties are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated May 3, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the finding was to be revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in room B-099, Central Records Unit of the Department.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn , under the heading “May 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the antidumping finding on Prestressed Concrete Wire Strand from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following percentage weighted-average margins:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

A meeting of the Exporters' Textile Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004. The meeting will be from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. in Training Room A, Trade Information Center, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20229.

The Committee provides advice and guidance to Department officials on the identification and surmounting of barriers to the expansion of textile exports, and on methods of encouraging textile firms to participate in export expansion.

The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

The meeting will be open to the public with a limited number of seats available. For further information or copies of the minutes, contact Rachel Alarid, telephone: (202) 482-5154.

Healthcare Technologies Trade Mission, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Slovak Republic, September 13-17, 2004.

The United States Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, U.S. Commercial Service, Office of Export Promotion Services, is organizing a Healthcare Technologies Trade Mission to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and the Slovak Republic, September 13-17, 2004. The Trade Mission will target a broad range of sectors within the healthcare industry. The focus of the delegation will be to match participating U.S. companies with qualified agents, distributors, representatives, licensees, and joint venture partners in these markets, which are all slated to become European Union (E.U.) member countries in May 2004.

The Czech Republic's medical devices market was valued at U.S. $450 million in 2002. Domestic production accounts for only 35 percent, providing excellent opportunities for U.S. exporters of medical products. Germany accounts for 25 percent of the medical products imported into the Czech Republic, followed by the United States, which claims a 17 percent share. Syringes, needles, catheters, electrical diagnostic equipment, x-ray equipment, irradiators, and orthopedic aids account for the largest volume of medical products exported to the Czech Republic. Best current sales prospects include computer-processed visual systems, laser equipment, retinal tomography technology, defibrillators, implants, medicine infusion pumps, mammogram systems, endoscopes and laparoscopes, although there is demand in the Czech Republic for an even wider range of medical products.

The home healthcare sector has been growing since its introduction to the Czech Republic in 1991 to reduce the demand for hospitalization and improve the quality of life of patients, usually the elderly. Further expansion of home healthcare is inevitable, given the high costs of hospital healthcare delivery and the shortage of financial resources in the Czech healthcare system. Since the Czech home healthcare sector is still in its infancy, there is potential for U.S. firms, especially those offering a wide variety of home care products, high-quality mobility equipment and other high demand products, including thermometers, blood pressure monitors, stethoscopes, glucometers, and aids for daily living.

The Hungarian medical market, estimated at U.S. $200 million, is very competitive and is dominated by imports, with about 85-90 percent of the market comprised of foreign products. U.S. medical products account for approximately 10-15 percent of this market and are very well received in Hungary due to their high quality. The Hungarian medical market is expected to grow five percent annually for the next three years. There are few barriers to entry for medical products into Hungary.

Currently most purchases are by publicly owned institutions, but Hungary's new health care privatization law is designed to create more public-private healthcare facilities. Privatization of health services has proceeded most rapidly in the delivery of healthcare services by family physicians, and in the pharmaceutical and dentistry areas. Private sector development has moved relatively quickly for ambulatory and diagnostic imaging services, and has been negligible for outpatient and in-hospital care (areas where both costs and reimbursement mechanisms have thus far remained largely within the public sector). In 2001 about 20 percent of the total expenditures of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) went to private service providers.

Medical products are marketed in Hungary through authorized distributors. Major foreign companies have their own offices while others operate through local distributors. Most distributors handle several brands of the same type of equipment and/or several lines of medical equipment. There are small firms, however, that represent only one or two foreign companies. Pricing is a key factor in selling a medical product in Hungary, as the market is very price sensitive. When purchasing medical equipment, customers also look for established companies with reliable after-sales service and customer support.

Hospitals and other health care providers usually buy equipment directly from distributors.

In 2003 The Slovak Republic, more commonly known as Slovakia, imported U.S. $135 million of medical/healthcare products and equipment, an eight percent increase from 2002. This trend, combined with a $69 million World Bank loan for modernization of the Slovak medical sector, provides increased opportunities for U.S. medical/healthcare exporters.

The Slovak health care system consists of the National Health Service, including 141 home healthcare agencies and a large number of private medical facilities. The home healthcare sector in Slovakia was launched in 1996 and has been growing by 28 percent on an annual basis. Since home healthcare agencies in Slovakia provide better quality care and more comfort to patients at only a slightly higher cost than hospital-based care, and since healthcare delivery from theses agencies is also partially covered by health insurance, the Slovakian home healthcare sector is expected to continue growing. This trend bodes well for U.S. firms offering home care products, including general hygiene products and aids for daily living.

In Slovakia, medical products are sold through sales representatives or through distributors. There are local distributors who represent only one or two foreign companies, but usually they market several brands of the same type of medical equipment/devices. Price, service, training and overall customer support are factors that are considered by Slovak consumers of medical products and services, with cost competitiveness and after-sales service being the key factors.

The Trade Mission's goal is to gain first-hand market information and provide access to key government officials and potential business partners for new-to-market, and/or new-to-export U.S. healthcare firms desiring to enter these three promising markets.

The trade mission will spend two days in Prague, one day in Bratislava, and two days in Budapest. At each stop, the U.S. Commercial Service will:

• Provide a market briefing highlighting opportunities in the healthcare technologies sector;

• Schedule one-on-one appointments with potential business partners for each participant;

• Arrange hospitality events to introduce participants to key business and industry officials (with the possible exception of Bratislava, the spin-off stop).

Sunday, September 12: Arrive in Prague, Czech Republic.

Monday, September 13: Market Breakfast Briefing in Prague; Trade Mission Meetings; Evening Reception.

Tuesday, September 14: Trade Mission Meetings in Prague; For companies participating in the spin-off to Slovakia, depart Prague for Bratislava by train.

Wednesday, September 15: Market Breakfast Briefing in Bratislava; Trade Mission Meetings in Bratislava; Depart Bratislava for Budapest. Companies not participating in the spin-off to Bratislava can schedule their time as they wish but will be requested to arrive in Budapest by Wednesday evening.

Thursday, September 16: Market Breakfast Briefing in Budapest; Trade Mission Meetings in Budapest; Evening Reception.

Friday, September 17: Trade Mission Meetings in Budapest; Conclusion of Trade Mission.

• Relevance of the company's business line to the mission scope and goals.

• Potential for business in the selected markets.

• Timeliness of the company's completed application, participation agreement, and payment of the mission participation fee.

• Provision of adequate information on the company's products and/or services and communication of the company's primary objectives to facilitate appropriate matching with potential business partners.

• Certification that the company's products and/or services are manufactured or produced in the United States or if manufactured/produced outside of the United States, the product/service must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service.

The mission will be promoted through the following venues: Export Assistance Centers and the healthcare team; industry newsletters; the Federal Register ; relevant trade publications; relevant trade associations; past Commerce trade mission participants; various in-house and purchased industry lists, and on the Commerce Department trade missions calendar— http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html.

Any partisan political activities of an applicant, including political contributions, will be entirely irrelevant to the selection process. The trade mission participation fee will be $2,500 for The Czech Republic and Hungary, and $500 for the optional spin-off to Slovakia. Participation fee does not include the cost of travel and lodging. Participation is open to the first 10 qualified U.S. companies. Recruitment will begin immediately and will close on June 30, 2004. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit.

Contact Information: Bill Kutson, Project Manager, U.S. Commercial Service, Export Promotion Services, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2117, Washington, DC 20230. Tel: (202) 482-2839; fax: (202) 482-2718; e-mail: William.Kutson@mail.doc.gov.

The Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA), of the International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce (USDOC), will sponsor a trade mission to Jordan for technical, industrial, contract and hospitality fabrics, furniture, and modular housing. The mission will include a Commerce staff member from OTEXA, and representatives from U.S. industry interested in selling their products in Jordan and Iraq.

U.S. suppliers are internationally recognized for high quality products in technical, industrial, contract and hospitality fabric, furniture, and modular housing. These highly engineered products will be used in ongoing and planned commercial and industrial projects throughout Jordan and Iraq. Iraqi buyers will be invited to Amman, Jordan for appointments with the mission participants.

In addition there is a need for these products in order for the Iraqi government to build up their hospitality and commercial markets to accelerate infrastructure development, the spin off from the sale of such products provides jobs, training and state of the art material.

Mission participants will meet with private sector developers, specifiers, and buyers of such products.

This is an opportunity for U.S. manufacturers and suppliers of technical and industrial fabrics, contract/hospitality fabrics, furniture, and modular housing to increase their sales and expand their customer base in relatively new markets for the United States. Rapid development throughout the Middle East and the rebuilding of Iraq's basic infrastructure are leading catalysts for a genuine “boom” in the Middle East. Jordan and Iraq are key markets in the Middle East that have seen an increase in commercial infrastructure resulting from improving economies and, in the case of Iraq, the need to rebuild housing, hospitality, institutional government, and other public and private sector projects. However, there are certain risks, which need to be evaluated and considered by each prospective participant. These risks are noted in the following sections.

The Mission will seek to promote exports of U.S. technical fabrics, contract/hospitality fabrics, furniture, and furnishings to Jordan, Iraq and other countries in the region, and to secure representation agreements for mission members with pre-screened agents and distributors. * This unique opportunity will also give mission participants the opportunity to conduct market research, and evaluate market opportunities in this region.

Ten companies are expected to participate in this mission. The Department of Commerce reserves the right to adjust this number due to market or logistical constraints.

Matchmaking appointments will take place in Amman, Jordan. Mission participants will meet individually by appointment with pre-screened buyers, agents, and distributors. The Department will make every effort to schedule appropriate appointments with each mission participant. There will be a mission briefing for participants on local market conditions and selling opportunities.

We anticipate that the mission cost will be approximately $2,900 per company, excluding travel, hotel accommodation, ground transportation and meals.

The Mission is scheduled to occur May 23-24, 2004.

Participants are scheduled to arrive in Amman, Jordan on May 22, 2004. On Sunday, May 23, 2004, following set-up and a briefing, appointments will be scheduled from 9 a.m.-6 p.m. On Sunday evening, May 22, 2004, a reception is tentatively scheduled from 7-9 p.m. at the mission site. On Monday, May 24, 2004, appointments will be scheduled from 9-6 p.m. On Monday, May 24, 2004, following the last appointment the Mission will conclude.

Members will depart individually from the mission on Thursday, May 25, 2004.

Recruitment will begin immediately and will conclude on May 14, 2004. For logistical and security reasons, applications received after the deadline will not be considered.

• Relevance of a company's product line to mission goals.

• Timeliness of signed application and participation agreement by company.

• Maximum of 10 companies on the mission.

• Potential for business in the Middle East.

Mission recruitment will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register , posting on the Internet, press releases to the general and trade media, direct mail and fax, notices by industry trade associations and other multiplier groups, and industry meetings, conferences, trade shows, etc.

A company's products must be either manufactured or produced in the United States. If manufactured or produced outside the United States, each product displayed must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished product.

Any partisan political activities (including political contributions) of an applicant are entirely irrelevant to the selection process.

Contact: Mary Lynn Landgraf at (202) 482-7909, Mary-Lynn_Landgraf@ita.doc.gov or Lawrence Brill at (202) 482-1856, Lawrence_Brill@ita.doc.gov .

Or mail to: U.S. Department of Commerce/OTEXA, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3100, Washington, DC 20230.

The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary was established in 1994. The Sanctuary contains highly productive marine habitats and is home to a wide variety of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds. The Sanctuary seeks to protect these marine resource while, at the same, allowing for compatible uses.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council provides NOAA with advice on the management of the Sanctuary. Members provide advice to the Olympic Coast Sanctuary Superintendent on Sanctuary issues. The Council, through its members, also serve as liaisons to the community regarding Sanctuary issues and act as a conduit, relaying the community's interests, concerns, and management needs to the Sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council members represent public interest groups, local industry, commercial and recreational user groups, academia, conservation groups, government agencies, and the general public.

The purpose of this work session is to review technical components of the EIS for EFH under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. NMFS, in cooperation with the Council, is developing an EIS for EFH under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. As a precursor to the EFH EIS, a risk assessment is being developed. The Council's Ad Hoc Technical Review Committee has facilitated development of the risk assessment process through a series of public meetings. A significant output of the risk assessment is an analytical tool composed of geo-referenced Bayesian Network models designed to assist the Council in developing (and comparing the consequences of) management alternatives related to the EFH EIS. The EFH identification component of the risk assessment model was reviewed by the SSC in February and April 2004. Currently, as the Council prepares for actions related to the EFH EIS, the SSC, in their role of ensuring Council decisions are informed by the best available science, will review the fishing impacts component of the EFH risk assessment process and model. The SSC will report their findings at the June 2004 Council meeting.

Entry to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center requires identification with a photograph (such as a student ID, state drivers license, etc.) A security guard will review the identification and issue a Visitor's Badge valid for the date of the meeting.

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

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

The purpose of the TIQ Enforcement Group meeting is to conduct preliminary scoping on the types of enforcement programs that would be necessary for a groundfish trawl individual fishing quota (IFQ) program and related enforcement needs for information from IFQ and landings tracking and monitoring systems.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in the TIQ Enforcement Group meeting agenda may come before the group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal committee action during these meetings. TIQ Enforcement Group action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and to any issues arising after publication of this notice requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the group's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Fort Benning is the “Home of the Infantry” and conducts training for elements of Mechanized Infantry Division units. Tank and BFV crews must train and qualify at different skill levels (gunnery tables) that are designed to develop and test the proficiency level of individuals, crews, and platoons. Existing facilities at Fort Benning do not currently meet training standards for advanced gunnery qualification. Specifically, the existing range targetry is antiquated; the natural terrain features of Hastings Range hamper training effectiveness and efficiency; the nearness to the Installation boundary restricts training due to noise; and the lack of digital components on the existing range delays the analysis of the training exercise.

The Army proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a DMPRC. The FEIS analyzes the No Action/Status Quo and two action alternatives. The notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the DMPRC included another alternative, Transport to Fort Stewart; however, further analysis determined that this alternative was not reasonable. Alternatives considered in detail in the FEIS are:

1. No Action—Continue to conduct gunnery training on existing ranges on Fort Benning, utilizing existing facilities.

2. Construct, operate and maintain a DMPRC in Training Compartment K21 on Fort Benning. The range dimensions would be approximately 1,500 meters by 4,500 meters and cover about 1,800 acres plus support facilities; however these dimensions would be subject to site-specific design requirements and may be modified. The DMRPC would include a firing and target area with 3 tank trails, numerous stationary and moving targets, trenches and berms, maintenance roads; a helipad; utilities and communication systems; and support facilities on about 25 acres including control and instruction buildings, maintenance and storage buildings. The DMPRC would include a safety zone that is inaccessible during operation of the range.

3. Preferred Alternative—Construct, operate and maintain a DMPRC in Training Compartment D13 on Fort Benning with the same approximate dimensions and facilities as described for Alternative 2.

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would also include changes in training on other ranges (Cactus, Carmouche, and Hastings) to incorporate the new DMPRC into the training regime.

The DMPRC FEIS includes analyses of the potential environmental consequences, including cumulative impacts that each alternative may have on many environmental and socioeconomic resources or topics, including: Soils and vegetation, water quality, wetlands and streambanks, unique ecological areas, Federally and state listed species, migratory birds, socioeconomics, land use, cultural resources, utilities, noise, air quality, public health and safety, hazardous materials and wastes, and transportation. The findings indicate that the No Action alternative has the fewest potential impacts because no construction is proposed; however, noise concerns would continue and the needed improvement in range facilities would not be achieved. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have some potential adverse impacts to several of the studied resources; however, mitigations to either avoid or reduce those impacts are identified in the FEIS, and both alternatives would result in less noise disturbance from BFV and tank weaponry firing.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of future use, cleanup levels, waste disposition and cleanup priorities at the INEEL.

Optional tour providing an overall orientation to the site and an opportunity to visit the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project before it goes radioactive. Please contact Ms. Peggy Hinman, listed above, if you would like to participate.

The Application Form may be submitted either by a consortium representing multiple users or by individual users who anticipate needing methyl bromide in 2005 and believe there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives. EPA encourages users with similar circumstances of use to submit a single application (e.g., any number of pre-plant users with similar soil, pest, and climactic conditions can join together to submit a single application). In some instances, state agencies will assist users with the application process (see discussion of voluntary state involvement in Unit I.B.).

In addition to requesting information from applicants for the Critical Use Exemption, this solicitation for information provides an opportunity for any interested party to provide EPA with information on methyl bromide alternatives (e.g., technical and/or economic feasibility research). The Application Form for the methyl bromide Critical Use Exemption and other information on research relevant to alternatives must be sent to the addresses listed under ADDRESSES .

Please contact your local, state, regional or national commodity association to find out if they plan on submitting an application on behalf of your commodity group.

Additionally, you should contact your state regulatory agency (generally this will be the State Department of Agriculture or State Environmental Protection Agency) to receive information about their involvement in the process. If your state agency has chosen to participate, EPA encourages all applicants to first submit their applications to the state regulatory agency, which will then forward them to EPA. The National Pesticide Information Center website is one resource available for identifying the lead pesticide agency in your state ( http://ace.orst.edu/info/npic/state1.htm ).

An Application Form for the methyl bromide Critical Use Exemption can be obtained either in electronic or hard-copy form. EPA encourages use of the electronic form. Applications can be obtained in the following ways:

1. PDF format at EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr .

2. Microsoft Excel and other electronic spreadsheet formats at EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr .

3. Mailed hard-copy ordered through the Stratospheric Ozone Protection Hotline at 1-800-296-1996.

4. Hard-copy format at Air Docket No. OAR-2003-0017. The docket is located in room B-102, EPA West Building, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket Office is open from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket materials.

To support the assertion that a specific use of methyl bromide is “critical,” applicants are expected to demonstrate that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives available to the user of methyl bromide. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have developed an “International Index” of Methyl Bromide Alternatives which lists chemical and non-chemical alternatives, by crop( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/in_alt_in.html ). The chemicals and non-chemical practices included on this index were identified by the international technical advisory groups under the Montreal Protocol: the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The MBTOC and the TEAP determined that alternatives in the International Index have the “technical potential” to replace methyl bromide in at least one circumstance of use on the identified crop (Report of the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel, 1997)( http://www.teap.org/html/teap_reports.html ). A corresponding U.S. Index of alternatives (also listed by crop) has been developed by the U.S. government regarding chemical alternatives( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/us_alt_in.html ). This U.S. Index reflects whether chemical alternatives included in the International Index have been registered for use in the U.S.

Applicants must address technical, regulatory, and economic issues that limit the adoption of “chemical alternatives” and combinations of “chemical” and “non-chemical alternatives” listed for their crop within the “U.S. Index” of Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Applicants must also address technical, regulatory, and economic issues that limit the adoption of “non-chemical alternatives” and combinations of “chemical” and “non-chemical alternatives” listed for their crop in the “International Index.”

The person submitting information to EPA in response to this Notice may assert a business confidentiality claim covering part of the information by placing on (or attaching to) the information, at the time it is submitted to EPA, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or other suitable form of notice employing language such as trade secret, proprietary, or company confidential. Allegedly confidential portions of otherwise non-confidential documents should be clearly identified by the applicant, and may be submitted separately to facilitate identification and handling by EPA. If the applicant desires confidential treatment only until a certain date or until the occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so state. Information covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B; 41 FR 36902, 43 FR 40000, 50 FR 51661. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the applicant.

If you are asserting a business confidentiality claim covering part of the information in the application, please submit a non-confidential version that EPA can place in the public docket for reference by other interested parties. Do not include on the “Worksheet Six: Application Summary” page of the application any information that you wish to claim as confidential business information (CBI). These application information summary sheets will be posted on the EPA website ( http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr ) and included in Air Docket No. OAR-2003-0017. Applications that are not CBI will be placed in the Docket in their entirety. Please note, providing CBI may delay the ability of EPA to review your application.

A “Notice of Intent to Apply” is not required, but would facilitate the organization of the application review during the Critical Use Exemption Process. If EPA is aware of the consortia and the individuals who intend to submit applications 30 days before the application deadline, the technical experts will be better positioned to review the application. This Notice may be submitted to Marta Montoro via e-mail at montoro.marta@epa.gov . or via mail at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Global Programs Division (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by courier at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Global Programs Division, 1310 L St., NW., Washington, DC 20005; telephone number: 202-343-9321.

If EPA determines that an application is lacking sufficient information needed in order to be processed by the technical reviewers, applicants will be notified by telephone or in writing. If the required information is not submitted 30 days after the request, the application will not be processed. However, reviewers may also call applicants for further elaboration about their application, even if it is complete.

In March 2004, the Parties decided that exemptions would be granted for 1 year. As a result, anyone wishing to obtain a CUE to use methyl bromide in 2007 must re-apply. The data required for updating applications will be noted in the 2004 CUE application. Additional guidance will be available at http://www.EPA.gov/ozone/mbr .

In October 1998, the U.S. Congress amended the Clean Air Act by adding CAA sections 604(d)(6), 604(e)(3), and 604(h) (section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law No. 105-277; October 21, 1998)). The amendment requires EPA to conform the U.S. phaseout schedule for methyl bromide to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol for industrialized countries. Specifically, the amendment requires EPA to make regulatory changes to implement the following phaseout schedule:

• 25% reduction (from 1991 baseline) in 1999

• 50% reduction in 2001

• 70% reduction in 2003

• 100% reduction in 2005

EPA published regulations in the Federal Register of June 1, 1999 (64 FR 29240) (FRL-6351-6), and November 28, 2000 (65 FR 70795) (FRL-6906-4), instituting the phaseout reductions in the production and import of methyl bromide in accordance with the schedule listed above. Additionally, the 1998 amendment allowed EPA to exempt the production and import of methyl bromide from the phaseout for critical uses starting January 1, 2005 “to the extent consistent with the Montreal Protocol” (section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998) (section 604(d)(6) of the Clean Air Act).

The Montreal Protocol provides an exemption to the phaseout of methyl bromide for critical uses in Article 2H, paragraph 5. The Parties to the Protocol included provisions for such an exemption in recognition that substitutes for methyl bromide may not be available by 2005 for certain uses of methyl bromide agreed by the Parties to be “critical uses.”

In their Ninth Meeting (1997), the Parties to the Protocol agreed to Decision IX/6, setting forth the following criteria for a “critical use” determination:

In the context of the phaseout program, the use of the term “consumption” may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the “use” of a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the formula: consumption = production + imports - exports, of controlled substances (Article 1 of the Protocol and section 601 of the CAA). Class I controlled substances that were produced or imported through the expenditure of allowances prior to their phaseout date can continue to be used by industry and the public after that specific chemical's phaseout under EPA's phaseout regulations, unless otherwise precluded under separate regulations.

In addition to the language quoted above, the Parties further agreed to request the TEAP to review nominations and make recommendations for approval based on the criteria established in paragraphs (a)(ii) and (b) of Decision IX/6.

Under the provisions of both the CAA and the Montreal Protocol, the Critical Use Exemption will be available to approved uses on January 1, 2005. Until that date, all production and import of methyl bromide (except for those quantities that qualify for the quarantine and preshipment exemption) must conform to the phasedown schedule listed above (see Unit II.A.). For more information on the quarantine and preshipment exemption, please refer to 68 FR 238 (January 2, 2003) (FRL-7434-1).

There is both a domestic and international component to the Critical Use Exemption process. The following table represents a projected timeline for the process; note that this year's application and nomination cycle overlaps with the beginning of the phaseout:

Authority : 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

Eastern Research Group, Inc., (ERG), an EPA contractor, will coordinate the meeting. To attend the meeting as an observer, please register by visiting the Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel. You may also register for the meeting by calling ERG's conference registration line between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. EDST at (781) 674-7374 or toll free at 1-800-803-2833, or by faxing a registration request to (781) 674-2906 (include full address and contact information). Pre-registration is strongly recommended as space is limited, and registrations are accepted on a first-come, first-served basis. The deadline for pre-registration is May 20, 2004. Registrations will continue to be accepted after this date, including on-site registration, if space allows. There will be a limited time at the meeting for oral comments from the public. Oral comments will be limited to five (5) minutes each. If you wish to make a statement during the observer comment period, please check the appropriate box when you register at the web site. Please bring a copy of your comments to the meeting for the record or submit them electronically via e-mail to meetings@erg.com , subject line: WTC.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, 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 information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0131. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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.

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel three pesticide products registered under section 3 or 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit:

Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant directly during this 30-day period.

Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number:

Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register . Thereafter, the Administrator may approve such a request.

The Site consists of two facilities, about two miles apart, located in the industrial areas of Kansas City, Kansas at 45 Ewing Street and Kansas City, Missouri at 2100 Wyandotte Street. The facilities were formerly operated by PCB Treatment, Inc., now a defunct corporation. Between 1982 and 1987, PCB Treatment, Inc. and its subsidiaries or affiliates treated and stored PCBs contained in used transformers, capacitors, oil, equipment, and other materials at the Wyandotte facility and the Ewing facility. During its period of operations, spills of PCB contaminated waste occurred.

Samples collected at the Site in the late 1990s indicated that the PCB contamination at Ewing Street exceeded 1,790 parts per million (ppm) in the building and 1,450 ppm in the soils. At Wyandotte Street, the PCB contamination exceeded 23,800 ppm in the building and 800 ppm in the soils.

Over 1000 parties arranged for disposal of PCB wastes at the Site. EPA identified a large number of these parties, including the Respondents, as de minimis parties. EPA offered settlements to the de minimis parties based on their allocated share of the waste plus a premium. EPA previously settled with 542 de minimis parties. Through this settlement, and subject to certain reopeners, EPA covenants not to sue Respondents for injunctive relief or response costs concerning the Site. In addition, Respondents receive contribution protection for matters addressed in the settlement.

Settlement funds received through this proposed administrative order on consent, totaling $301,969.53, will be placed in the special account for the Site, with the other de minimis settlement funds, and used, primarily, to pay for cleanup of the Site.

Consistent with law and safety and soundness principles, the objective of this notice is to inform the public of the FCA's decision on a request from an FCS institution to offer farm management and agricultural trust services as authorized related services.

FCA published a notice and request for public comment on the institution's related services request in the Federal Register on August 19, 2003, and provided a 60-day comment period. ( See 68 FR 49773) On October 23, 2003, FCA reopened the comment period until December 22, 2003. ( See 68 FR 60689) In this notice, we are providing a summary of the comments we received and informing the public of FCA's decision on the related services request.

Related service, as defined in 12 CFR 618.8000(b), means “any service or type of activity provided by a System bank or association that is appropriate to the recipient's on-farm, aquatic, or cooperative operations, including control of related financial matters.” Any new service not previously authorized and placed on the Related Services List in 12 CFR part 618 requires a prior determination that the service is legally authorized. The FCA also must evaluate whether the service presents excessive risk to the requesting institution or the System as a whole, including whether the service could result in significant conflicts of interest or expose the institution or the System as a whole to significant liability.

In its evaluation of a proposed service, the FCA must focus on its application System-wide rather than on institution-specific factors. If we authorize a new related service, any System bank or association may develop a program and subsequently offer the same related service(s) to eligible recipients, subject to any special conditions or limitations imposed by the FCA. We may, at the time of approval, impose such special conditions or limitations on any approved service to ensure safety and soundness or compliance with law or regulation. These programs would be subject to review during the examination process.

The following services were proposed as services that an individual institution would offer to its customers:

• Farm Management Services—Professionals familiar with the market would provide management of agricultural properties for real estate owners in the service area. Farm management includes defining ownership goals, identifying problems, analyzing alternatives, and making recommendations for achieving business goals. Farm managers would present the customer with a full spectrum of lease or custom farming alternatives and help the owner decide how to ultimately get the best return on assets. Key factors of the service would include developing a comprehensive farm operating plan, securing operators and negotiating leases, providing property reporting, including annual budgets and projections, analyzing government programs, formulating and implementing capital improvements and repairs, and handling commodity sales.

• Agricultural Trust Services—The institution would assist customers in creating a trust and managing the assets of the trust. As the trustee, the institution would handle the responsibilities involved in settling the estate, including recordkeeping, asset management, asset disposition, tax filings, and income distributions.

Because of the complex nature of these proposed services, the FCA solicited public comment, in accordance with 12 CFR 618.8010(b)(3). We believe that evaluation of the proposal has been aided by the public comments we received. FCA received 390 comments, four of which asked for an extension of the original comment period or clarification of FCA's process. Commenters included FCS institutions, the Farm Credit Council, the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers Association, state banking associations, the National Association of Realtors, realtors, property managers, appraisers, and members of the public.

We received 19 comments in support of the proposal. Supporters commented that farm management and agricultural trust services would allow FCS institutions to become more comprehensive providers of financial services. Also, the proposed services would greatly benefit and parallel FCA's Young, Beginning and Small (YBS) farmer initiative by allowing YBS farmers to have highly regarded expert advice about specialized services available. Commenters stated that these services could provide retiring farmers with the alternatives and valuable business tools that would allow the transfer of assets from one generation to another, thus allowing for the continuation of the family farm business. The services could also benefit absentee and non-active farmland owners who do not want to actively farm the land, but want to continue land ownership and need assistance in farm management. Supporters also commented that the proposed services would meet the growing market demand in areas where the private sector providers are underserving the public or not offering such services at all.

Supporters also commented that a System institution offering the proposed services should demonstrate that appropriate risk management practices are in place and that safeguards are specifically identified in the agreement with the customer. Commenters asserted that risks could be adequately addressed by written programs establishing detailed operating procedures, staff qualifications, training, licensing, and insurance requirements, contractual provisions with clients, and “firewalls” between other institution operations. An organizational structure that provides for a separation of duties from the credit function would minimize potential conflicts associated with borrowers with distressed loans. Commenters further noted that an institution's board and management could implement internal controls through the development of policies and procedures, which would be monitored through internal and FCA regulatory examinations.

FCA received 367 comments in opposition to this proposal, many of which were identical in content. Commenters stated that the proposal would create an unfair competitive advantage because the proposed farm management and trust services are widely available to farmers throughout the country from existing service providers, and an FCS institution would be able to charge less for these services because of its Government-sponsored enterprise status. Many commented that farm management is a low margin business with high start-up costs due to the training and expertise requirements. Several commenters asserted that the proposed services are contradictory to Congressional intent and legislative history. Commenters in opposition also believe that FCS institutions cannot legally offer trust services because state law governs who can be deemed a corporate trustee, and most laws only include banks, savings and loan institutions, and trust companies. Further, the commenters noted that farm management, like any property management, is a commercial activity that most nationally chartered banks and savings and loan institutions are prohibited from offering.

The majority of comments in opposition to this proposal noted that there are significant conflicts of interest, particularly when the institution serves as farm manager, lender, and trustee of the same property. Financing farm operators and absentee landowners, while having a fiduciary position of negotiating leases and selecting farm operators, has built-in conflicts of interest. It would be difficult to negotiate lease terms as a farm manager if the farm operator were also a borrower. Commenters suggested that conflicts would also develop if potential farm management clients needed to borrow money. In addition, commenters stated that institutions offering farm management and trust services could expect to be involved in frequent litigation. As a result, some commenters felt that the services pose too great a financial risk to the System.

After thoroughly considering the proposal and the comments received, the FCA concluded that farm management and agricultural trust services could come within the definition of related services as authorized in 12 CFR 618.8000 and the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended. The services are related to on-farm operations, which FCA has defined to include control of related financial matters. The proposed services are also similar to several other services that have been approved by the FCA, provided by FCS institutions for a number of years, and ratified through a notice and comment rulemaking process. Those services include appraisal services, estate planning services, farm recordkeeping services, and farm business consulting services.

Although the proposed services come within the statutory and regulatory parameters of a related service, farm management and agricultural trust services as proposed introduce significant risks and potential conflicts of interest for System institutions. An institution participating in farm management and agricultural trust services could face legal liability to its customers for certain management decisions, as well as third-party liability, including environmental liability. The financial risks associated with liability could significantly affect an institution's capital and financial condition. In addition, these services would likely involve substantial start-up and maintenance costs. If many institutions began offering these services, the risks and conflicts involved could adversely impact the System's viability.

Performing farm management and agricultural trust services for customers who are also borrowers of the offering institution poses potentially significant conflicts of interest. The conflicts would be magnified if a borrower's loan became distressed. Foreclosing on a loan, including providing distressed loan restructuring rights, would be difficult if the institution foreclosing on the loan were also managing the farm. Significant potential for conflicts would also exist in management and trust situations where owners and lessees were also borrowers of the institution. The potential conflicts of interests would increase the financial risk of offering these services because they are likely to give rise to frequent litigation, including creating defenses to foreclosures of managed properties and properties in trust. FCA believes that the conflicts of interest that this proposal presents are too great and cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

FCA recognizes that farm management and agricultural trust services can be beneficial to farmers and ranchers, particularly YBS farmers and ranchers. In some areas, these services may be provided through existing entities, while other areas may be underserved by existing entities. Notwithstanding the potential need for and benefits of these services, FCA believes that the conflicts and financial risks when one institution serves as both lender and manager/trustee outweigh the benefits that could be derived. FCA also notes that many of the benefits of these services, particularly the benefits to YBS farmers and ranchers, could be gained by System institutions more fully utilizing farm business consulting, which is an authorized related service on the Related Services List in 12 CFR part 618. Through farm business consulting, FCS institutions can provide critical advice to young and beginning farmers and advice on alternatives available to retiring farmers. Because FCS institutions that offer farm business consulting are not authorized to make management decisions for a customer, conflicts of interest and liability concerns are alleviated. For the foregoing reasons, the FCA Board has decided that farm management and agricultural trust services, as proposed, should not be authorized as related services.

Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:

Title: Depositor Claims for Increased Insurance.

OMB Number: New collection.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Depositors of failed insured institutions who own or have an interest in a testamentary deposit account, a trust account, a defined benefit plan, or other retirement account will be required to complete one or more forms.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 5025.

Estimated Time per Response: The time per response will range from one-half hour to one hour depending on the form required.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2739 hours.

General Description of Collection: When a bank is closed by the primary regulatory authority, the FDIC has the responsibility to pay the insured claims of the failed bank depositors. When determining insured and uninsured amounts it is often necessary to obtain information from the depositors to ensure adherence to the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Rules and Regulations. The proposed collection will place 15 forms on the FDIC's Web site that will expedite depositors' making insurance claims.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of this collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 29, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at “ http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/04/index.htm. ” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Written comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2004. Comments should refer to “American Air Liquide, Inc., et al. , File No. 041 0020,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”  1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be sent to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from L'Air Liquide, S.A., which is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects resulting from L'Air Liquide, S.A.'s acquisition of the entire share capital of Messer Griesheim GmbH (“Messer”) and the subsequent transfer of Messer Griesheim Industries, Inc. (“MGI”) to its wholly-owned subsidiary American Air Liquide.

Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, American Air Liquide is required to divest the air separation units (“ASUs”) and related assets currently owned and operated by MGI in the following six locations: (1) Vacaville, California; (2) Irwindale, California; (3) San Antonio, Texas, (4) Westlake, Louisiana; (5) DeLisle, Mississippi; and (6) Waxahachie, Texas. The divestiture will take place no later than six months from the date the Consent Agreement becomes final. The Consent Agreement also includes an Agreement to Hold Separate that requires American Air Liquide to preserve the ASUs as viable, competitive and ongoing operations until the divestiture is achieved.

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make it final.

Pursuant to a sale and purchase agreement dated January 19, 2004, L'Air Liquide, S.A. agreed to acquire the entire share capital of Messer. The aggregate purchase price of the transaction is approximately $3.5 billion and includes $1.3 billion of Messer's debt that L'Air Liquide, S.A. has agreed to assume. As a result of this agreement, L'Air Liquide, S.A. will immediately transfer MGI, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Messer, which produces and sells industrial gases in the United States, to American Air Liquide. The Commission's complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition and subsequent transfer of MGI, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by lessening competition in the market for liquid argon in the continental United States and certain regional markets in the United States for liquid oxygen and nitrogen.

L'Air Liquide, S.A. is a world leader in industrial and medical gases and related equipment. American Air Liquide is the parent corporation of the United States subsidiary that produces and supplies oxygen, nitrogen, and argon as well as many other industrial gases to customers for numerous applications in a variety of industries, including the petrochemical, manufacturing and fabrication industries as well as the medical field. American Air Liquide's subsidiary is the fourth largest supplier of industrial gases in the United States, with twenty seven (27) ASUs throughout the United States, most of which are in Texas and the Gulf Coast region.

Messer's U.S. subsidiary, MGI, is currently the fifth largest producer of liquid atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen and argon) in the United States. MGI owns and operates twenty four (24) ASUs, including several located in Texas and the Gulf Coast region, as well as in northern and southern California.

Both American Air Liquide and MGI own and operate ASUs in the United States to provide customers with liquid atmospheric gases, including liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and liquid argon. Each gas has specific properties that make it uniquely suited for the applications in which it is used. For most of these applications, there is no substitute for the use of oxygen, nitrogen, or argon. Customers would not switch to another gas or product even if the price of liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen or liquid argon increased by five to ten percent.

Additionally, customers have three distinct distribution methods to choose from in receiving oxygen, nitrogen, or argon. These gases are available in cylinders, in liquid form, and through an on-site ASU or a pipeline. Customers choose a distribution method based on the volume of gas required. Customers who use liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, or liquid argon generally require volumes of these gases that are too large to purchase economically in cylinders, but too small to justify the expense of an on-site ASU or pipeline. In fact, even if the price of liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen or liquid argon increased by five to ten percent, customers would not switch to another method of distribution.

Due to high transportation costs, liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen may only be purchased economically from a supplier with an ASU located within one hundred and fifty (150) to two hundred and fifty (250) miles of the customer. Therefore, it is appropriate to analyze the competitive effects of the proposed acquisition using local geographic markets for liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen. The relevant local markets in which to analyze the effects of this proposed acquisition are: Southern California, Northern California, Southern Texas, Western Louisiana, and the Central Gulf Coast. Because liquid argon is a more rare and more expensive gas than liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen, it may be economically transported much greater distances. Therefore, the continental United States and regions of the United States are the appropriate geographic markets in which to analyze the competitive effects of the proposed acquisition for liquid argon.

The markets for liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen are highly concentrated. In three of the five relevant geographic markets (Southern California, Northern California, and the Central Gulf Coast) American Air Liquide and MGI are two of only five companies supplying liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen to customers. Additionally, MGI has been an aggressive participant in the market for these gases, offering low prices to customers and serving as a price restraint on the other suppliers. As a result, the proposed acquisition would enhance the likelihood of collusion or coordinated action between or among the remaining firms in each market. Furthermore, in the Southern Texas and Western Louisiana markets, MGI and American Air Liquide are the only producers capable of supplying liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen to customers in those markets economically. By eliminating competition between these two suppliers in these areas, the proposed acquisition would allow American Air Liquide to exercise market power unilaterally, thereby increasing the likelihood that purchasers of liquid oxygen or liquid nitrogen would be forced to pay higher prices in these areas.

The market for liquid argon is also highly concentrated, with only five suppliers producing sufficient amounts of liquid argon to supply customers around the United States. The remaining firms are very small and local in nature, and produce liquid argon primarily to meet internal needs. Additionally, the five large suppliers of liquid argon all transport the product from ASUs in the middle and eastern part of the United States to customers on the West Coast, where the ASUs owned and operated by these suppliers do not produce enough argon to meet customers' demands. Over the past few years, MGI has had excess capacity in liquid argon which it has used to win new customers by offering low prices, especially to customers in Texas, Gulf Coast and California. By eliminating MGI as a competitor in the liquid argon market, particularly on the West Coast, the proposed acquisition would enhance the likelihood of coordinated action or collusion between or among the remaining firms, and could result in customers paying higher prices for liquid argon.

Significant impediments to new entry exist in the markets for liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen, and liquid argon. In order to be cost competitive in these markets, an ASU must produce at least two hundred and fifty (250) to three hundred (300) tons per day of liquid product. The cost to construct a plant of this size can be thirty ($30) to forty ($40) million, most of which is sunk and cannot be recovered. While an ASU can theoretically be constructed within two years, it is not economically justifiable to build an ASU before contracting to sell a substantial portion of the plant's daily capacity, either to an on-site customer or to several liquid customers. On-site customers normally sign long-term contracts, and as such opportunities to contract with these customers are rare, it is uncertain whether such an opportunity would arise at any time in the near future in any of the areas affected by the acquisition. It is even more difficult and time-consuming for a potential new entrant to try to contract with enough liquid gas customers to justify building a new ASU in a market. These customers are generally locked into contracts with existing suppliers that typically last between five (5) and seven (7) years. Even if the new entrant was able to contract with enough liquid customers to justify constructing a new ASU in any of the affected markets, the new entrant would still need to rely on suppliers already in the market to obtain liquid gases to service the new entrant's customers while the ASU was constructed. Given the difficulties of entering the market, it is unlikely that new entry could be accomplished in a timely manner in any of the markets for liquid oxygen or liquid nitrogen, and even more unlikely that entry would occur in a timely manner in all of the relevant markets. Additionally, as an ASU must produce large amounts of oxygen and nitrogen in order to produce any argon, a new entrant into the liquid argon market would not be able to economically build an ASU to produce only liquid argon, rather it would need to find customers to purchase all three gases. Therefore, it is unlikely that new entry would occur in the liquid argon market absent concurrent new entry in the liquid oxygen and nitrogen markets.

The Consent Agreement effectively remedies the acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the markets for liquid oxygen, liquid nitrogen and liquid argon. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, American Air Liquide will divest the six (6) air separation units listed in Section I to a single purchaser that will operate the ASUs as a going concern. The Consent Agreement provides that American Air Liquide must find a buyer for the assets, at no minimum price, that is acceptable to the Commission, no later than six (6) months from the date the Consent Agreement becomes final. If the Commission determines that American Air Liquide has not provided an acceptable buyer within this time period or that the manner of the divestiture is not acceptable, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the assets. The trustee will have the exclusive power and authority to accomplish the divestiture.

The Commission's goal in evaluating possible purchasers of divested assets is to maintain the competitive environment that existed prior to the acquisition. A proposed buyer of divested assets must not itself present competitive problems. Numerous entities are interested in purchasing the divested assets, including industrial gas suppliers that currently have a regional presence in the industry, but do not compete in the areas affected by the acquisition, as well as entities in related fields that are interested in entering into the production and sale of industrial gases. The Commission is therefore satisfied that sufficient potential buyers for the divested assets exist.

The Consent Agreement also contains an Agreement to Hold Separate. This will serve to protect the viability, marketability, and competitiveness of the divestiture asset package until it is divested to a buyer approved by the Commission. The Agreement to Hold Separate became effective on the date the Commission accepted the Consent Agreement for placement on the public record and will remain in effect until American Air Liquide successfully divests the divestiture asset package according to the terms of the Decision and Order.

The Consent Agreement contains a provision for the Commission to appoint a monitor-trustee to oversee the management of the divestiture asset package until the divestiture is complete, and for a brief transition period after the sale. In order to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the asset package pending divestiture, about the efforts being made to accomplish the divestiture, and the provision of services and assistance during the transition period, the Consent Agreement requires the monitor-trustee to file periodic reports with the Commission until the divestiture is accomplished and the transition period has ended.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Decision and Order or the Agreement to Hold Separate, or to modify their terms in any way.

The FRPP Summary Report is a summary of the Government's real property assets, as reported to the General Services Administration's (GSA's) Federal Real Property Profile Internet Application (FRPP-IA) reporting system. It provides an overview of Federal real property assets categorized in three major areas—buildings, land, and structures. The FRPP-IA reporting system is a redesign of the former Worldwide Inventory data collection and reporting system which was discontinued after FY 2001.

1. What is the purpose of this bulletin? This bulletin announces the release of the Fiscal Year 2003 version of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) Summary Report, which provides an overview of the United States Government's owned and leased real property as of September 30, 2003.

2. What is the background?

a. This annual publication is a summary report of the Federal Government's real property assets, as reported to the General Services Administration's (GSA's) Federal Real Property Profile Internet Application (FRPP-IA) reporting system. The report provides an overview of Federal real property assets categorized in three major areas—buildings, land, and structures. Descriptions of specific use classifications are located in the Appendix of the report.

b. The detailed information for this summary report is held in a password-protected Web-based database. This database allows agency representatives to update data on-line in real time, and to produce ad hoc reports. The FRPP-IA reporting system provides information regarding Federal real property holdings to stakeholders including OMB, the Congress, the Federal community, and the public. Its purpose is to assist Federal asset managers with their stewardship responsibilities by offering a real-time environment for on-line updates.

c. To ensure accuracy, GSA requested that agencies confirm their FY 2003 data summary figures prior to publication of the FRPP Summary Report. Most agencies provided data based on their real property holdings as of September 30 of each year. In a few instances, data provided in previous years has been used where updated information was unavailable. This is noted on the list of contributing agencies. The agency list and status of updates and confirmations is provided as part of the FRPP Summary Report.

3. How can we obtain a copy of the FRPP summary report? You will find the FY 2003 version of the FRPP Summary Report on the GSA Web site at http://www.gsa.gov/realpropertyprofile . There you will be able to read, print, or download this report. You can also obtain a copy from the Real Property Policy Division (MPR), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.

4. Who should we contact for further information regarding the FRPP? For further information, contact Stanley C. Langfeld, Director, Real Property Policy Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration, by phone (202) 501-1737, or by e-mail at stanley.langfeld@gsa.gov .

In the Federal Register of January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4571), FDA published a final rule that revised 21 CFR 814.44(d) and 814.45(d) to discontinue individual publication of PMA approvals and denials in the Federal Register . Instead, the agency now posts this information on the Internet on FDA's home page at http://www.fda.gov. FDA believes that this procedure expedites public notification of these actions because announcements can be placed on the Internet more quickly than they can be published in the Federal Register , and FDA believes that the Internet is accessible to more people than the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.

The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from July 1, 2003, through September 30, 2003. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmapage.html .

In the Federal Register of January 30, 1998 (63 FR 4571), FDA published a final rule that revised 21 CFR 814.44(d) and 814.45(d) to discontinue individual publication of PMA approvals and denials in the Federal Register . Instead, the agency now posts this information on the Internet on FDA's home page at http://www.fda.gov. FDA believes that this procedure expedites public notification of these actions because announcements can be placed on the Internet more quickly than they can be published in the Federal Register , and FDA believes that the Internet is accessible to more people than the Federal Register .

In accordance with section 515(d)(4) and (e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360e(d)(4) and (e)(2)), notification of an order approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA will continue to include a notice of opportunity to request review of the order under section 515(g) of the act. The 30-day period for requesting reconsideration of an FDA action under § 10.33(b) (21 CFR 10.33(b)) for notices announcing approval of a PMA begins on the day the notice is placed on the Internet. Section 10.33(b) provides that FDA may, for good cause, extend this 30-day period. Reconsideration of a denial or withdrawal of approval of a PMA may be sought only by the applicant; in these cases, the 30-day period will begin when the applicant is notified by FDA in writing of its decision.

The regulations provide that FDA publish a quarterly list of available safety and effectiveness summaries of PMA approvals and denials that were announced during that quarter. The following is a list of approved PMAs for which summaries of safety and effectiveness were placed on the Internet from October 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. There were no denial actions during this period. The list provides the manufacturer's name, the product's generic name or the trade name, and the approval date.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the documents at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pmapage.html.

FDA, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Research and Development Coordination are cosponsoring a public workshop. The public workshop will provide a forum for sharing information and discussing strategies for safety and efficacy testing of therapeutics, including monoclonal antibody-based therapies, other recombinant proteins, polyclonal immune globulins (human and animal derived), and small molecules, that target anthrax and its toxins in order to expedite the development of these FDA-regulated products. The use of vaccines and antimicrobial drugs targeting anthrax and its toxins will not be covered. The public workshop is intended to address the optimal studies for product characterization, proof of concept, and demonstration of safety and efficacy in postexposure prophylaxis and/or in the treatment of established disease.

Mail or fax your issues and questions to Melanie Whelan (see Contact Person ) by Friday, May 28, 2004. (There will be an opportunity to raise additional questions and issues for discussion at the public workshop.) The agenda for this public workshop, when finalized, will be posted on the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/cber/scireg.htm .

Transcripts : Transcripts of the workshop may be requested in writing from the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville, MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a cost of 10 cents per page. In addition, the transcript will be placed on FDA's Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/workshop-min.htm .

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Annual Lead-Based Paint Activity Report.

OMB Control Number: 2577-0090.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD needs the information to assure statutory and regulatory compliance with The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (LBPPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4821-4846) which requires public and Indian housing agencies (HAs) to randomly sample their pre-1978 developments for the presence of LBP. Congress directed HUD to establish an adequate management information system for measuring and reporting on HAs' performance on LBP activities. HUD revised the tracking system for collecting lead-based paint data. The system collects less, but different data. HAs use the Form HUD-52850 to submit information on LBP. HUD reports the information to Congress as required by statute.

Agency form number: HUD-52850.

Members of affected public: State, Local or Tribal government.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents: 3,100 respondents; one response per respondent annually; one hour average per response, 3,100 total reporting burden hours per year.

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands.

OMB Control Number: 2506-0151.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this information collection is to document regulatory compliance with Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management” and Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands.” Each respondent that proposes to use HUD assistance to benefit a property located within a floodplain or wetland must establish and maintain sufficient records to enable the Secretary of HUD to determine whether the floodplain management requirements of 24 CR part 55, especially subpart C, and the protection of wetlands requirements of Executive Order 11990 have been met. The record, together with other environmental compliances that a proposed project may require under the National Environmental Policy Act and related laws, will serve to obtain the approval of an application under 24 CFR part 50 or will allow the use of grant funds or assistance already awarded under 24 CFR part 58.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: Not applicable.

Members of affected public: Primary: Local, State, or Tribal Governments. Others: Public housing agencies, and private non- and for-profit entities.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden estimate is a total of 2,700 hours. Estimates are 300 respondents, 1 frequency, and 9 hours of response. Total of 300 hours is estimated for notification of floodplain hazard (regulatory reference is Sec. 55.21). Total of 2,400 hours is estimated for documentation of compliance with Sec. 55.20 (regulatory reference is Sec. 55.27).

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection whose expiration date: August 31, 2004.

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

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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 collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities.

OMB Control Number: 2506-0087.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this information collection is to document regulatory compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related environmental statutes. This is performed by recipients of HUD financial assistance who are required to assume HUD's environmental responsibilities and/or who are required to submit requests for release of funds and certify full compliance with NEPA and the related statutes using the procedures identified in 24 CFR part 58. Recipients establish and maintain sufficient records to enable the Secretary of HUD to determine whether the requirements of 24 CFR part 58 have been met. The records serve to allow the use of grant funds or financial assistance already awarded under 24 CFR part 58.

Agency form numbers: Form HUD 7015.15, “Request for Release of Funds and Certification.”

Members of affected public: Primary: Local, State, or Tribal Governments. Others: Public housing agencies, and private non- and for-profit entities.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden estimate is a total of 13,860 hours. Estimates are 18,785 respondents, 1 frequency of response, and 0.6 hours per response (regulatory references are Secs. 58.1 and 58.71 for form HUD-7015.15).

Status of the proposed information collection: Extension of a currently approved collection whose expiration date: November 30, 2004.

In accordance with the December 12, 1988, court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

Individuals wishing copies of the permit application, the Environmental Action Statement, or copies of the full text of the proposed Agreement, including a map of the proposed permit area, references, and legal descriptions of the proposed permit area, should contact the office and personnel listed in the ADDRESSES section. Documents also will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at this office ( see ADDRESSES ).

The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments received on the permit application and proposed Agreement, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, are available for public inspection in their entirety.

The biological objective of the proposed Agreement is to introduce a population of nene to a mid-elevation site on Maui, Hawaii, and thereby establish a self-sustaining population. An additional objective, which benefits both the nene and the Applicant, is to assure regulatory stability to the Applicant by relieving him/her of any additional section 9 liability under the ESA beyond that which exists at the time the Agreement is signed (“regulatory baseline”). Safe Harbor Agreements encourage landowners to conduct voluntary conservation activities and assure them that they will not be subjected to increased endangered species restrictions should their beneficial stewardship efforts result in increased endangered species populations. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in 50 CFR 17.22(c). As long as the landowners maintain their baseline responsibilities, they may make any other lawful use of the property during the permit term, even if such use results in the take of individual nene or harm to nene habitat.

The proposed Agreement was developed by the Applicant and the DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) with technical assistance from the Service. The Agreement proposes the introduction of nene to Piiholo Ranch by the DOFAW, in addition to allowing the DOFAW and the Service to monitor the nene and improve nene habitat. Under the proposed Agreement, the Applicant will: (1) Construct and maintain a release pen for the nene with the assistance of the DOFAW; (2) fence and maintain an area of several acres around the release pen to allow for planting of native food plants for nene; (3) conduct predator control in and around the nene release pen; (4) allow the DOFAW and the Service access to private property for monitoring and maintaining the nene at Piiholo Ranch; and (5) allow and perform habitat maintenance activities to ensure nene survival at Piiholo Ranch. The DOFAW will: (1) Introduce nene to Piiholo Ranch following an agreed upon protocol over the course of several introductions; (2) assist with construction of the release pen and with predator control; and (3) assist with managing and monitoring nene, including conducting an annual survey of nene on Piiholo Ranch.

The proposed Agreement stipulates that nene nests will not be disturbed until after the birds have hatched their eggs and left the nest with their young to the maximum extent practicable and that nene will not be fed outside the release pen in order to maintain their wildness.

We anticipate that this proposed Agreement will result in the following benefits to nene: (1) Establish a new, self-sustaining population of nene on Maui in a mid-elevation site; (2) reduce the risk of catastrophic loss of nene due to their increased range in the wild; (3) increase the number of nene in the wild (it is anticipated that a population of 75 nene could become established within the term of the Agreement on Piiholo Ranch); (4) increase our understanding of the effectiveness of management techniques for nene; and (5) provide an additional source of nene for future management activities. Nene were likely extirpated from the island of Maui by around 1900 and there have been no known sightings of nene on Piiholo Ranch, therefore, the baseline for this proposed Agreement is zero.

Consistent with the Safe Harbor policy (64 FR 32717), Piiholo Ranch has applied to the Service for issuance of an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to authorize incidental take of nene introduced to the enrolled lands, and their progeny, as a result of lawful activities at Piiholo Ranch. These activities include unintentional take of nene from: (1) Cattle ranching; (2) tourism; (3) cultivation of agricultural crops; and (4) harvesting and processing non-native trees. We expect that the maximum level of incidental take authorized under the proposed Agreement will never be realized. Piiholo Ranch has no plans to change land uses. The Agreement provides that any nene taken when the Agreement expires will not be injured or harmed, but will be relocated, with permission from the landowners, to other suitable lands. We fully expect that the release of nene on Piiholo Ranch will result in the establishment of a self-sustaining population of nene. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed Agreement and the activities it covers, which are facilitated by the allowable incidental take, will provide a net conservation benefit to the nene.

We will evaluate the permit application, the proposed Agreement, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and NEPA regulations. If the requirements are met, the Service will sign the proposed Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Applicant for take of the nene incidental to otherwise lawful activities of the project. The Service will not make a final decision without full consideration of all comments received during the comment period.

You may obtain copies of the documents for review by contacting the individual named above or by making an appointment to view the documents at the above address during normal business hours.

All comments we receive, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or companies, or from individuals representing organizations or companies, are available for public inspection in their entirety.

Under a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA), participating landowners voluntarily implement conservation activities on their property to benefit species that are proposed or candidates for listing, or for which listing under the ESA is warranted but precluded, or other sensitive species. CCAAs encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation efforts and reduce threats to unlisted species by assuring them they would not be subjected to increased property use restrictions, beyond those identified in the agreement, if species are listed in the future under the ESA.

Under the Final Policy for CCAAs (64 FR 32726), the Service must determine that the benefits of the conservation measures implemented by the property owner, when combined with those benefits that would be achieved if it is assumed that the conservation measures would also be implemented on other necessary properties, would preclude or remove the need to list the covered species. Application requirements and issuance criteria for enhancement of survival permits through CCAAs are found in 50 CFR 17.22(d) and 17.32(d).

On October 30, 2001, the Service formally identified the southern Idaho ground squirrel as a candidate for listing under the ESA (66 FR 54808). SIGS are currently found within an approximately 1,046,569-acre area comprised of lower elevation shrub/steppe habitat in the Weiser and Payette river basins in southwest Idaho. The species appears to have undergone a substantial population decline throughout its range since 1985. SIGS are largely dependent on private lands: 85 percent of the occupied ground squirrel sites are located on private lands, mostly ranches and farms; 12 percent are under federal management by the Bureau of Land Management; and 3 percent of the sites are on lands managed by the Idaho Department of Lands. Conservation measures implemented on private lands are important for the long-term survival of the species.

Landowners may be willing to implement measures that enhance populations of sensitive species on their property, but reluctant to do so because of potential land-use restrictions that could occur should the species eventually be listed under the ESA. As a result of this potential regulatory concern, the Department developed the Agreement, in cooperation with the Service, and is applying to the Service for a permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to enhance the propagation or survival of the species and to authorize incidental take of SIGS should the species be listed during the term of the permit.

Under the Agreement and permit, the Department, the Service, and participating non-Federal landowners would implement various conservation measures over the range of the SIGS, depending on present and future occupancy of sites by SIGS. The conservation measures under the Agreement are intended to reduce all threats to the SIGS that are controllable by participating landowners within the project area. Within the project area, enrolled lands must be specifically identified in each participating landowner's site-specific plan. Each site-specific plan would identify in detail how the applicable conservation measures would be implemented on an individual landowner's property considering baseline SIGS populations and habitat conditions, and the landowner's planned use activities. For a participating landowner's site-specific plan to be approved, the site-specific plan must contain all conservation measures identified in the Agreement that are within the participating landowner's control, and result in a net improvement in SIGS habitat or populations on the enrolled lands.

Conservation measures that may be implemented on private lands within the project area that are enrolled in the Agreement include: (1) Implement habitat maintenance or enhancement measures such as seeding native vegetation species, fertilizing vegetation, prescribed burning, and providing escape cover; (2) prohibit shooting, trapping, or poisoning of SIGS; (3) minimize direct mortality from ground disturbing activities; (4) allow translocation of SIGS into unoccupied, suitable habitat; (5) control Columbian ground squirrels and badgers to reduce competition and predation; (6) monitor ground squirrel populations and habitat characteristics to monitor effectiveness and compliance with the Agreement; (7) actively pursue funding to implement the site-specific plan; and (8) coordinate/cooperate with non-federal third parties that hold conservation easements on or adjacent to enrolled lands, and that wish to participate in the Agreement. Should the species be listed under the ESA during the 20-year term of the permit, the permit would authorize incidental take of SIGS as a result of participating landowners' covered land-use activities, which include crop cultivation and harvesting, livestock grazing and production, farm equipment operation, and recreational activities.

A draft Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address the impacts of permit issuance. The draft Environmental Assessment evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from implementation of the conservation measures described in the Agreement. The draft Environmental Assessment describes alternatives to the proposed action including the no action alternative.

We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and National Environmental Policy Act regulations. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will sign the Agreement and issue an enhancement of survival permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the Department for take of SIGS, should it become listed during the term of the permit, incidental to otherwise lawful activities in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Service will not make a final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment period.

The application for coal exploration license is available for public inspection during normal business hours under serial number COC 67643 at the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, and at the Uncompahgre Field Office, 2505 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401. Any party electing to participate in this program must share all costs on a pro rata basis with Oxbow Mining, LLC, and with any other party or parties who elect to participate.

Coteau Properties Company applied to lease 5,571 acres of Federal coal beneath private surface in Mercer County, west-central North Dakota. The DEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of three alternatives, including a No-Action (No Leasing) Alternative, which were developed with public involvement during the scoping process. Potential concerns include impacts to cultural resources, air quality, water resources, soils, land use, vegetation, wildlife, environmental justice, and socio-economics.

The Freedom Mine, which is adjacent to the proposed expansion area, is approved to remove 15-16 million tons of coal per year. Addition of Federal coal would extend the life of Freedom Mine by about 6 years.

Public meetings will be held as folows:

Meetings and the Hearing will also be announced through public notices, media news releases, and on the North Dakota Web site at http://www.mt.blm.gov/ndfo.

After comments are reviewed and relevant adjustments made, a Final Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared and is expected to be available in late 2004.

A copy of the ROD has been sent to affected Federal, State, and local government agencies and interested parties. The Snake River planning area includes almost 1,000 acres of public lands administered by the BLM Pinedale Field Office and approximately 15,123 acres of Federal mineral estate near the Snake River, Teton County, Wyoming.

The Snake River RMP ROD is in conformance with the BLM's National Fire Plan. The National Energy Policy was also considered. The potential for energy development in the Snake River planning area is very low, to the extent that energy development in support of the National Energy Policy is not practical.

The RMP provides for transfer and management of the parcels to another public land-managing agency or entity. The actual land surface could be retained by BLM or transferred, as long as certain stipulations for its future management are met.

The transfer of lands or resources management will take place within 15 years. BLM will retain all mineral rights. It is the goal of the RMP to ensure the entities acquiring these parcels or taking over management responsibility are obligated under the terms of the transaction to apply the management prescriptions described.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in southwestern Idaho. At this meeting, the following actions will occur/topics will be discussed:

• Review 2004 Work Plan;

• Report on National RAC Chair's Meeting;

• Native American Laws, Regulations and Trust Obligations—Training

• Presentation on Ranch Level Socioeconomic Impacts of Public Land Grazing Policy Alternatives in Owyhee and Other Rural Counties of Idaho, by J.D. Wulfhorst, University of Idaho;

• Update on BLM-Idaho Organizational Refinement;

• BLM-LSRD Report to Judge Winmill—Status of 67 Court-Ordered Environmental Assessments conducted on Priority Grazing Allotments in the Owyhee Field Office (OFO), by Jenna Whitlock, OFO Manager;

• Hot Topics—Settlement Issues; Snail Lawsuit; July 22, 2004, RAC-Hosted Community Discussion on Juniper Management; Report on Review of Implementation of Idaho Rangeland Standards and Guidelines;

• Update on status of District's Fire Management Plan;

• Subcommittee Reports

• Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV) and Transportation Management, Resource Management Plans, Sage Grouse Habitat Management, River and Recreation Management, and Fire and Fuels Management;

• Three Field Office Managers and District Fire Manager provide updates on current issues and planned activities in their Field Offices and the District.

Agenda items may change due to changing circumstances. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. Expedited publication is requested to give the public adequate notice.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Idaho. The agenda items for the June 10 and 11, 2004 meeting include:

• Off-Highway-Vehicle Management—update on the Idaho BLM Strategy and proposed Challis OHV loop.

• Endangered Species Act and consultation process.

• On-going and upcoming planning efforts.

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

Since the land is withdrawn by Presidential Proclamation, this revocation is a record clearing action only.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:

Public Land Order No. 6369 (48 FR 16684, April 19, 1983), which withdrew islands, reefs, rocks, and pinnacles off the coast of California from surface entry, mining, and mineral leasing for establishment of the California Islands Wildlife Sanctuary, is hereby revoked in its entirety.

The land is no longer needed by the Bureau of Reclamation for reclamation purposes.

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows:

1. The Secretarial Orders dated October 9, 1905, and August 13, 1908, which withdrew lands for the Bureau of Reclamation's Yakima and Chelan Reclamation Projects, are hereby modified to allow for exchange in accordance with Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 1716 (2000), insofar as they affect the following described public lands:

The area described aggregates 80 acres in Yakima and Chelan Counties.

2. The lands described in Paragraph 1 are hereby made available for exchange in accordance with Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1716 (2000), subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.

In 2001, BLM and the MD DNR acquired a tract of land along the Potomac River at Douglas Point in Charles County. This and other State and BLM properties and lands in the region are located 30 miles south of the Washington Beltway and represent some of the last remaining undeveloped lands in the fast growing Washington, DC metropolitan region. The BLM and MD DNR partnership serves to protect the study area's varied cultural, historical and natural resources. A key goal of the planning process is to identify ways in which public land management may contribute to local economic development. The Proposed CMP was developed in collaboration with Charles County and with significant local community involvement.

The four Alternatives analyzed in the CMP presented a reasonable range of management options to address the issues raised during planning: Alternative 1—No action; Alternative 2—Heritage; Alternative 3—Nature Tourism; Alternative 4—Community Vision. The Proposed Plan is essentially Alternative 4 with the addition of a boat ramp on the State's Wilson Farm tract and selective timber harvesting on State lands pending a Forest Management Plan. The environmental impacts of each alternative, including the Proposed Plan, are discussed in the Proposed CMP. A copy of the Proposed CMP will be sent to all individuals, agencies and organizations that have expressed interest in the project.