Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Cooperative Development Grant.

Announcement Type: Initial announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.771.

Dates: Application Deadline: July 26, 2004.

Rural Cooperative Development Grants (RCDG) are authorized by section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(e)). Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4284, subparts A and F. The primary objective of the RCDG program is to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development. RCDG grants are used to facilitate the creation or retention of jobs in rural areas through the development of new rural cooperatives, value-added processing and other rural businesses. The program is administered through USDA Rural Development State Offices acting on behalf of RBS.

Section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act was amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171) (Mar. 13, 2002) to modify the matching requirement required of RCDG grant applicants that are “1994 Institutions” (as defined in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note; Pub. L. 103-382)). (The final rule implementing this amendment was published in the April 29, 2004, Federal Register . See 69 FR 23418-23436.) 1994 Institutions are not required to provide non-Federal financial support (matching funds) greater than 5 percent of the grant awarded. In the case of all applicants, preference points will be awarded where applicants commit to providing greater than the minimum 25 percent matching contribution. A current list of 1994 Institutions may be obtained from RBS.

Agency —Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), or a successor agency.

Center —The entity established or operated by the grantee for rural cooperative development. It may or may not be an independent legal entity separate from the grantee.

Cooperative Development —The startup, expansion or operational improvement of a cooperative to promote development in rural areas of services, products, and processes that can be used in the marketing of products, or enterprises that create Value-Added farm products through processing or marketing activities. Development activities may include, but are not limited to, technical assistance, research services, educational services and advisory services. Operational improvement includes making the cooperative more efficient or better managed.

Cooperative Services —The office within RBS, and its successor organization, that administers programs authorized by the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 (7 U.S.C. 451 et seq. ) and such other programs so identified in USDA regulations.

1994 Institution —means a college identified as such for purposes of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note ). Contact the Agency for a list of currently eligible colleges.

Matching Funds —Cash or confirmed funding commitments from non-Federal sources unless otherwise provided by law. Unless otherwise provided, matching funds must be at least equal to the grant amount. Unless otherwise provided, in-kind contributions that conform to the provisions of 7 CFR 3015.50 and 7 CFR 3019.23, as applicable, can be used as matching funds. Examples of in-kind contributions include volunteer services furnished by professional and technical personnel, donated supplies and equipment, and donated office space. Matching funds must be provided in advance of grant funding, such that for every dollar of grant that is advanced, not less than an equal amount of match funds shall have been funded prior to submitting the request for reimbursement. Matching funds are subject to the same use restrictions as grant funds. Funds used for an ineligible purpose will not be considered matching funds.

National Office —USDA RBS headquarters in Washington, DC.

Nonprofit Institution —Any organization or institution, including an accredited institution of higher education, no part of the net earnings of which may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Project —A planned undertaking by a Center that utilizes the funds provided to it to promote economic development in rural areas through the creation and enhancement of cooperatives.

Rural and Rural Area —includes all the territory of a state that is not within the outer boundary of any city or town having a population of 50,000 or more and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such city or town, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census using the latest decennial census of the United States.

Rural Development —A mission area within the USDA consisting of the Office of Under Secretary for Rural Development, Office of Community Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service and Rural Utilities Service and their successors.

State —includes each of the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United States, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and, as may be determined by the Secretary to be feasible, appropriate and lawful, the Freely Associated States and the Federated States of Micronesia.

State Office —USDA Rural Development offices located in each State.

Value-Added —The incremental value that is realized by the producer from an agricultural commodity or product as the result of a change in its physical state, differentiated production or marketing, as demonstrated in a business plan, or Product segregation. Also, the economic benefit realized from the production of farm or ranch-based renewable energy. Incremental value may be realized by the producer as a result of either an increase in value to buyers or the expansion of the overall market for the product. Examples include milling wheat into flour, slaughtering livestock or poultry, making strawberries into jam, the marketing of organic products, an identity-preserved marketing system, wind or hydro power produced on land that is farmed and collecting and converting methane from animal waste to generate energy. Identity-preserved marketing systems include labeling that identifies how the product was produced and by whom.

Type of Award: Grant.

Fiscal Year Funds: FY 2004.

Approximate Total Funding: $5.0 million (up to $1.5 million reserved for small, minority producers).

Approximate Number of Awards: 20.

Approximate Average Award: $250,000.

Floor of Award Range: None.

Ceiling of Award Range: $300,000.

Anticipated Award Date: 30 September 2004.

Budget Period Length: 12 months.

Project Period Length: 12 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Grants may be made to non-profit corporations and institutions of higher education. Grants may not be made to Public bodies.

2. Cost Sharing or Matching: Matching funds are required. Applicants must verify in their applications that matching funds are available for the time period of the grant. The matching fund requirement is a 25 percent matching contribution (5 percent in the case of 1994 Institutions) with private funds and in-kind contributions. Preference points will be awarded where applicants commit to providing greater than the minimum 25 percent matching contribution (5 percent in the case of 1994 Institutions). Unless provided by other authorizing legislation, other Federal grant funds cannot be used as matching funds. However, matching funds contributed by the applicant may include a loan from another Federal source. Matching funds must be spent at a rate equal to or greater than the rate at which grant funds are expended. Matching funds must be provided by either the applicant in the form of cash or by a third party in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. Matching funds must be spent on eligible expenses must be from eligible sources if they are in-kind contributions.

3. Other Eligibility Requirements:

Grant Period Eligibility: Applications should have a timeframe of no more than 365 days with the time period beginning no later than 90 days after the anticipated award date.

Applications without sufficient information to determine eligibility will not be considered for funding. Applications that are non-responsive to the submission requirements detailed in Section IV of this notice will not be considered for funding. Applications that are missing any required elements (in whole or in part) will not be considered for funding.

1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain the application package for this funding opportunity at the following internet address: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg.htm . If you do not have access to the internet, or if you have difficulty accessing the forms online, you may contact the Rural Development State Office in your State from the list in section VII. Application forms can be mailed to you.

2. Content and Form of Submission: You may submit your application in paper or in an electronic format. If you submit your application in paper form, you must submit a signed original and one copy of your complete application. The application must be in the following format:

Font size: 12 point unreduced.

Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.

Page margin size: 1 inch on the top, bottom, left, and right.

Printed on only one side of each page.

Held together only by rubber bands or metal or plastic clips; not bound in any other way.

Language: English, avoid jargon.

The submission must include all pages of the application.

It is recommended that the application be in black and white, and not color. Paper applications may be scanned electronically for further review upon receipt by the Agency and the scanned images will all be in black and white. Those evaluating scanned versions of the application will only receive black and white images.

If you submit your application electronically, you only need to submit one copy. The application must be in the following format:

File format: pdf format, using Adobe Acrobat version 5.0 or higher.

Font size: 12 point unreduced.

Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches.

Page margin size: 1 inch on the top, bottom, left, and right.

Language: English, avoid jargon.

The submission must contain all application pages (including the signed forms) in one file.

It is recommended that the application be in black and white, and not color. Those evaluating the application will only receive black and white images.

Multiple submissions or electronic files for the same application will be accepted at the discretion of the Agency. All applicants will receive a notice, either electronically or by mail that their application has been received. This notice only indicates that the application has been received—it does not convey any determination on the part of the Agency that the application is eligible or has been evaluated. Applicants will not be notified of their eligibility or ranking until all applications have been completely evaluated and the Agency has announced the award determinations.

An application must contain all of the following elements. Any application that is missing any element or contains an incomplete element will not be considered for funding.

1. Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” In order for this form to be considered complete, it must contain the legal name of the applicant, the applicant's DUNS number, the applicant's complete mailing address, the name and telephone number of a contact person, the employer identification number, the start and end dates of the project, the Federal funds requested, other funds that will be used as matching funds, an answer to the question, “Is applicant delinquent on any Federal debt?,” and the name and signature of an authorized representative.

You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant from RBS. The DUNS number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access http://www.dunandbradstreet.com or call (866) 705-5711. For more information, see the RCDG Web site at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg.htm or contact the State Office in your State from the list in section VII.

2. Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the applicant must fill out sections A, B, C, and D. The applicant must include both Federal and matching funds.

3. Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.” In order for this form to be considered complete, the form must be signed by an authorized official.

4. Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants. RBS is required to give this survey to all non-profit applicants. This survey is voluntary. If the applicant does not wish to participate in the survey, the applicant still must return the blank survey form with a statement indicating that the applicant does not wish to provide the information requested in order for their application to be considered complete.

5. Proposal . Each proposal must contain the following elements.

(i) Title Page. The Title Page should include the title of the project as well as any other relevant identifying information. The length should not exceed one page.

(ii) Table of Contents. For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents (TOC) immediately following the Title Page. The TOC should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the TOC. In order for this element to be considered complete, the TOC should include page numbers for the Executive Summary, the Eligibility Discussion, the Proposal Narrative and its 11 subcomponents, Verification of Matching Funds, and Certification of Matching Funds.

(iii) Executive Summary. Summarize the project in three (3) pages or less. Pages over the three-page limit will not be considered. This summary must briefly describe the Center, including goals and tasks to be completed, the amount requested, how the work will be performed, and whether organizational staff, consultants, or contractors will be used. It should also include the title of the project, the names of the primary project contacts, and a list of the main goals. The project summary should immediately follow the TOC.

(iv) Eligibility. Describe in detail how the applicant meets the eligibility requirements. This discussion is limited to two (2) pages. Pages over the two-page limit will not be considered.

(v) Proposal Narrative. The proposal narrative is limited to a total of 50 pages. Pages over the 50-page limit will not be considered. The narrative portion of the proposal must include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Project Title. The title of the proposed project must be brief, not to exceed 75 characters, yet describe the essentials of the project.

(b) Information Sheet. A separate one-page information sheet which lists each of the eight evaluation criteria followed by the page numbers of all relevant material and documentation contained in the application which supports that criteria.

(c) Goals of the Project. This section must include the following:

(1) A provision that substantiates that the Center will effectively serve rural areas in the United States;

(2) A provision that the primary objective of the Center will be to improve the economic condition of rural areas through cooperative development;

(3) A description of the contributions that the proposed activities are likely to make to the improvement of the economic conditions of the rural areas for which the Center will provide services; and

(4) Provisions that the Center, in carrying out the activities, will seek, where appropriate, the advice, participation, expertise, and assistance of representatives of business, industry, educational institutions, the Federal government, and State and local governments.

(d) Work Plan. Applicants must discuss the specific tasks to be completed using grant and matching funds. The work plan should show how customers will be identified, key personnel to be involved, and the evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall objectives of Center operations. The budget must present a breakdown of the estimated costs associated with cooperative development activities as well as the operation of the Center and allocate these costs to each of the tasks to be undertaken. Matching funds as well as grant funds must be accounted for in the budget.

(e) Performance Evaluation Criteria. Performance criteria suggested by the applicant for incorporation in the grant award in the event the proposal receives grant funding under this subpart. These suggested criteria are not binding on USDA.

(f) Undertakings. The applicant must expressly undertake to do the following:

(1) Take all practicable steps to develop continuing sources of financial support for the Center, particularly from sources in the private sectors;

(2) Make arrangements for the activities by the nonprofit institution, including institutions of higher education, operating the Center to be monitored and evaluated; and

(3) Provide an accounting for the money received by the grantee under this subpart.

(g) Delivery of cooperative development assistance. The applicant must describe its previous accomplishments and outcomes in Cooperative development activities and/or its potential for effective delivery of Cooperative development services to rural areas. Applicants who have received funding under the Rural Cooperative Development Grant program in Fiscal Years 2002 or 2003 must provide a summation of progress and results for all projects funded fully or partially by the RCDG program in those years. This summary should include the status of cooperative businesses organized and all eligible grant purpose activities. The applicant should also describe the type(s) of assistance to be provided, the expected impacts of that assistance, the sustainability of cooperative organizations receiving the assistance, and the transferability of its Cooperative development strategy and focus to other areas of the U.S.

(h) Qualifications of Personnel. Applicants must describe the qualifications of personnel expected to perform key center tasks, and whether these personnel are to be full/part-time Center employees or contract personnel. Those personnel having a track record of positive solutions for complex cooperative development or marketing problems, or those with a record of conducting feasibility studies that later proved to be accurate, business planning, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to the Center's success should be highlighted.

(i) Support and commitments. Applicants must describe the level of support and commitment in the community for the proposed Center and the services it would provide. This support can be from industry groups, commodity groups, and potential customers of the Center. Plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, or with State and local government institutions should be included. Letters supporting cooperation and coordination from potential local customers should be provided. Letters from industry groups, commodity groups, local and State government, and similar organizations should be referenced, but not included in the application package. When referencing these support letters, provide the name of the organization, date of the letter, the nature of the support (cash, technical assistance, moral), and the name and title of the person signing the letter.

(j) Future support. Applicants should describe their vision for Center operations beyond the first year, including issues such as sources and uses of alternative funding; reliance on Federal, State, and local grants; and the use of in-house personnel for providing services versus contracting out for that expertise. To the extent possible, applicants should document future funding sources that will help achieve long-term sustainability of the Center.

(k) Evaluation Criteria. Each of the evaluation criteria referenced in section V.1. must be specifically and individually addressed in narrative form.

The proposal narrative is limited to a maximum of 50 pages. Any pages over the 50-page limit will not be considered.

(6) Verification of Matching Funds. All proposed matching funds must be specifically documented in the application. Matching funds may be cash or third-party in-kind contributions. If matching funds are to be provided by the applicant in cash, there must be a statement that cash will be available, the amount of the cash, and the source of the cash. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in cash, the application must include a signed letter from that third party verifying how much cash will be donated and when it will be donated. Verification for funds donated outside the proposed time period of the grant will not be accepted. If the matching funds are to be provided by a third party in-kind donation, the application must include a signed letter from the third party verifying the goods or services to be donated, when the goods and services will be donated, and the value of the goods or services. Verification for in-kind contributions donated outside the proposed time period of the grant will not be accepted. Verification for in-kind contributions that are over-valued will not be accepted.

If matching funds are in cash, they must be spent on goods and services that are eligible expenditures for this grant program. If matching funds are in-kind contributions, the donated goods or services must be considered eligible expenditures for this grant program as well as be used for eligible purposes. The matching funds must be spent or donated during the grant period and the funds must be expended at a rate equal to or greater than the rate grant funds are expended. Some examples of unacceptable matching funds are donations of fixed equipment and buildings, and the preparation of your RCDG application package.

If acceptable verification for all proposed matching funds is missing from the application, the application will be determined to be incomplete and will not be considered for funding.

(7) Certification of Matching Funds. Applicants must certify that matching funds will be available at the same time grant funds are anticipated to be spent and that matching funds will be spent at a rate equal to or greater than the rate grant funds are spent throughout the duration of the grant period. If this certification is missing from the application, the application will be determined to be incomplete and will not be considered for funding.

3. Submission Dates and Times:

Application Deadline Date: July 26, 2004.

Explanation of Deadlines: Applications must be received by Marc Warman, USDA-RBS-CS, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4016-South, Stop 3250, Washington, DC 20250 by 4 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date. If you send your application by the United States Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the application by the closing date and time. If your application does not meet the deadline above, it will not be considered for funding. You will be notified that your application did not meet the submission requirements. You will also be notified by mail or by e-mail if your application is received on time.

4. Intergovernmental Review of Applications: Executive Order 12372 does apply to this program.

5. Funding Restrictions: Funding restrictions apply to both grant funds and matching funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent (95 percent where the grantee is a 1994 Institution) of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Unless provided by other authorizing legislation, other Federal grant funds cannot be used as matching funds. However, matching funds contributed by the applicant may include a loan from another Federal source.

In general, grant and matching funds can be used to assist farmers and ranchers in organizing new or improving existing agriculture cooperatives, including those involved in value-added activities. Grant and matching funds can also be used to help rural residents form other cooperatively operated businesses such as housing cooperatives, including the conversion of properties administered under the section 515 program administered by the Rural Housing Service to housing cooperatives. Finally, grant and matching funds can be used to help rural residents form shared-services businesses to support their individually owned rural businesses.

Grant funds and matching funds may be used for, but are not limited to, providing the following to individuals, cooperatives, small businesses and other similar entities in rural areas served by the Center:

(a) Applied research, feasibility, environmental and other studies that may be useful for the purpose of cooperative development.

(b) Collection, interpretation and dissemination of principles, facts, technical knowledge, or other information for the purpose of cooperative development.

(c) Providing training and instruction for the purpose of cooperative development.

(d) Providing loans and grants for the purpose of cooperative development in accordance with the subpart.

(e) Providing technical assistance, research services and advisory services for the purpose of cooperative development.

No funds made available under this solicitation shall be used to do any of the following activities:

Duplicate current services or replace or substitute support previously provided. If the current service is inadequate, however, grant funds may be used to expand the level of effort or services beyond what is currently being provided;

Paying the costs of preparing the application package for funding under this program;

Pay costs of the project incurred to prior to the date of grant approval;

Fund political activities;

Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise which does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence.

Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;

Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;

Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment;

Pay for the repair of privately owned vehicles;

Fund research and development; or

Fund any activities prohibited by 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019.

6. Other Submission Requirements: Applications must be received by Marc Warman, USDA-RBS-CS, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4016-South, Stop 3250, Washington, DC 20250 by 4 p.m. eastern time on the deadline date. Each application submission must contain all required documents in one envelope, if by mail or express delivery service, or all required documents must be in one electronic pdf file if the submission is by e-mail.

1. Criteria: All eligible and complete applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria. Failure to address any one of the following criteria will result in a determination of incomplete and the application will not be considered for funding.

The criteria listed in this section will be used to evaluate grants under this subpart. Preference will be given to items in paragraphs (a) through (k). Up to five points will be awarded to each of the 11 criteria. Each criterion will receive equal weight.

For information and documentation that appear in other sections of this funding announcement that already address the following criteria, the applicant may reference that information and documentation by section number and page number. The applicant does not have to repeat information and documentation in section V.1. if it is presented elsewhere. However, the applicant must correctly reference this information and documentation. Reviewers will not be required to search for information and documentation that is incorrectly referenced.

(a) Administrative capabilities. (1-5 points) The application will be evaluated to determine whether the subject Center has a track record of administering a nationally coordinated, regional or State-wide operated project. Centers that have capable financial systems and audit controls, personnel and program administration performance measures and clear rules of governance will receive more points than those not evidencing this capacity.

(b) Technical assistance and other services. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated expertise in providing technical assistance in rural areas. This includes conducting feasibility studies, developing marketing plans, developing business plans, and doing those other activities necessary for a group of individuals to form a cooperative.

(c) Economic development. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to assist in the retention of businesses, facilitate the establishment of cooperatives and new cooperative approaches and generate employment opportunities that will improve the economic conditions of rural areas.

(d) Linkages. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated ability to create horizontal linkages among businesses within and among various sectors in rural areas of the United States and vertical linkages to domestic and international markets. These linkages must be among cooperatives, not development organizations.

(e) Commitment. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate the applicant's commitment to providing technical assistance and other services to underserved and economically distressed areas in rural areas of the United States.

(f) Matching Funds. (1-5 points) All applicants must demonstrate Matching Funds equal to at least 25 percent (5 percent for 1994 Institutions) of the grant amount requested. Applications exceeding these minimum commitment levels will receive more points.

(g) Delivery. (1-5 points) The Agency will evaluate whether the Center has a track record in providing technical assistance in rural areas and accomplishing effective outcomes in cooperative development. The Center's potential for delivering effective cooperative development assistance, the expected effects of that assistance, the sustainability of cooperative organizations receiving the assistance, and the transferability of the Center's cooperative development strategy and focus to other States will also be assessed.

(h) Work Plan/Budget. (1-5 points) The work plan will be reviewed for detailed actions and an accompanying timetable for implementing the proposal. Clear, logical, realistic and efficient plans will result in a higher score. Budgets will be reviewed for completeness and the quality of non-Federal funding commitments.

(i) Qualifications of those Performing the Tasks. (1-5 points) The application will be evaluated to determine if the personnel expected to perform key center tasks have a track record of positive solutions for complex Cooperative development or marketing problems, or a successful record of conducting accurate feasibility studies, business plans, marketing analysis, or other activities relevant to Cooperative development center success.

(j) Local support. (5 points) Applications will be reviewed for previous and expected local support for the Center, plans for coordinating with other developmental organizations in the proposed service area, and coordination with State and local institutions. Support documentation should include recognition of rural values that balance employment opportunities with environmental stewardship and other positive rural amenities. Other than support from potential customers, just reference the support letters and documentation and do not actually submit documents. Centers that demonstrate strong support from potential beneficiaries and formal evidence of the Center's intent to coordinate with other developmental organizations will receive more points than those not evidencing such support and formal intent.

(k) Future support. (1-5 points) Applications that demonstrate their vision for funding center operations for future years, including diversification of funding sources and building in-house technical assistance capacity, will receive more points for this criterion.

2. Review and Selection Process: The Agency will conduct an initial screening of all proposals to determine whether the applicant is eligible, complete, and sufficiently responsive to the requirements set forth in this funding announcement so as to allow for an informed review. Incomplete or non-responsive applications will not be evaluated further. Applicants may revise their applications and re-submit them prior to the published deadline if there is sufficient time to do so. However, given the tight timeline this year, this probably will not be possible. Reviewers appointed by the Agency will evaluate applications.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates:

Award Date: The announcement of award selections is expected to occur on or about September 30, 2004.

1. Award Notices: Successful applicants will receive a notification of tentative selection for funding from Rural Development. Applicants must comply with all applicable statutes and regulations before the grant award will be approved. Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification by mail.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: 7 CFR parts 3015, 3019, and 4284.

To view these regulations, please see the following internet address: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1.

The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:

Grant Agreement.

Letter of Conditions.

Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”

Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”

Certification of Ownership and Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.

Resolution Authorizing Execution of Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions and Resolution Authorizing Execution of Request for Obligation of Funds.

Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions.”

Form AD-1048, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions.”

Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants).”

Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”

Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”

RD Instruction 1940-Q, Exhibit A-1, “Certification for Contracts, Grants & Loans.”

Additional information on these requirements can be found on the RBS Web site at the following Internet address: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/rcdg.htm.

Reporting Requirements: You must provide Rural Development with an original hard copy of the following reports. RBS is currently developing an online reporting system. Once the system is developed, you may be required to submit some or all of your reports online instead of in hard copy. The hard copies of your reports should be submitted to the Rural Development State Office of the state in which the Center is located. Failure to submit satisfactory reports on time may result in suspension or termination of your grant.

(1) A “Financial Status Report” listing expenditures according to agreed upon budget categories, on a semi-annual basis. Reporting periods end each March 31 and September 30. Reports are due 30 days after the reporting period ends.

(2) Semi-annual performance reports that compare accomplishments to the objectives stated in the proposal. Identify all tasks completed to date and provide documentation supporting the reported results. If the original schedule provided in the work plan is not being met, the report should discuss the problems or delays that may affect completion of the project. Objectives for the next reporting period should be listed. Compliance with any special condition on the use of award funds should be discussed. Reports are due as provided in paragraph (1) of this section. The supporting documentation for completed tasks include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws and an accounting of how outreach, training, and other “soft” funds were spent.

(3) Final project performance reports, including supporting documentation are due within 90 days of the completion of the project.

For general questions about this announcement and for program technical assistance, please contact the State Office for the State in which the Applicant is based. If you are unable to contact your State Office, please contact a nearby State Office or you may contact the RBS National Office at Mail Stop 3250, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250, telephone: (202) 720-7558, e-mail: cpgrants@usda.gov.

Note: Telephone numbers shown are not toll free.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Sterling Center, Suite 601, 4121 Carmichael Road, Montgomery, AL 36106-3683. (334) 279-3400. steve.pelham@al.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 800 West Evergreen, Suite 201, Palmer, AK 99645. (907) 761-7705. nhayes@rdmail.rural.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012. (602) 280-8700. eddie.browning@az.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 700 West Capitol Avenue, Room 3416, Little Rock, AR 72201-3225. (501) 301-3200. john.allen@ar.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 430 G Street, Agency 4169, Davis, CA 95616. (530) 792-5800. paul.venosdel@ca.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 655 Parfet Street, Lakewood, CO 80215. (720) 544-2903. gigi.dennis@co.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 4607 South DuPont Highway, Camden, DE 19934. (302) 697-4300. marlene.elliott@de.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 4440 NW. 25th Place, Gainesville, FL 32606. (352) 338-3400. charles.clemons@fl.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Stephens Federal Building, 355 E. Hancock Avenue, Athens, GA 30601. (706) 546-2162. stone.workman@ga.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 311, 154 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo, HI 96720. (808) 933-8380. lorraine.shin@hi.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 9173 West Barnes Drive, Suite A1, Boise, ID 83709. (208) 378-5600. mike.field@id.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 2118 West Park Court, Suite A, Champaign, IL 61821. (217) 403-6200. Douglas.wilson@il.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 5975 Lakeside Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46278. (317) 290-3100. Robert.white@in.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 873, 210 Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50309. (515) 284-4663. nancy.orth@ia.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 1303 SW. First American Place, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66604. (785) 271-2700. chuck.banks@ks.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40503. (859) 224-7300. ken.slone@ky.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 3727 Government Street, Alexandria, LA 71302. (318) 473-7920. Michael.taylor@la.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4, Bangor, ME 04402. (207) 990-9106. m.aube@me.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 451 West Street, Suite 2, Amherst, MA 01002. (413) 253-4300. david.tutle@ma.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200, East Lansing, MI 48823. (517) 324-5200. Harry.brumer@mi.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 375 Jackson Street, Suite 410, St. Paul, MN 55101-1853. (651) 602-7800. steve.wenzel@mn.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Suite 831, 100 West Capitol Street, Jackson, MS 39269. (601) 965-4316. nick.walters@ms.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235, Columbia, MO 65203. (573) 876-0976. greg.branum@mo.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 900 Technology Blvd., Suite B, Bozeman, MT 59718. (406) 585-2580. tim.ryan@mt.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 152, 100 Centennial Mall N, Lincoln, NE 68508. (402) 437-5551. jim.barr@ne.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 1390 South Curry Street, Carson City, NV 89703. (775) 887-1222. larry.smith@nv.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 5th Floor North Tower, Suite 500, 8000 Midlantic Drive, Mount Laurel, NJ 08054. (856) 787-7700. Andrew.law@nj.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 6200 Jefferson Street, NE., Room 255, Albuquerque, NM 87109. (505) 761-4950. jeff.condrey@nm.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, The Galleries of Syracuse, 441 South Salina Street, Suite 357, Syracuse, NY 13202. (315) 477-6400. Patrick.brennan@ny.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development State Office, 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260, Raleigh, NC 27609. (919) 873-2000. john.cooper@nc.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 208, 220 East Rosser Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58502-1737. (701) 530-2037. jane.grant@nd.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 507, 200 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215. (614) 255-2400. randall.hunt@oh.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 100 USDA, Suite 108, Stillwater, OK 74074. (405) 742-1000. brent.kisling@ok.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1410, Portland, OR 97204. (503) 414-3300. lynn.schoessler@or.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, One Credit Union Place, Suite 330, Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996. (717) 237-2299. byron.ross@pa.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development State Office, 654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, IBM Plaza, Suite 601, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918. (787) 766-5095. jose.otero@pr.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development State Office, Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835 Assembly Street, Suite 1007, Columbia, SC 29201. (803) 765-5163. charles.sparks@sc.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Room 210, 200 4th Street, SW., Huron, SD 57350. (605) 352-1100. lynn.jensen@sd.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 783-1300. peggy.rose@tn.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, Suite 102, 101 South Main, Temple, TX 76501. (254) 742-9700. bryan.daniel@tx.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Room 4311, Salt Lake City, UT 84138. (801) 524-4320. jack.cox@ut.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, City Center, 3rd Floor, 89 Main Street, Montpelier, VT 05602. (802) 828-6000. marie.ferris@vt.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Culpeper Building, Suite 238, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Richmond, VA 23229. (804) 287-1550. joe.newbill@va.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 1835 Black Lake Blvd., SW., Suite B, Olympia, WA 98512. (360) 704-7740. misha.divens@wa.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, Federal Building, 75 High Street, Room 320, Morgantown, WV 26505. (304) 284-4860. jenny.phillips@wv.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 4949 Kirschling Court, Stevens Point, WI 54481. (715) 345-7600. frank.frassetto@wi.usda.gov.

State Director, USDA Rural Development, 100 East B Street, Room 1005, Casper, WY 82601. (307) 261-6300. john.cochran@wy.usda.gov.

The subject amendments to Permit Nos. 782-1438-08, 782-1446-07, and 774-1437-07 are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

Permit No.782-1438-08 authorizes the permit holder to take various cetacean species by harassment during aerial/vessel surveys, biopsy sampling, capture/release to estimate species abundance; determine species distribution and stock structure; and collect data from beluga whales on seasonal distribution, surfacing intervals, movements relative to ice cover and human activities, genetic population structure, contaminant levels, and food preference. Activities occur in the North Pacific.

Permit No. 782-1446-07 authorizes the permit holder to take pinnipeds by harassment during aerial/ground/vessel surveys for stock assessment, capture, tag, and brand animals for long term identification of individuals and information on reproductive success, survival and longevity. Activities occur in California, Washington and Oregon.

Permit No. 774-1437-07 authorizes the permit holder to take pinnipeds and cetaceans by harassment during aerial/ground/vessel surveys and photogrammetry, biopsy sampling and photo-id studies to estimate abundance and determine population structure in U.S. territorial and international waters.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the CFTC is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information listed below.

With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Practice by former members and employees of the Commission, OMB control number 3038-0025—Extension.

Commission Rule 140.735-6 governs the practice before the Commission of former members and employees of the Commission and is intended to ensure that the Commission is aware of any existing conflict of interest. The rule generally requires former members and employees who are employed or retained to represent any person before the Commission within two years of the termination of their CFTC employment to file a brief written statement with the Commission's Office of General Counsel. The proposed rule was promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Section 8a(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (1994). The intervening years since the last extension have not indicated a change in the burden.

The Commission estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

This estimate is based on the number of responses received over the last three years.

The Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 1 among other things, seeks to enhance regulatory efficiency in the futures industry through self-regulation by exchanges, clearinghouses, and other organizations registered with or designated by the Commission. 2 Simultaneously, the Act recognizes the public interest inherent in transactions executed on U.S. futures exchanges and provides for oversight by the Commission. 3 As the primary industry regulator, the Commission strives for transparent, competitive, and financially sound futures markets that operate free from manipulation, and to protect market participants from fraud and other abusive practices.

Acknowledging both the importance of industry self-regulation and its own obligation to foster and maintain market integrity, CFTC Chairman James E. Newsome announced in May of 2003 that the Commission would review “the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of SROs in the context of market changes”  4 To that end, Commission staff has undertaken a comprehensive study of self-regulation in the futures industry (“SRO Study”).

The Commission's review of self-regulation has progressed against a backdrop of rapid transformation in the futures industry; both the competitive environment and the industry's business models are evolving rapidly. For example, in November of 2000, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange became the first U.S.-based futures exchange to transform from a not-for profit mutual organization to a demutualized publicly traded for-profit entity. The New York Mercantile Exchange has also demutualized, although it is not publicly traded. Other exchanges are considering demutualization, or are simply entering the market as for-profit, non-mutualized entities. These structural changes have coincided with increased competition in futures trading; a dramatic rise in the volume of trading, both open outcry and electronic; the entrance of new participants; and expanding roles for others. Each of these developments may have implications for SROs in the performance of their regulatory functions.

Since the initiation of the SRO Study, Commission staff has interviewed more than 100 individuals representing futures commission merchants (“FCMs”), DCMs, DCOs and futures industry associations. Staff also has interviewed industry executives, academics, consultants, and individuals associated with securities-side entities. The interviews covered a broad range of issues relevant to self-regulation in the futures industry, and constituted an important component of the ongoing SRO Study.

Based on these interviews, the Commission identified two issues for immediate attention: (1) Ensuring the confidentiality of certain information obtained by SROs in the course of their self-regulatory activities; and (2) examining the cooperative regulatory agreement by which SROs coordinate compliance examinations of FCMs (“DSRO System”). Interim measures with respect to both issues were announced in a February 2004 press release. 5 First, the Commission encouraged every SRO to reexamine its policies, procedures, and practices to confirm that it has adequate safeguards to prevent the inappropriate use of confidential information obtained during audits, investigations, and other self-regulatory activities. SROs also were encouraged to publicize their safeguards. Second, the Commission announced a review of the DSRO System, including its cooperative agreements and programs. As a part of that review, the Commission subsequently issued a Request for Comment on proposed amendments to the cooperative agreement by which various SROs allocate certain supervisory responsibilities among themselves so that each FCM has a single designated self-regulatory organization (“DSRO”). 6

The February press release also reaffirmed that governance is a central focus of the SRO Study,noting that SRO governance can substantially impact key aspects of self-regulation and the increased national attention given to SRO governance issues. Accordingly, the Commission announced that it would issue this Request for Comments on the topic of SRO governance.

On December 21, 2000, Congress adopted the CFMA, which, among other things, replaced “one-size-fits-all” regulations for futures markets with flexible core principles and granted the Commission explicit authority over DCOs. 7 Prior to the adoption of the CFMA, SRO governance was addressed primarily through Section 5a of the Act, as amended by the Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992 (“FTPA”). The FTPA required greater diversity of representation on SRO boards and disciplinary committees, imposed fitness standards for service on boards and disciplinary and oversight committees, and required SROs to adopt procedures to avoid conflicts of interest in deliberations by persons serving on such bodies. As directed by Congress, the Commission promulgated regulations to enact the FTPA's governance provisions. First, Regulation 1.64 addressed composition requirements for SRO boards and disciplinary committees. 8 Second, Regulation 1.69 established specific factors to be considered with respect to barring a person serving on a board, disciplinary or oversight committee from voting on a decision if the person had a potential financial or personal interest. Third, Regulation 1.63, which already established fitness standards for members of SRO boards and disciplinary committees, was amended to include individuals serving on SRO oversight panels.

The CFMA struck former Section 5a of the Act and adopted new statutory provisions with respect to exchange governance. The CFMA enumerates 18 core principles applicable to DCMs, three of which directly relate to exchange governance: Core Principle 14- Governance Fitness Standards; Core Principle 15- Conflicts of Interest; and Core Principle 16- Composition of Boards Mutually Owned Contract Markets. 9

The Commission adopted Part 38 of its regulations to implement those core principles applicable to DCMs. 10 Appendix B to Part 38 provides “application guidance” for the 18 core principles. 11 The guidance for Core Principle 14 provides that a DCM should have appropriate fitness standards for various categories of individuals. With respect to members who have voting privileges and individuals who exercise governing or disciplinary authority, at a minimum,these fitness standards should include those bases for refusal to register a person that are enumerated under section 8a(2) of the Act. 12 the fitness standards also should require that individuals with governing authority not have a significant history of disciplinary violations, such as the disqualifications listed under Commission Regulation 1.63. 13

The guidance for Core Principle 15 provides that a DCM should have procedures to identify and resolve conflicts of interest in decision-making. A DCM also should have appropriate limitations regarding the use or disclosure of material non-public information gained through the performance of official duties by board members, committee members, and exchange employees or gained through an exchange ownership interest. Finally, the guidance for Core Principle 16 provides that the board composition of a mutually-owned DCM should fairly represent the diversity of interests of the DCM's market participants. 14

The Commission has formulated the following questions based on its research, the views expressed by interview participants, and industry developments. Responses from interested parties will advance the Commission's understanding of issues relevant to SRO governance. Each enumerated question should be addressed individually; parties also may address any other topics they believe are relevant to SRO governance.

Possible conflicts of interest, such as those that may exist between an SRO's regulatory functions and its business functions, or between an SRO's members, are central to many of the questions articulated below. Where appropriate, parties should identify the specific conflict addressed in their response, and how their proposal resolves that conflict.

1. What is the appropriate composition of SRO boards to best protect the public interest and serve SROs' needs? If you believe that SRO boards should consist of market participants, what participant communities should be represented and how should representation be allocated among those communities ( e.g., quotas, volume-based)? Should the composition of SRO boards be different for the various types of SROs ( e.g., DCM or DCO)?

2. How and by whom should SRO boards be nominated and elected? If directors should represent particular communities, should each community nominate and/or elect its representatives to the board? If the board consists of independent directors, what nomination and election procedures are necessary to ensure independence?

3. Should SRO boards include independent directors and, if so, what level of representation should they have? What are appropriate definitions of “independent director” and “public director?” Should all independent directors be public directors? Please address whether SRO members can be considered independent. Also, please address whether the New York Stock Exchange's definition of independent—the requirements include independence from the exchange's management, members, and member organizations—is an appropriate model for the futures industry. 15

4. Are the governance standards applicable to listed companies sufficient for futures exchanges or their listed parent companies? Or, given that futures exchanges are not typical corporations in that they bear self-regulatory responsibilities, should they adopt higher governance standards, particularly with respect to self-regulatory activities? Please explain.

5. Should SRO's regulatory functions be overseen by a body that is internal to the SRO, but independent of management, members, and business functions? If so, what specific functions should fall within its purview ( e.g., regulatory budget; personnel decisions; compensation of regulatory staff; compliance and disciplinary programs; other aspects of self-regulation)?

6. Please address whether any rule enforcement, disciplinary, or other functions currently performed by exchanges should be performed instead by an independent regulatory services provider.

7. What impact do varying business models have on SRO's self-regulatory behavior? Consider for-profit/not-for profit, member-owned/shareholder owned, and publicly traded/privately held business models.

8. More specifically, is an SRO subject to new influences in the performance of its self-regulatory functions when it converts from a member-owned, not-for-profit organization to a publicly traded, for-profit company? Might a for-profit, publicly traded SRO attempt to attract volume or increase its profits through lax self-regulation? Or, is ti more likely that the SRO will seek to protects its brand and add value through effective self-regulation?

9. How should SRO disciplinary committees be structured so as to ensure both expertise and impartiality?

10. Please address whether SRO discplinary committees should have independent, non-SRO member chairs and/or committee membership. Should the level of representation for independent, non-SRO members vary according to the type of discplinary case?

11. How and by whom should SRO disciplinary committes be appointed? Should the terms of committee members be limited? Please explain.

12. What additional information, if any, should SROs make available to the public to increase transparency with respect to their governance and regulatory structures ( e.g. , board member affiliations; regulatory staffing and budget; disciplinary committee membership and affiliations, etc.)?

13. Would additional core principles for SROs help to clarify their responsibilities with respect to governance, or would regulatory guidance be more appropriate.

14. What steps should be taken to manage or eliminate conflicts of interest involving SRO board and disciplinary committee members?

15. Should registered futures associations that are functioning as SROs also be subject to governance standards?

In 1994, Congress passed the “Child Safety Protection Act,” which, among other things, included the “Children's Bicycle Helmet Safety Act of 1994” Pub. L. 103-267, 108 Stat. 726. This law directed the Commission to issue a final standard applicable to bicycle helmets that would replace several existing voluntary standards with a single uniform standard that would include provisions to protect against the risk of helmets coming off the heads of bicycle riders, address the risk of injury to children, and cover other issues as appropriate. The Commission issued the final bicycle helmet standard in 1998. It is codified at 16 CFR part 1203.

The standard requires all bicycle helmets manufactured after March 10, 1999, to meet impact-attenuation and other requirements. The standard also contains testing and recordkeeping requirements to ensure that bicycle helmets meet the standard's requirements. Certification regulations implementing the standard require manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard to (1) perform tests to demonstrate that those products meet the requirements of the standard, (2) maintain records of those tests, and (3) affix permanent labels to the helmets stating that the helmet complies with the applicable standard. The certification regulations are codified at 16 CFR part 1203, subpart B.

The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by manufacturers, importers, and private labelers of bicycle helmets subject to the standard to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with head injury associated with bicycle riding. More specifically, this information helps the Commission determine whether bicycle helmets subject to the standard comply with all applicable requirements. The Commission also uses this information to obtain corrective actions if bicycle helmets fail to comply with the standard in a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury to the public.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the collection of information in the certification regulations under control number 3041-0127. The Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval without change for the collection of information in the certification regulations.

The Commission staff estimates that approximately 30 firms manufacture or import bicycle helmets subject to the standard. There are an estimated 200 different models of bicycle helmets currently marketed in the U.S. The Commission staff estimates that the time required to comply with the collection of information requirements is approximately 100 to 150 hours per model per year. The total amount of time estimated for compliance with these requirements will be 20,000 to 30,000 hours per year (200 models × 100-150 hours/model = 20,000-30,000 hours). The annualized cost to respondents for the hour burden for collection of information is $489,600-$734,400 based on 20,000-30,000 hours times $24.48/hour (based on total compensation of all civilian workers in the U.S., September 2003, Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

Swimming pools can be dangerous to young children. In 1999 and 2000, an average of about 250 children under 5 years old drowned in swimming pools each year. In 2002, approximately 1,600 children under 5 years old were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms for near-drowning injuries related to swimming pools. About 58 percent of these children were hospitalized. Approximately 67 percent of the near-drowning injuries were reported to have occurred in home settings. Societal costs associated with these drownings and near-drownings are almost $2 billion each year. In addition, these tragedies result in severe emotional impacts on the families of the victims. From 1990 through October 2003, CPSC has reports of 126 suction entrapment incidents, including 25 deaths. These incidents occurred in both swimming pools and spas.

CPSC has been actively involved for many years in injury prevention activities addressing swimming pool safety. In the late 1980s, CPSC conducted an extensive study of submersion incidents involving children under age 5 in residential swimming pools in eight counties in California, Arizona, and Florida. The results of this study indicated that most of the victims were boys between 1 and 3 years old. Nearly half of the victims were last seen in the house before being found in the pool. In addition, 23 percent of the victims were last seen on the porch or patio or in the yard. This means that fully 69 percent of the children who became victims were not expected to be in or at the pool, but were found in the water. Sixty-five percent of the incidents occurred in a pool owned by the victims' immediate family, and 33 percent occurred in pools owned by relatives or friends. Fewer than 2 percent of the incidents were the result of children trespassing on property where they did not belong. Seventy-seven percent of the victims had been missing for 5 minutes or less when they were found.

The speed with which swimming pool drownings and submersions can occur is a special concern. Toddlers are inquisitive and impulsive and lack a sense of danger. In addition, the incidents are silent; it is unlikely that splashing or screaming will occur to alert a parent or caregiver that a child is in trouble.

From this information as well as information on child development and behavior, CPSC staff concluded that the best way to reduce child drownings in residential pools is for pool owners to construct and maintain barriers that prevent young children from gaining access to pools. CPSC staff believes that barriers increase the time for adults to intervene and prevent submersion incidents. In 1994, CPSC published Safety Barrier Guidelines for Home Pools (available on CPSC's Web site at www.cpsc.gov ). Since that time, CPSC has continued to stress the importance of a primary barrier in addition to other layers of protection and has stressed the need for close supervision of young children in and around the water. CPSC staff has studied pool alarms and worked on voluntary standards for fencing, pool and spa safety covers, door alarms, and pool alarms. CPSC has conducted annual public outreach on child drowning prevention.

In 1998, CPSC published Guidelines for Entrapment Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer (available at www.cpsc.gov ). These Guidelines provide safety information that will help identify and address potential entrapment hazards in swimming pools, wading pools, spas, and hot tubs. They address the hazards of evisceration/disembowelment, body entrapment, and hair entrapment/entanglement. The CPSC has recently circulated a draft revision to these Guidelines and is responding to comments. These Guidelines emphasize layers of protection. In addition, CPSC staff has worked to develop or revise voluntary standards for suction fittings and Safety Vacuum Release Systems (“SVRS”). CPSC has also provided the public with information about suction entrapments and how to prevent them.

In 2003, CPSC set a new strategic goal to reduce the rate of swimming pool and other at-home drownings of children under 5 years old by 10 percent by the year 2013 from the 1999-2000 annual average of 250. The information that we gather at this public hearing will help CPSC develop plans for further work in the area of swimming pool safety.

The purpose of the public hearing is to provide a forum for oral presentations concerning swimming pool safety, specifically drownings of children under 5 years old in residential swimming pools and suction entrapment and entanglement deaths and injuries. The Commission is holding another public field hearing on swimming pool safety in Tampa, Florida on Monday, June 21, 2004. A notice concerning that hearing was previously published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2004. 69 FR 24587.

The Commission requests comments from interested stakeholders and citizens on the following specific areas of interest:

1. Data on drowning and near-drowning in residential swimming pools and spas.

• In your locale, how many child drowning and near-drowning incidents do you see on an annual basis? How many suction entrapments and entanglements?

• What were the circumstances involved in these incidents?

• What trends in drowning and entrapment incidents have you seen in recent years?

• Have you seen any correlation between drowning intervention activities (for example, new barrier requirements, safety campaigns, etc.) and changes in the number of incidents and deaths?

• Are there ways in which the incident reporting process could be improved?

• In general, is the available incident information adequate for a thorough and accurate evaluation of the hazard scenarios involved?

• What data needs still exist?

2. Regional/local pool barrier codes, laws, and regulations.

• What law or guideline has been adopted in your region/locale?

• What does it require?

• When was it enacted?

• What was the source building code?

• Which agency has jurisdiction?

• What enforcement exists?

3. Effectiveness of pool barriers and other protective products.

• What evidence can you provide to demonstrate the effectiveness of protective products such as pool fencing, pool and/or door alarms, pool covers, etc?

• Which protective products do you think are the most effective?

• What factors do you think contribute to consumers using or not using these products?

• What research, if any, do you think needs to be done in this area?

4. Educational approaches.

• In your locale, what public information approaches have been used to address pool drowning hazards?

• To whom were these approaches targeted?

• What tasks were involved in carrying out these efforts?

• Which approaches worked, and which did not?

• What dollar resources were involved?

5. Role for CPSC

• What role should CPSC take to help address child drownings and entrapment and entanglement injuries?

Participation in the hearing is open. See the DATES section of this notice for information on making requests to give oral presentations at the hearing.

The Corporation is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Background : The Corporation publishes application guidelines and notices of funding availability that include information about the funding and requirements. The application instructions provide the information, instructions, and forms that potential applicants need to complete an application to the Corporation for funding by utilizing the new eGrants system developed by the Corporation.

Current Action : The Corporation seeks public comment on the forms, the instructions for the forms, and the instructions for the narrative portion of these application instructions.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Agency : Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Next Generation Grant Application Instructions.

OMB Number: 3045-0087.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Eligible applicants for funding with the Corporation.

Total Respondents: 400.

Frequency: Annually.

Average Time Per Response: 10 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4000.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

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

1. This study was authorized in a resolution of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives, dated April 15, 1999, Docket 2596.

2. A Public Scoping Meeting was held on July 17, 2003 and the results collected in a Public Scoping Document. These results are available for review and additional scoping comments. All results from public and agency scoping coordination will be addressed in the DEIS. Parties interested in receiving the Public Scoping Document should contact Mr. Will at the above address.

3. A DEIS is due for completion by July 2004.

4. Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to COL John B. O'Dowd, District Engineer, at the above address.

The SRDWSC is located in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region of northern California. The 46.5-mile long ship channel lies within Contra Costa, Solano, Sacramento, and Yolo Counties and serves the marine terminal facilities at the Port of Sacramento. The SRDWSC joins the existing 35-feet deep channel at New York Slough, thereby affording the Port of Sacramento access to San Francisco Bay Area harbors and the Pacific Ocean. This navigational improvement project was analyzed in the Feasibility Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement (1980), the General Design Memorandum and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (1986), and Environmental Assessments (1988, 1991, 1992). Navigational improvements to the SRDWSC were authorized in the Supplemental Appropriations of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-88). Construction to deepen the existing channel to 35 feet was initiated in 1989, but work was suspended in 1990 at the request of the Port of Sacramento. Two of six construction contracts, from River Mile 43 to 35, have been completed to date. The Corps has been directed by Congress to reevaluate the project and to recommend whether to resume construction.

The SEIS/SEIR will update the 1980 EIS and the 1986 SEIS and will evaluate changes to project conditions. The SEIS/SEIR will determine if there are significant new issues, information, or environmental concerns bearing on the proposed project and alternatives. The SEIS/SEIR will reexamine water and air quality issues, fish and wildlife impacts, and effects to endangered or threatened species. The impact of deepening on salinity intrusion and its effect on water quality in the Delta will be reexamined. Effects to water and air quality and fish and wildlife from dredging and disposal of dredged material at upland disposal sites will be reexamined. Additionally, the economic benefits of the proposed project and alternatives will be reexamined.

1. Proposed Action. The proposed project would complete the deepening and widening of the navigation channel to its authorized depth of 35 feet. Other features of the authorized plan, include the establishment of wetland/riparian habitat on prospect Island and lower Sherman Island to mitigate for project impacts and restore wetland habitat. These plan features will be reexamined for their feasibility and appropriateness for construction.

2. Alternatives. Alternative methods of moving goods trough the Port of Sacramento were studied in the original EIS and found to be less economically beneficial. These alternatives included No Action; increased use of LASH (Lighter Aboard Ship) barges; and increased use of intermodal transportation. The SEIS/SEIR will reanalyze the previously evaluated alternatives and may also evaluate whether a project depth shallower than the authorized 35 feet depth would be an acceptable project alternative.

3. Public Involvement. The Corps will hold a public environmental scoping meeting to discuss the scope of the draft SEIS/SEIR. The public scoping meeting location, date and time will be advertised in advance in local newspapers, and meeting announcement letters will be sent to interested parties. The draft SEIS/SEIR is expected to be available for a 45-day public review and comment period in December 2004. The Corps will announce availability of the draft in the Federal Register and other media, and will provide the public, organizations, and agencies with an opportunity to submit comments, which will be addressed in the final SEIS/SEIR. the final SEIS/SEIR is expected to be available for a 30-day review period in August 2005.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Gary Stegner, Public Affairs Office, Ohio Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board, c/o Phoenix Environmental Corporation, MS-76, Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, OH 43253-8704, or by calling the Advisory Board at (513) 648-6478.

The Marketing Plan for marketing power by SNR after 2004, published in the Federal Register (64 FR 34417) on June 25, 1999, including the subsequent Final Resource Pool Allocations, published in the Federal Register (65 FR 45976) on July 26, 2000, and all other related notices, were established pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101-7352); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the projects involved.

The Marketing Plan describes how SNR will market its power resources from the Central Valley Project, Washoe Project, and other sources beginning January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2024. The 2005 Resource Pool was established for new power allocations, and those allocations were made to qualified entities. All existing customers and new allottees have executed a Base Resource Contract with Western.

The Marketing Plan provides for making a Custom Product available to interested customers. A Custom Product is service not provided under the Base Resource Contract that a customer needs to meet its load, including firming or supplemental power, portfolio management, and/or scheduling coordinator services. The Marketing Plan required customers to commit to purchase a Custom Product by December 31, 2002. By notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 60654), dated September 26, 2002, the deadline was extended to June 30, 2004, to provide customers with more time to determine their need for a Custom Product in California's changing electric market.

SNR delayed its formal process to establish the rates to become effective January 1, 2005, until it completed the Operational Alternatives Administrative Procedure Act process. Western published a Final Decision on the Post-2004 Operational Alternative in the Federal Register (69 FR 8191) on February 23, 2004. Western then developed proposed rates consistent with that Final Decision. The Notice of Proposed Rates was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 26370) on May 12, 2004. Once established, these rates will apply to the services offered under the Marketing Plan. Therefore, Western is now extending the deadline to execute a Custom Product Contract to August 13, 2004. This extension is expected to provide ample time for customers to review the contracts and the proposed rates for the services offered under those contracts prior to the deadline to execute a contract.

The Base Resource Contract provides, among other things, that the customer make its own transmission arrangements to take delivery of the Base Resource, and must inform Western of such arrangements by July 1, 2004. Because Western is extending the deadline by which a customer must commit to purchase a Custom Product, Western has also decided to extend the notification date following the Transmission Arrangements Section of the Base Resource Contract to August 13, 2004.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. ) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Western has determined that this action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq. ); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; so this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 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-2004-0149. 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.

Under Contract No.4D-5094-NBSX, the contractor will perform the following: provide software development and related support services to the Office of Pesticide Programs in support of the redevelopment and enhancement of the OPP system known as the OPPIN Query Tool in order to make OPPIN information readily available to the general public, to comply with requirements of section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and enhance the software based on written specifications provided by the Office of Pesticide Programs.

This contract involves no subcontractors.

The OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent regulatory decisions under FIFRA.

Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 of FIFRA and under sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA.

In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the contracts with Systalex Corporation, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in these contracts; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual . In addition, Systalex Corporation is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to Systalex Corporation until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Systalex Corporation will be maintained by EPA Project Officers for these contracts. All information supplied to Systalex Corporation by EPA for use in connection with these contracts will be returned to EPA when Systalex Corporation has completed its work.

Summary: The CASAC, which comprises seven members appointed by the EPA Administrator, was established under section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7409) as an independent scientific advisory committee, in part to provide advice, information and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to air quality criteria and national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) under sections 108 and 109 of the Act. The CASAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. The CASAC PM Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies.

The meeting is a continuation of the PM Review Panel's peer review of the EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Fourth External Review Draft) . The CASAC PM Review Panel's reports, comments and recommendations from its last two reviews concerning this draft document can be found on the SAB Web site, as follows: (1) August 25-26, 2003 meeting, http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casacl04002.pdf ; and (2) February 3, 2004 teleconference, http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac_04005.pdf . Specifically, this meeting will be held to discuss the revisions to Chapter 7 (Toxicology of Particulate Matter in Humans and Laboratory Animals); Chapter 8 (Epidemiology of Human Health Effects Associated with Ambient Particulate Matter); and Chapter 9 (Integrative Synthesis) of the Fourth External Review Draft of the Air Quality Criteria Document (AQCD) for PM.

Background: EPA is in the process of updating, and revising where appropriate, the AQCD for PM as issued in 1996. Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that EPA carry out a periodic review and revision, where appropriate, of the air quality criteria and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for “criteria” air pollutants such as PM. On June 30, 2003, the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA), within EPA's Office of Research and Development, made available for public review and comment a Fourth External Review Draft of a revised document, EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter . Under CAA sections 108 and 109, the purpose of the revised document is to provide an assessment of the latest scientific information on the effects of airborne PM on the public health and welfare, for use in EPA's current review of the NAAQS for PM. Detailed summary information on the history of the current draft AQCD for PM is contained in a previous Federal Register notice (68 FR 36985, June 20, 2003). The EPA Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (Fourth External Review Draft) and revised chapters of this draft document can be viewed and downloaded from the NCEA Web site at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/partmatt.cfm . Any questions concerning the draft document should be directed to Dr. Robert Elias, NCEA-RTP, via telephone: (919) 541-1818; or e-mail at: elias.robert@epa.gov .

Availability of Additional Meeting Materials: Copies of the draft agendas for the meetings that are described in this notice will be posted on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab (under the “Agendas” subheading) in advance of the CASAC PM Review Panel meeting. Other materials that may be available will also be posted on the SAB Web site during this time-frame.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the SAB Staff Office to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements.

Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a face-to-face meeting will be limited to a total time of five minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Requests to provide oral comments must be in writing (e-mail, fax or mail) and received by Mr. Butterfield no later than noon Eastern Time five business days prior to the meeting in order to reserve time on the meeting agenda. Speakers should bring at least 75 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting.

Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office no later than noon Eastern Time five business days prior to the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the CASAC PM Review Panel for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to Mr. Butterfield (preferably via e-mail) at the address/contact information noted above, as follows: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 95/98 format)). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 75 copies of their comments for public distribution.

Meeting Access: Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, including wheelchair access to the conference room, should contact Mr. Butterfield at the phone number or e-mail address noted above at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The Agency included in the notice a list of those who may be potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 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. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

This document extends the comment period established in the Federal Register of May 7, 2004 (69 FR 25577) (FRL-7358-1), during which the registrant may withdraw the voluntary cancellation request. In that document, EPA issued a notice of receipt of request by a registrant to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. On May 20, 2004, EPA received a request from the USA Rice Federation for an extension of the time period to July 1, 2004, so that the USA Rice Federation may negotiate with the registrant, Bayer Crop Science, to withdraw its voluntary cancellation request. In light of the fact that the registrations will expire on July 1, 2004, the Agency will extend the comment period to June 21, 2004, not July 1, 2004. By extending to June 21, 2004, the Agency will be able to address timely received comments and requests for withdrawal before the expiration of the registrations on July 1, 2004. EPA is hereby extending the public comment period during which the registrant may withdraw the request to voluntarily cancel these pesticide registrations, which was set to end on June 7, 2004, to June 21, 2004.

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 . Section 6(f)(1) further provides that the Administrator shall provide for a 30-day period in which the public may comment. For minor crops, this period shall be 180 days, except that the registrant may waive the 180-day comment period. In this case, Bayer CropScience waived the 180-day comment period.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111)

• Animal production (NAICS code 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2004-0148. 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 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.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 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. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

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

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

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0148. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0148. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access”system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0148.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2004-0148. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by Syngento Crop Protection, the pesticide's registrant, and submitted by the Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) and represents the view of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 2E6467) from the IR-4 Project, Project Centre for Minor Crop Pest Management, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 8920-3390 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180, by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide pymetrozine (1,2,4-triazin-3(2H)-one,4,5-dihydro-6-methyl-4-(3-pyridinylmethylene)amino in or on the raw agricultural commodity asparagus at 0.02 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Plant metabolism . The metabolism of pymetrozine in plants is understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances. Studies in rice, tomatoes, cotton and potatoes gave similar results. The metabolic pathways have demonstrated that pymetrozine, per se, is the residue of concern for tolerance setting purposes.

2. Analytical method . Syngenta has submitted an analytical method (AG-643) for the determination of pymetrozine in crop substrates. The limit of detection (LOD) for the analytical method is 1.0 ng and the limit of quantification (LOQ) is 0.02 ppm. Samples are extracted, purified with solid-phase and liquid-liquid partitions and analyzed by high performance liquid chromotography (HPLC). Analytical method has undergone independent laboratory validation. The pymetrozine Analytical Method AG-643 is proposed as the tolerance enforcement method. Syngenta has also submitted an analytical method (AG-647) for the determination of the major crop metabolite of pymetrozine, GS-23199. GS-23199 is considered a marker for metabolite residues. This metabolite is not proposed as part of the tolerance expression. Samples are extracted, purified with solid-phase and/or liquid-liquid partitions and analyzed by HPLC.

3. Magnitude of residues . Residue data were generated for pymetrozine for tolerance setting and dietary exposure estimates. Data were also generated for a major metabolite, GS-23199. Adequate residue trials were performed for pymetrozine on the uses proposed in this notice of filing.

1. Acute toxicity . In general, pymetrozine has low acute toxicity being classified as Toxicity Category III for acute dermal and primary eye irritation studies and Toxicity Category IV for acute oral, acute inhalation and primary dermal studies. The oral lethal dose (LD) 50 in rats is > 5,820 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) for males and females, combined. The rat dermal LD 50 is > 2,000 mg/kg and the rat inhalation lethal concentration (LC) 50 is > 1.8 milligrams/liter (mg/L) air. Pymetrozine is a slight sensitizer in guinea pigs. End-use water-dispersible granule formulations of pymetrozine have similar low acute toxicity profiles.

2. Genotoxicity . Pymetrozine did not induce point mutations in bacteria (Ames assay in Salmonella typhimurium and Escherichia coli ) or in cultured mammalian cells (Chinese hamster V79) and was not genotoxic in an in vitro unscheduled DNA synthesis assay in rat hepatocytes. Chromosome aberrations were not observed in an in vitro test using Chinese hamster ovary cells and there were no clastogenic or aneugenic effects on mouse bone marrow cells in an in vivo mouse micronucleus test. These studies show that pymetrozine is not mutagenic or genotoxic.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . In a teratology study in rats, pymetrozine caused decreased body weights and food consumption in females given 100 and 300 mg/kg/day during gestation. This maternal toxicity was accompanied by fetal skeletal anomalies and variations consistent with delayed ossification. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for maternal and fetal effects in rats was 30 mg/kg/day. In a rabbit teratology study, maternal death, reduced body weight gain and food consumption were observed at 125 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). Embryo and feto toxicity (abortion in one female and total resorptions in two females) accompanied maternal toxicity. Body weight and food consumption decreases, early resorptions and postimplantation losses were also observed in maternal rabbits given 75 mg/kg/day. There was an increased incidence of fetal skeletal anomalies and variations at these maternally toxic doses. The NOAEL for maternal and fetal effects in rabbits was 10 mg/kg/day. Pymetrozine is not teratogenic in rats or rabbits. In a 2-generation reproduction study in rats, parental body weights and food consumption were decreased, liver and spleen weights were reduced and histopathological changes in liver, spleen and pituitary were observed at approximately 110-440 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). Liver hypertrophy was observed in a few parental males at approximately 10-40 mg/kg/day. Reproductive parameters were not affected by treatment with pymetrozine. The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity is approximately 110-440 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for toxicity to adults and pups is approximately 1-4 mg/kg/day.

4. Subchronic toxicity . Pymetrozine was evaluated in 13-week subchronic toxicity studies in rats, dogs and mice. Liver, kidneys, thymus and spleen were identified as target organs. The NOAEL was 33 mg/kg/day in rats and 3 mg/kg/day in dogs. In mice, increased liver weights and microscopical changes in the liver were observed at all doses tested. The NOAEL in mice was < 198 mg/kg/day. No dermal irritation or systemic toxicity occurred in a 28-day repeated dose dermal toxicity study with pymetrozine in rats given 1,000 mg/kg/day. Minimum direct dermal absorption (1.1%) of pymetrozine was detected in rats over a 21-hour period of dermal exposure. Maximum radioactivity left on or in the skin at the application site and considered for potential absorption was 11.9%.

5. Chronic toxicity . Based on chronic toxicity studies in the dog and rat, a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0057 mg/kg/day is proposed for pymetrozine. This RfD is based on a NOAEL of 0.57 mg/kg/day established in the chronic dog study and an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for interspecies extrapolation and interspecies variability. Minor changes in blood chemistry parameters, including higher plasma cholesterol and phospholipid levels, were observed in the dog at the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 5.3 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL established in the rat chronic toxicity study was 3.7 mg/kg/day and was based on reduced body weight gain and food consumption, hematology and blood chemistry changes, liver pathology and biliary cysts.

The carcinogenic potential of pymetrozine has been evaluated in rats and mice. A liver tumor response was observed in male and female mice and female rats at high doses exceeding the maximum tolerated dose. These liver tumors correlated with reversible biochemical (induction of liver metabolizing enzymes) and morphological (hepatocyte and smooth endoplasmic reticulum proliferation) changes and a reversible saturation of metabolic processes. EPA has assigned a cancer classification of “likely” to pymetrozine and calculated a Q1* value. However, Syngenta believes that the mechanism of action leading to liver tumors at maximum tolerated doses is a non-genotoxic threshold event and should be regulated as such.

6. Animal metabolism . The metabolism of pymetrozine in the rat is well understood. Metabolism involves oxidation of substituent groups of the triazine ring yielding ketones and carboxylic acids. Hydrolysis of the enamino bridge between rings results in products that are further metabolized. The metabolic pathways in animals and plants are similar.

7. Metabolite toxicology . The residue of concern for tolerance setting purposes is the parent compound. Metabolites of pymetrozine are considered to be of equal or lesser toxicity than the parent.

8. Endocrine disruption . Pymetrozine does not belong to a class of chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine system. There is no evidence that pymetrozine has any effect on endocrine function in developmental and reproduction studies. Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine system is targeted by pymetrozine.

These proposed settlements are intended to resolve the CERCLA liability of Lockwood Corporation, Debtor (Lockwood), and Agromac International, Inc. (Agromac) for response actions at the Agromac/Lockwood Site. This Site is located on Highway 92 East in Gering, Nebraska, and encompasses approximately 80 acres. It is generally in a commercial/agricultural area; however, a few residential homes are nearby.

Prior to acquisition by Agromac, the entire facility was owned by Lockwood, which manufactured and galvanized irrigation equipment and manufactured potato harvesting machines beginning in the early 1970s. In 1976, Agromac brought the facility and leased the irrigation manufacturing/galvanizing portion of the Block P Parcel to Powerhorse Lockwood Irrigation, Inc. (PLI), a defunct Nebraska corporation. During operations by Lockwood Corporation through 1984, Lockwood disposed of some hazardous wastes in a waste acid evaporation pond. In 1989, Lockwood obtained a RCRA Post Closure Permit from the State of Nebraska and a RCRA Corrective Action Permit from EPA, Region VII, which regulates the post-closure care of the evaporation pond and corrective action for six solid waste management units throughout the Agromac/Lockwood Site.

Agromac and Lockwood have been identified by EPA as eligible for a settlement based on their limited ability to pay for cleanup and reimburse response costs using EPA's Superfund Ability to Pay (ATP) Guidance. The Lockwood agreement is embodied in a Settlement under the United States Bankruptcy Court in Nebraska because Lockwood is under supervision of the US Bankruptcy Trustee due to its petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the US Bankruptcy Code. The Settlement Agreement is between the Lockwood Corporation Bankruptcy Trustee, Agromac International Inc., and the United States. The Agreement provides for (i) the hazardous waste management unit to be transferred from Lockwood to Agromac, and (ii) transfer of the remaining funds in the bankruptcy estate, net of $52,000 in reimbursement of monitoring expenditures and fees, to an escrow account for use in cleaning up the property in accordance with the companion Administrative Order on Consent entered into between Agromac and the EPA. In return for the commitments by the Trustee, the United States grants Lockwood a covenant not to sue under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, relating to the Agromac/Lockwood Site.

The settlement with Agromac is pursuant to section 107 and 122 of CERCLA. The agreement provides for Agromac to pay $65,000 to EPA and perform the final removal action at the Site. In addition, the Agromac settlement has certain re-openers for changed financial condition if Agromac sells real estate above its book value, in which case 40% of the excess proceeds will be paid to EPA. Agromac agrees to use all funds received in the Bankruptcy distribution from Lockwood to pay for the response actions. If the removal action costs less than Agromac received from the bankruptcy distribution, the remaining proceeds from the distribution will be paid to EPA. In return for the commitments by the Agromac, the United States grants Agromac a covenant not to sue under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, relating to the Agromac/Lockwood Site.

This is a summary of public notice, CC Docket No. 96-45, DA 04-1445, released May 21, 2004. In this public notice, the Wireline Competition Bureau invites parties to comment on the following petitions filed by wireless telecommunications carriers seeking designation as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments as follows: comments are due on or before June 21, 2004 and reply comments are due on or before July 6, 2004. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Parties should clearly specify in the caption of all filings the petition(s) to which the filing relates.

Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html . Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov , and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.

Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other then U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

Parties also must send three paper copies of their filing to Sheryl Todd, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-B540, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20054.

Pursuant to § 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in which ex parte communications are permitted subject to disclosure.

In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations, the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).

The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.

In the Federal Register of October 16, 2001 (66 FR 52634), FDA made available the ICH guidance entitled “M4 Organization of the Common Technical Document for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use” (M4 CTD), which describes a harmonized format for new product applications (including applications for biotechnology-derived products) for submission to the regulatory authorities in the three ICH regions. The M4 CTD guidance was made available in four parts: (1) A description of the organization of the M4 CTD; (2) the quality section; (3) the safety, or nonclinical, section; and (4) the efficacy, or clinical, section.

In the Federal Register of December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79639), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft tripartite guidance entitled “Common Technical Document—Quality: Questions and Answers/Location Issues.” The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by February 28, 2003. After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory agencies in July 2003.

This guidance provides further clarification for preparing the quality components of an application in the CTD-Q format. The guidance addresses the relationship between linked sections for certain parameters, such as polymorphism and particle size. The guidance also addresses location issues by indicating the section in which to place requested information. The guidance is intended to ease the preparation of paper and electronic submissions, facilitate regulatory reviews, and simplify the exchange of regulatory information among regulatory authorities.

This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm , http://www.fda.gov/cber/publications.htm , or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

In the Federal Register of August 11, 2000 (65 FR 49247), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Botanical Drug Products.” In a notice published in the Federal Register of December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78496), FDA reopened the comment period on the draft guidance until March 15, 2001.

FDA received a number of comments on the botanical drugs draft guidance. FDA has made a few substantive changes along with several editorial revisions to the draft guidance. For example, FDA has revised the guidance to emphasize the importance of maintaining batch-to-batch consistency in the drug substance and drug product used throughout the clinical development process. FDA also is adding to the final guidance a section that provides answers to what the agency expects may be frequently asked questions concerning the guidance.

The guidance is intended to encourage the clinical study and submission for marketing approval of botanical drug products. The guidance explains the circumstances under which FDA regulations require approval of an NDA submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)) before marketing a botanical drug and when such a drug may be marketed under an OTC drug monograph. The guidance also provides scientific and regulatory guidance to sponsors about conducting initial and expanded clinical investigations of botanical drugs, including those botanical products currently lawfully marketed as foods and dietary supplements in the United States.

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

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on the guidance at any time. Two copies of mailed comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

This guidance contains no new information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The guidance explains the circumstances under which FDA regulations require approval of an NDA for marketing a botanical drug product and when such a product may be marketed under an OTC drug monograph. The regulations governing the preparation and submission of an NDA are in part 314 (21 CFR part 314), and the guidance does not contain any recommendations that exceed the requirements of these regulations. FDA estimated the information collection requirements resulting from the preparation and submission of an NDA, and OMB approved the reporting and recordkeeping burden until March 31, 2005, under OMB control number 0910-0001. FDA anticipates that any NDAs submitted for botanical drug products would be included under the burden estimates approved by OMB for part 314.

The regulations on the procedures for classifying OTC drugs as generally recognized as safe and effective and not misbranded, and for establishing OTC drug monographs, are set forth in § 330.10 (21 CFR 330.10). FDA believes that any botanical drug products that may be eligible for inclusion in an OTC drug monograph under current § 330.10 have already been or presently are being considered for such inclusion.

The guidance also provides scientific and regulatory guidance to sponsors on conducting clinical investigations of botanical drugs. The regulations governing the preparation and submission of INDs are in part 312 (21 CFR part 312). The guidance does not contain any recommendations that exceed the requirements in those regulations. FDA estimated the information collection requirements resulting from the preparation and submission of an IND under part 312, and OMB approved the reporting and recordkeeping burden until January 31, 2006, under OMB control number 0910-0014.

Persons with access to the Internet may obtain this guidance at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm .

We encourage you to participate in this request for comment by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, and they will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with DOT to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act” below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this request for comment [USCG 2003-16298], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc. ). You may review the Privacy Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

This request constitutes the 30-day notice required by OIRA. The Coast Guard has already published the 60-day notice required by OIRA (68 FR 60110, October 21, 2003). That notice elicited no comments.

The Coast Guard invites comments on the proposed collection of information to determine whether the collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the collection; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimated burden of the collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments, to DMS or OIRA, must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR addressed. Comments to DMS must contain the docket number of this request, USCG 2003-16298 comments to OIRA are best assured of having their full effect if OIRA receives them 30 or fewer days after the publication of this request.

Title: Customer Satisfaction Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0080.

Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Affected Public: Recreational boaters, commercial mariners, industry groups, and State and local governments.

Form: This collection of information does not require the public to fill out forms, but does require submitting information to the Coast Guard in written or electronic format.

Abstract: Putting people first means ensuring that the Federal Government provides the highest quality of service possible to the American people. Executive Order 12862, requires that all executive departments and agencies providing significant services directly to the public seek to meet established standards of customer service and (1) identify the customers who are, or should be, served by the agency and (2) survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.

Burden: The estimated burden is 5,847 hours a year. This estimate represents an increase of 847 hours from the estimate in our 60-day notice.

We encourage you to participate in this request for comment by submitting comments and related materials. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, and they will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with DOT to use the Docket Management Facility. Please see the paragraph on DOT's “Privacy Act”' below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this request for comment [USCG-2004-17971], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change the documents supporting this collection of information or even the underlying requirements in view of them.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy Act Statement of DOT in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

1. Title: Alternative Compliance for International and Inland Navigation Rules—33 CFR Parts 81 and 89.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0019.

Summary: The information collected provides an opportunity for an owner, operator, builder, or agent of a unique vessel to present their reasons why the vessel cannot comply with existing International/Inland Navigation Rules and how alternative compliance can be achieved. If appropriate, a Certificate of Alternative Compliance is issued.

Need: Certain vessels cannot comply with the International Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 1601-1608) and Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2001-2073). The Coast Guard thus provides an opportunity for alternative compliance. However, it is not possible to determine whether alternative compliance is appropriate, or what kind of alternative procedures might be necessary, without this collection.

Respondents: Vessel owners, operators, builders and agents.

Frequency: One-time application.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 180 hours a year.

2. Title: Various International Agreement Pollution Prevention Certificates and Documents, and Equivalency Certificates.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0041.

Summary: Required by the adoption of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), these certificates and documents are evidence of compliance with this convention for U.S. vessels on international voyages. Without the proper certificates or documents, a U.S. vessel could be detained in a foreign port.

Need: Compliance with MARPOL 73/78 aids in the prevention of pollution from ships.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 6,780 hours a year.

3. Title: Approval of Alterations to Marine Portable Tanks; Approval of Non-Specification Portable Tanks.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0062.

Summary: The information will be used to evaluate the safety of proposed alterations to marine portable tanks and non-specification portable tank designs used to transfer hazardous materials during offshore operations, e.g. , drilling rigs.

Need: Approval by the Coast Guard of alterations to marine portable tanks ensures that the altered tank retains the level of safety to which it was originally designed. In addition, rules that allow for the approval of non-specification portable tanks ensure that innovation and new designs are not frustrated by the regulation.

Respondents: Owners of marine portable tanks and owners/designers of non-specification portable tanks.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 18 hours a year.

4. Title: Voyage Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast United States.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0088.

Summary: The information collection requirement for a voyage plan serves as a preventive measure and assists in ensuring the successful execution and completion of a voyage in the First Coast Guard District. This rule (33 CFR 165.100) applies to primary towing vessels engaged in towing certain tank barges carrying petroleum oil in bulk as cargo.

Need: The information for a voyage plan will provide a mechanism for assisting vessels towing tank barges to identify those specific risks, potential equipment failures, or human errors that may lead to accidents.

Respondents: Owners and operators of towing vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimates: The estimated burden is 420 hours a year.

5. Title: Sewage and Graywater Discharge Records for Certain Cruise Vessels Operating on Alaskan Waters.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0092.

Summary: To comply with Title XIV of Public Law 106-554, 114 STAT. 2763A-315, this information collection is needed to enforce sewage and graywater discharges requirements from certain cruise ships operating on Alaskan waters.

Need: Title 33 CFR part 159 subpart E prescribes regulations governing the discharge of sewage and graywater from cruise vessels, requires sampling and testing of sewage and graywater discharges, and establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden Estimates: The estimated burden is 910 hours a year.

You may submit comments concerning this application. All comments received will be posted, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use their Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's “Privacy Act” paragraph below.

Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2004-17696), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES ; but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

Viewing comments and documents: To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time and conduct a simple search using the docket number. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in room PL-401 on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Receipt of application; determination. On February 27, 2004, the Coast Guard and MARAD received an application from Freeport-McMoRan Energy LLC (FME), 1615 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 for all federal authorizations required for a license to own, construct and operate a deepwater port off the coast of Louisiana. Supplemental information was furnished at our request on May 10, 2004. On May 24, 2004, we determined that the application contains all information required by the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. (the Act). The application and related documentation supplied by the applicant (except for certain protected information specified in 33 U.S.C. 1513) will be available in the public docket ( see ADDRESSES ).

Background. According to the Act, a deepwater port is a fixed or floating manmade structure other than a vessel, or a group of structures, located beyond State seaward boundaries and used or intended for use as a port or terminal for the transportation, storage, and further handling of oil or natural gas for transportation to any State.

A deepwater port must be licensed, and the Act provides that a license applicant submit detailed plans for its facility to the Secretary of Transportation, along with its application. The Secretary has delegated the processing of deepwater port applications to the U.S. Coast Guard and MARAD. The Act allows 21 days following receipt of the application to determine if it contains all required information. If it does, we must publish a notice of application in the Federal Register and summarize the plans. This notice is intended to meet those requirements of the Act and to provide general information about the procedure that will be followed in considering the application.

Application procedure. The application is considered on its merits. The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration (MARAD) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for this project. Under the Act, we must hold at least one public hearing within 240 days from the date this notice is published. A separate Federal Register notice will be published to notify interested parties of any public hearings that are held. At least one public hearing must be held in each adjacent coastal state. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1508, we designate Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi as adjacent coastal states for this application. Other states may apply for adjacent coastal state status in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1508(a)(2). After the last public hearing, Federal agencies have 45 days in which to comment on the application, and approval or denial of the application must follow within 90 days of the last public hearing. Details of the application process are described in 33 U.S.C. 1504 and in 33 CFR part 148.

Summary of the application. The application plan calls for the proposed deepwater port to be located in the Gulf of Mexico on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), approximately 16 miles offshore southeast Louisiana in Main Pass Block 299. It will be located in a water depth of approximately 210 feet (64 meters). The proposed location is a former sulphur mining facility. The project would utilize four existing platforms, along with associated bridges and support structures, with appropriate modifications and additions as part of the deepwater port. Two new platforms will be constructed to support liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage tanks, and a patent-pending berthing system to berth the LNG carriers will be installed.

FME proposes the installation of approximately 192 miles of natural gas and natural gas liquid (NGL) transmission pipelines on the OCS, varying in size ranging from 12 to 36 inches in diameter. Five proposed pipelines would connect the deepwater port with several existing gas distribution pipelines, one of which would connect with a gas distribution pipeline near Coden, Alabama. NGL derived from natural gas conditioning ( i.e. ethane, propane, and butanes) would be delivered via a 12-inch pipeline to an existing NGL facility near Venice, Louisiana. A proposed metering platform is to be installed at Main Pass 164 and would also provide a tie-in location for two lateral transmission lines.

The proposed project will sit atop a salt dome, approximately 2 miles in diameter. An on-site total gas storage capacity of approximately 28 billion cubic feet would be provided in three salt caverns to be constructed under the deepwater port.

The deepwater port facility would consist of LNG storage tanks, LNG carrier berthing provisions, LNG unloading arms, low and high pressure pumps, vaporizers, a gas conditioning plant, salt cavern gas storage, compression, dehydration, metering, utility systems, general facilities and accommodations. The terminal would be able to receive LNG carriers ranging in capacity between 60,000 and 160,000 cubic meters. LNG would be stored in six tanks located on two new fixed platforms. Each tank would have an approximate gross capacity of 24,660 cubic meters, for a total net capacity of approximately 145,000 cubic meters. Four unloading arms would be provided to offload the LNG carriers at a rate of 10,500 to 12,000 cubic meters per hour. The facility would have living quarters to routinely accommodate up to 50 personnel, but would be capable of accommodating up to 94 personnel for brief periods.

FME Main Pass Energy Hub would be designed to handle a nominal capacity of 7.0 million metric tons per year of LNG, or 350 billion cubic feet per year of gas. This is equivalent to an average delivery of approximately 1.0 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd). The facility would be capable of delivering a peak of 1.6 bcfd of pipeline-quality natural gas during periods of high demand, and a peak of 85,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquid.

5 CFR 1320.12(a) requires that we provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning a collection of information to solicit comments on:

(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of our estimates of the information collection burden, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions we use;

(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

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

Section 209 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and implementing regulations at 43 CFR 2720 establish procedures for BLM to convey Federally-owned (reserved) mineral interests to non-Federal surface ownership. The regulations authorize BLM to collect this information (no specific form is required) to determine if BLM may convey the Federally-owned mineral interests to surface owners who apply and meet the statutory requirements. We list in 43 CFR 2720.1-2 the specific information requirements you must submit when applying for a conveyance of Federally-owned mineral interests. Without this information, BLM would not be able to analyze and approve applications to convey Federally-owned mineral interests.

Based upon BLM experience administering the regulations, we estimate the public reporting information collection burden to be 10 hours per application. The respondents are surface owners in which the mineral interests are reserved or owned by the United States. The estimated number of responses per year is 30 and the total annual burden is 300 hours.

BLM will summarize all responses to this notice and include them in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

This IAP/EIS amendment contains three alternatives for a land management plan for the 4.6 million-acre planning area and assessments of each plan's impacts on the surface resources present there. These alternatives provide varying answers to two primary questions that are consistent with EPCA and the President's Energy Policy. First, will BLM conduct oil and gas lease sales in the planning area on lands currently unavailable or surface-restricted, and, if so, which of those lands will be made available for leasing? Second, what measures should BLM develop to protect important surface resources during oil and gas activities?

Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, makes approximately 87 percent of 4.6 million acres available for oil and gas leasing and calls for no change from the status quo rendered under the 1998 Record of Decision (ROD) for the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska. Under Alternative A, no leasing would occur on lands currently unavailable, and the existing No Surface Restrictions would be maintained. Alternatives B, the Preferred Alternative, and C make progressively more land available to leasing. Alternative B makes approximately 96% percent of 4.6 million acres in the planning area available for oil and gas leasing, and Alternative C makes 100 percent of 4.6 million acres in the planning area available for oil and gas leasing. Mitigating measures would provide protections for natural and cultural resources under all alternatives, but their nature, number and scope would vary among alternatives.

Alternative A would maintain the current land allocation that makes approximately 840,000 acres either unavailable (600,000 ac) or surface restricted (240,000) to leasing. It maintains the 79 prescriptive stipulations set forth in the 1998 ROD. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative B, makes approximately 213,000 acres of sensitive bird habitat north of Teshekpuk Lake unavailable to leasing. This alternative also contains a mitigation package that is comprised of a combination of prescriptive and performance-based mitigations very similar to those developed for the 2004 Northwest National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska ROD. Performance-based mitigations provide the BLM and other land users, including industry, greater flexibility by emphasizing the intent or objective of the mitigation to protect the environment. In addition, there are site-specific mitigations protecting key biological resources throughout the planning area. Alternative C contains no land allocation prohibiting leasing, and includes performance-based mitigations similar to those in Alternative B and site-specific mitigations protecting identified key biological resources throughout the planning area.

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to identify specific lands in the NPR-A as “Special Areas”, and there are two previously designated Special Areas within the planning area—The Colville River Special Area and the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. As required by 43 CFR 2361.1, all three alternatives proposed through this amendment process, using stipulations, Required Operating Procedures (ROPs), and allocation decisions, mitigate or avoid unnecessary surface damage and miminize ecological disturbance throughout the reserve to the extent consistent with the requirement of the National Petroleum Reserve Protection Act (NPRPA) for the exploration of the reserve. Also, each alternative presents for public comment a different approach to providing maximum protection to surface resources within designated Special Areas.

Public participation has occurred throughout the period since the Notice of Intent to Prepare the Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement was published on June 23, 2003. In addition to holding scoping meetings in Anaktuvuk Pass, Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Barrow, Fairbanks and Anchorage, several public meetings have addressed important issues within the planning area. The planning area provides particularly important habitat for caribou, waterfowl and other species and many of the local residents of the area rely on harvesting these resources for subsistence purposes. Ensuring adequate protection of these resources has been one of the driving forces behind the meetings to seek input from a variety of public sources with information in related fields. Information from these meetings has also been helpful in developing this draft document.

The BLM has worked closely with native communities within or adjacent to the planning area in developing this draft IAP/EIS. In addition to native representatives, the State of Alaska, the North Slope Borough, and other Federal agencies have participated in meetings that identified areas of concern to be addressed during the development of the alternatives presented here. BLM is solely responsible for the form of alternatives evaluated.

Section 810 of the Alaska National Lands Conservation Act requires the BLM to evaluate the effects of the alternatives presented in this DEIS on subsistence activities in the area of the proposed action and alternatives, and to hold public hearings if it finds that any alternative may significantly restrict subsistence activities. The analysis of environmental consequences indicates that Alternative C and the cumulative case for all alternatives may significantly restrict subsistence activities. Therefore, the BLM will hold public hearings on subsistence in conjunction with the public meetings in the potentially affected communities.

The RMP Amendment will consider the disposal (direct sale) of public land located in:

The land is identified as the Dune Allen II tract in the Florida Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 1994) and Florida Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (September 1995). The Palms of Dune Allen Homeowners Association, a non-profit organization, has proposed to purchase, by direct sale, from the United States 0.58 of an acre of public land in Walton County, Florida. The Dune Allen II tract has a boardwalk crossing the dune area (October 1994 RMP). The continued, proposed use of the land, if it is sold, would essentially be limited to the maintenance and use of the boardwalk. The beachfront property lies on the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida panhandle. The coastal environment adjacent to the land has been substantially modified by construction of roads, beach houses and condominiums. The land is closed to off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (October 1994 RMP).

The preliminary topic, for this planning effort, has been identified by BLM personnel. The anticipated topic, that will be addressed in the RMP Amendment, is limited to the proposed transfer of land from government ownership to private ownership. If the tract were to be transferred to private ownership, protective covenants would be included with the transfer of title. These protective covenants would ensure the land is used for both the maintenance of the boardwalk and public access to the beach. This notice initiates the public scoping process.

BLM staff will review additional concerns raised by the public. Determinations will be made as to whether they (1) will be addressed in the RMP Amendment or (2) are outside the scope of the RMP Amendment.

Preliminary planning criteria have been developed to guide the preparation of this RMP Amendment and are listed below.

1. Land use planning (RMP Amendment) and environmental analysis (EA) will be conducted in accordance with laws, regulations, executive orders and manuals. Planning will be conducted for the land under the administration of BLM.

2. Land use policy, for either the continued retention or proposed disposal of this land, will determine for this BLM-administered land after the RMP Amendment is completed.

3. Resource data, needed to evaluate the impacts of the proposed sale of this land, will be collected, as needed.

4. BLM staff will work cooperatively with (a) county and local governments and agencies, (b) groups and organizations and (c) individuals. These criteria are not final and may be refined by public input (comment).

An interdisciplinary team approach will be used, as needed, to address resource issues in this RMP Amendment. The tentative resource programs that will be addressed include lands and realty, socioeconomics, soils, water, and wildlife.

This notice initiates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) public scoping process (CFR, Title 43, part 1610, Section 2(c) and Title 40, part 1501, Section 7). The BLM will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management decision that is best suited to local needs and concerns. The public is invited to participate in this planning process, beginning with the identification of issues and planning criteria for the RMP Amendment. Comments relating to the preliminary issues and planning criteria (listed above) can be submitted in writing to BLM-ES Jackson Field Office; 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404, Jackson MS 39206.

This planning process will emphasize localized one-to-one contacts and continual coordination and collaboration. Meetings may be held, if they are needed to (1) determine the scope of the RMP Amendment and (2) obtain input on issues and planning criteria. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media at least 15 days prior to the event.

Individuals who submit comments may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from (1) organizations and businesses and (2) individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public review in their entirety.

Submit electronic comments as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. The BLM also accepts comments and data on disks in WordPerfect 7 (and higher) and Word 97 (and higher) file formats or the ASCII file format. Identify all comments and data in electronic form by the docket number [PP 4F4327/R2253].

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). OSM has submitted a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information contained in: Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plans, 30 CFR part 784. OSM is requesting a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this collection of information is 1029-0039.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3389). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment on the following information collection activity:

Title: Underground Mining Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Reclamation and Operation Plans, 30 CFR 784.

OMB Control Number: 1029-0039.

Summary: Sections 507(b), 508(a) and 516(b) of Public law 95-87 require underground coal mine permit applicants to submit an operations and reclamation plan and establish performance standards for the mining operation. Information submitted is used by the regulatory authority to determine if the applicant can comply with the applicable performance and environmental standards required by the law.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: 80 Underground coal mining permit applicants and 24 State regulatory authorities.

Total Annual Responses: 80.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 82,480.

Total Annual Cost Burden: $680,000.

Send comments on the need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and ways to minimize the information collection burdens on respondents, such as use of automated means of collections of the information, to the following addresses. Please refer to the appropriate OMB control number in all correspondence.