Invasive plants are compromising the ability for the Forest Service to manage for healthy native ecosystems. Invasive plants create a host of environmental and other effects, most of which are harmful to native ecosystem processes, including: displacement of native plants; reduction in functionality of habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock; loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; increased soil erosion and reduced water quality; alteration of physical and biological properties of soil, including reduced soil productivity; changes to the intensity and frequency of fires; high cost (dollars spent) of controlling invasive plants; and loss of recreational opportunities.

Approximately 3,830 acres of invasive, non-native plants on the Olympic National Forest are proposed for treatment. These infestations have a high potential to expand and further degrade the National Forest and other lands. Infested areas represent potential seed sources for further invasion into neighboring ownerships.

There is an underlying need on for timely suppression, containment, control, and/or eradication of invasive plants on the Olympic National Forest so that desired environmental and social conditions (healthy native plant populations and little spread to neighboring lands) may be achieved. These control objective terms are based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Pacific Northwest Region—Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants: Eradication: Elimination of an invasive plant species from an area. Control: Infestation size reduced over time; some level of infestation may be acceptable. Containment: Spread of the weed prevented beyond the perimeter of patches or infestation areas mapped from current inventories. Suppression: Invasive plant seed production prevented throughout the target patch; invasive species does not dominate the vegetation of the area; low levels may be acceptable. Without action, invasive plant populations will continue to have adverse effects on national forest system and adjacent lands.

The Proposed Action for this project is to apply site-specific treatment prescriptions that are based on the desired condition and control objective of each treatment area, the biology of particular invasive plant species, its proximity to water and other sensitive resources, and size of the infestation. Prevention of invasive plant infestations remains a key part of the program and is addressed in the Regional EIS.

Initial treatment estimates include about 2,130 acres of herbicide combined with manual treatment and about 1,700 acres of herbicide treatment combined with manual and mechanical treatment (including 7 acres where controlled burning may also be prescribed).

Treatments may be repeated over several years until suppression, containment, control, and/or eradication objectives are met. Infested areas would be treated with an initial prescription, and retreated in subsequent years, depending on the results. Treatments would be adapted to site conditions that change over time. The proportion of specific treatment methods would be expected to change overtime. Herbicide treatments are part of the initial prescription for most sites; however, use of herbicides would be expected to decline in subsequent entries. Revegetation may also be needed to reduce conditions that are prone to re-infestation. Treatment areas would be monitored to adjust the site-specific prescription and determine whether active revegetation will be needed.

In addition, the Proposed Action would establish a set of project design features for treating future invasive plant infestations. The features are intended to ensure that effects of treating currently unknown plant invasions are within the scope of this EIS decision. Treatment acreage thresholds will be established in 6th field watersheds as needed, based on the severity, intensity and extent of potential adverse effects.

A site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment is also proposed for the Olympic National Forest. Currently, there is a standard in the National Forest Plan that states that herbicide use will be discouraged in riparian areas. However, some invasive plant species (notably knotweed) grow in riparian areas, and herbicides are the most effective and cost-efficient treatment. The Proposed Action would change the standard to allow for riparian treatments with herbicides, as long as all other applicable environmental standards are met.

Maps of the proposed treatment sites are posted on the website mentioned below. Additional information on the proposal are available by contacting Doug Jones.

Comments submitted during the scoping conducted for the “Invasive Plant Treatment Project—Olympic, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt. Hood Nationals Forests and Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area; Oregon and Washington” from February 23 to April 5, 2004 will be retained and considered in the development of this EIS. If you have additional comments on the revised proposed action, these will be considered in conjunction with the previous comments. Issues identified from the previous scoping effort are outlined below.

The Forest Service is currently seeking any additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by this proposed action. Written comments are due September 15. Comments should be specific to the Proposed Action and clearly describe any issues the commenter has with the proposal. Issues will be addressed in the Draft EIS.

In addition to submitting written comments, the public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. A Web site has also been established to disseminate project information: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/multiforest-sitespecific-information.htm.

The potential for impacts/effects as a result of the establishment and spread of invasive plants and the potential for impacts/effects as a result of treatment actions designed to manage invasive plants are both important considerations that need to be addressed in the analysis. The following issues were identified during the initial scoping process:

• Human Health—Invasive plant treatments may result in health risks to forestry workers and the public, including contamination of drinking water and forest products. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect human health. Public notification measures should be evaluated to ensure that human exposure to herbicide is limited.

• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive plant treatments can vary in effectiveness. The presence and spread of invasive plants within National Forest System lands may affect the presence and spread of invasive plants on neighboring ownerships. Treatments should be evaluated based on how likely they are to reach desired conditions in the foreseeable future.

• Social and Economic—Invasive plant treatments vary in cost and affect the acreage that can be effectively treated each year given a set budget. Manual treatment methods may cost more per acre, but provide more employment.

• Non-Target Plants and Animals—Impacts to non-target plant and animal species vary by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect plant and animal species (including culturally important plants) from adverse effects.

• Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic Biota—Soil and ground disturbing impacts, effects to aquatic organisms, and water quality impacts vary by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect soil, water quality and aquatic biota from adverse effects.

The No Action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, the Olympic National Forest would continue to treat invasive plant species as authorized under existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The Olympic National Forest would continue to have a standard that discourages herbicide use in riparian areas; however, an existing Environmental Assessment and Decision Notice have authorized herbicide treatments at several knotweed sites in riparian areas.

Additional action alternatives may be developed as the analysis proceeds and if substantive new comments or information is received.

The alternatives will be evaluated based on how effectively they treat known sites and respond to new infestations, their monetary cost, and their potential risks to human health and the environment.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC. 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objectives that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after the completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period; so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.3).

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by March 2006. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2006. The Responsible Official (R.O.) is Dale Hom, Olympic National Forest Supervisor. The R.O. will consider comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action. The responsible officials will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. It will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR part 215).

Invasive plants are compromising the ability for the Forest Service to manage for healthy native ecosystems. Invasive plants create a host of environmental and other effects, most of which are harmful to native ecosystem processes, including: displacement of native plants; reduction in functionality of habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock; loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; increased soil erosion and reduced water quality; alteration of physical and biological properties of soil, including reduced soil productivity; changes to the intensity and frequency of fires; high cost (dollars spent) of controlling invasive plants; and loss of recreational opportunities.

Approximately 2,687 acres on the Giffod Pinchot National Forest and northern portion of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area are infested with invasive, non-native plants. These infestations have a high potential to expand and further degrade the National Forest and other lands. Infested areas represent potential seed sources for further invasion onto neighboring ownerships.

There is an underlying need for timely suppression, containment, control, and/or eradication of invasive plants on these national forest system lands so that desired environmental and social conditions may be achieved (these terms are based on the R6 FEIS: Eradication: Elimination of an invasive plant species from an area. Control: Infestation size reduced over time; some level of infestation may be acceptable. Containment: Spread of the weed prevented beyond the perimeter of patches or infestation areas mapped from current inventories. Suppression: Invasive plant seed production prevented throughout the target patch; invasive species does not dominate the vegetation of the area; low levels may be acceptable). Without action, invasive plant populations will continue to have adverse effects on national forest system and adjacent lands.

The Proposed Action for this project is to apply site-specific treatment prescriptions that are based on the desired condition and control objective of each treatment area, the biology of particular invasive plants species, its proximity to water and other sensitive resources, and size of the infestation (these factors may change over time).

Initial treatment estimates include about 2,375 acres of herbicide combined with manual treatment and about 175 acres of herbicide treatment combined with manual and mechanical treatment. One site on the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area would be grazed with goats as parts of the treatment prescription. The Scenic Area also has 137 acres that would be treated with a combination of herbicide and mechanical means.

Treatments may be repeated over several years until suppression, containment, control, and/or eradication objectives are met. Infested areas would be treated with an initial prescription, and retreated in subsequent years, depending on the results. Treatments types as well as the proportion of specific treatment methods would be expected to change over time. Herbicide treatments are part of the initial prescription for most sites, however, use of herbicides would be expected to decline in subsequent entries. Revegetation may also be needed to reduce conditions that are prone to re-infestation. Treatment areas would be monitored to adjust the site-specific prescription and determine whether active revegetation will be needed.

In addition, the Proposed Action would establish a set of criteria for treating future invasive plant infestations. The criteria are intended to ensure that effects of treating currently unknown plant invasions are within the scope of this EIS decision.

A site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment is also being considered for the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Currently, there is a standard in the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest Plan that severely restricts herbicide use in riparian areas. However, some invasive plant species (notably knotweed) grow in riparian areas and herbicides may be the most cost-effective treatment. The Proposed Action would change the standard to allow for riparian treatments with herbicides, as long as all other applicable environmental standards are met.

Maps of the proposed treatments sites and additional information on the proposal are available by contacting Doug Jones.

Comments submitted during the scoping conducted for the “Invasive Plant Treatment Project—Olympic, Gifford Pinchot, and Mt. Hood Nationals Forests and Columbia River Gorge National Science Area; Oregon and Washington” from February 23 to April 5, 2004 will be retained and considered in the development of this EIS. If you have additional comments on the revised proposed action these will be considered in conjunction with the previous comments. Issues identified from the previous scoping effort are outlined below.

The Forest Service is currently seeking any additional information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State and local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. Written comments are due September 15. Comments should be specific to the Proposed Action and clearly describe any issues the commenter has with the proposal. Issues will be addressed in the Draft EIS.

In addition to submitting written comments, the public may visit Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. A Web site has also been established to disseminate project information: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/multiforest-sitespecific-information.htm.

The potential for impacts/effects as a result of the establishment and spread of invasive plants and the potential for impacts/effects as a result of treatment actions designed to manage invasive plants are both important considerations that need to be addressed in the analysis. The following issues were identified during the initial scoping process:

• Human Health—Invasive plant treatments may result in health risks to forestry workers and the public, including contamination of drinking water and forest products. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect human health. Public notification measures should be evaluated to ensure that human exposure to herbicide is limited.

• Treatment Effectiveness—Invasive plant treatments can vary in effectiveness. The presence and spread of invasive plants within National Forest System lands may be affect the presence and spread of invasive plants on neighboring ownerships. Treatments should be evaluated based on how likely they are to reach desired conditions in the foreseeable future.

• Social and Economic—Invasive plant treatments vary in cost and affect the acreage that can be effectively treated each year given a set budget. Manual treatment methods may cost more per acre and provide more employment.

• Non-Target Plants and Animals—Impacts to non-target plant and animal species varies by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect plant and animal species (including culturally important plants) from adverse effects.

• Soils, Water Quality and Aquatic Biota—Soil and ground disturbing impacts, effects to aquatic organisms, and water quality impacts vary by invasive plant treatments. Mitigation and protection measures should be evaluated to ensure they protect soil, water quality and aquatic biota from adverse effects.

The No Action alternative will serve as a baseline for comparison of alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, the Gifford-Pinchot National Forest/Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area would continue to treat invasive plant species as authorized under existing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The Gifford-Pinchot National Forest would continue to have a standard that severely restricts herbicide use in riparian areas.

The alternatives will be evaluated based on how effectively they treat known and respond to new infestations, their monetary cost, and their potential risks to human health and the environment.

The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public comment by March 2006. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of the draft EIS must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC . 435 U.S. 519.553 (1978). Also, environmental objectives that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until after the completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritage, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period; so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provision of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1503.3).

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments may not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

Comments on the draft EIS will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed in 2006. The Responsible Officials are Claire Lavendel, Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor and Daniel T. Harkenrider, Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Manager. These officials will consider comments, responses, environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action. The responsible officials will document the decision and rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision. It will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

The project area is located north of Portola and west of Lake Davis, in the Beckwourth Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest. It is within all or parts of T23N, R12E; T23N, R13E; T24N, R12E; T24N, R13E.

The effects of several vegetation management projects will be analyzed in this EIS. The need for and purpose of the project has six elements: to reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland/urban interface (WUI) and to create a strategic network of linear fuel treatments across the landscape referred to as defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs); to improve forest health; to improve bald eagle habitat; to implement the project in a cost effective manner and contribute to local community economic stability; to improve aspen stands; to provide the access needed to meet other project objectives and reduce transportation system impacts.

In its effort to reduce excessive fuel, the Forest Service intends to work with the Plumas County Fire Safe Council to reduce hazardous fuels around local communities, as well as to develop a strategic network of linear fuel treatments across the landscape. This will reduce the potential for large-scale, high-intensity fire where wildfire behavior would be modified to allow for safer, more effective fire suppression.

Many stands in the project are infected with small pockets of insects and disease. The insects include both bark beetles ( Dendroctonus brevicomus, D. valens ) and pine engravers ( Ips spp.). The diseases include mistletoe ( Arceuthobium spp.), white pine blister rust ( Cronartium ribicola ) and annosus root rot ( Heterobasidion annosum ).

Stands in the Lake Davis Bald Eagle Habitat Management Area (BEHMA) in the Freeman project area are overstocked, largely unable to recruit nesting structure, and at risk of loss from wildlife and disease/insect infestation.

In addition to reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and improving forest health, this project would provide products that contribute to community stability in the most cost-effective manner possible, considering other resource objectives, by creating employment and income that contribute to local economic activity.

Aspen stands in the project area are low in productivity and health, and most are not successfully regenerating. Field evaluation indicates that, regardless of the relative contribution of these various factors, at present, competition by conifers is a major factor in aspen decline. Aspen stand improvement work will maintain or improve diverse and productive native plant communities in the riparian zone, as well as to support populations of well-distributed native plant, vertebrate and invertebrate populations that contribute to the viability of riparian plant communities.

The proposed road relocation and decommissioning work is needed to achieve desired riparian conditions and to reduce the total area of compacted soil.

The project area consists of 14,967 acres of the PNF managed by the Beckwourth Ranger District. The proposed action will treat 5,792 acres, approximately 39 percent of the project area by: reducing hazardous fuels; improving forest health, improving bald eagle habitat, cost effectively supporting the local communities; improving aspen stands; and providing the access needed to meet other project objectives and reducing transportation system impacts.

Fuel reduction treatments will occur over 3,066 acres of the DFPZ and WUI. Treatments are specifically designed to cause advancing wildfire to drop to the ground and burn with reduced intensity and will involve several methods (i.e., grapple pile, handthin, mastication, mechanical thinning, underburn only).

Forest health improvement will involve the use of group selection to remove insect and disease infected pockets within the stands. Group selection will be on 175 acres, ranging from 0.5-2 acres in size. The health of plantations and young conifer stands will also be addressed, through area thinning, mastication and grapple piling.

Over half of the eagle habitat within the project area would receive some kind of treatment, consisting of mechanical thinning, hand thinning, underburn only, group selection and mechanical aspen treatments, covering 1,964 acres. Treatments would focus on removing diseased pockets of trees and increasing the quantity of nesting habitat by thinning stands to accelerate growth.

Aspen stands would be treated to remove conifers to enhance aspen health and growth. Aspen would be released from conifer competition in 40 units totaling approximately 645 acres, ranging in size between 1-85 acres. Conifers to be removed are within the existing aspen stand (i.e., those trees actively suppressing aspen community productivity and function) or trees bordering a stand, which directly affect the health of the stand. All conifers up to 29.9″ dbh would also be removed within a variable-width treatment zone extending up to 150′ beyond the outer boundary of the aspen stands.

The Forest proposes to improve transportation system needed to access the vegetation/fuels treatment units and to mitigate existing adverse effects on heritage resources, soils, and water quality. These improvements to the transportation system will include: building approximately 17 short segments of temporary roads (decommissioned upon completion), totaling 2-miles, needed to implement planned activities; decommissioning approximately 12.5-miles of existing system roads and 1.9-miles of non-system roads; closing 0.7-miles of system roads; relocating 0.2-mile of system road and 0.7-mile of system road would be reduced to single-track, in order to provide for recreational opportunities near Lake Davis.

Hazard trees would be removed from along Maintenance Level 3, 4 and 5 roads (generally, surfaced roads) and high-use Maintenance Level 2 roads (generally native-surface roads). Identification of hazard trees would follow guidelines in the Plumas National Forest Roadside/Facility Hazard Tree Abatement Action Plan (2003).

Lead Agency: The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal.

Responsible Official: Plumas National Acting Forest Supervisor, Robert G. MacWhorter is the responsible official; Plumas National Forest, P.O. Box 11500, Quincy, CA 95971.

The responsible official will decide whether to implement this project as proposed, implement the project based on an alternative to this proposal that is formulated to resolve identified issues or not implement this project at this time. The responsible official will be the Plumas National Forest Forest Supervisor.

Public questions and comments regarding this proposal are an integral part of this environmental analysis process. Comments will be used to identify issues and disqualification alternatives to the proposed action. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible.

A copy of the proposed action and/or a summary of the proposed action will be mailed to adjacent landowners, as well as to those people and organizations that have indicated a specific interest in the Freeman project, to Native American entities, and Federal, State and local agencies. The public will be notified of any meetings regarding this proposed by mailings and press releases sent to the local newspaper and media. There are no meetings planned at this time.

Permits or Licenses Required: An Air Pollution Permit and a Smoke Management Plan are required by local agencies.

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development of the EIS. Our desire is to receive substantive comments on the merits of the proposed action, as well as comments that address errors, misinformation, or information that has been omitted. Substantive comments are defined as comments within the scope of the proposal, that have a direct relationship to the proposal, and that include supporting reasons for the responsible official's consideration.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review: A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register .

The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC , 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised as the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel , 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris , 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal and will be available for public inspection.

Public scoping meetings will be held at the following addresses and times:

1. October 5, 2005, 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m., Makah Tribal Council Community Hall, 81 3 rd Avenue (Makah Passage), Neah Bay, WA.

2. October 6, 2005, 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m., Vern Burton Memorial Community Center, 308 East 4 th Street (corner of 4 th Street and Peabody Street), Port Angeles, WA.

3. October 11, 2005, 6:30 p.m. - 10 p.m., South Lake Union Park, 860 Terry Avenue North (The Naval Reserve Building), Seattle, WA.

The meeting format has been designed so that the public can constructively assist NMFS in development of the draft EIS, and will generally include presentations and small group work sessions. More details regarding meeting format will be posted under the “gray whale” link at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov by mid-September 2005.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact Kassandra Brown (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). To allow sufficient time to process requests, please call at least 10 business days prior to the relevant meeting(s). Information regarding the Makah's request is available in alternative formats upon request.

The Makah Indian Tribe of Washington State (Makah) seeks to continue its subsistence hunt(s) of eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales, a tradition dating back at least 1,500 years. The Makah's right to hunt whales at usual and accustomed grounds and stations off the coast of Washington was secured in Article 4 of the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay in exchange for most of the land in the Olympic Peninsula. The Treaty of Neah Bay is the primary instrument defining the legal relationship between the United States Government and the Makah.

The Makah hunted whales until the 1920s when commercial whaling had drastically reduced the numbers of ENP gray whales available to the Makah hunters for harvest. Prior to enactment of the Endangered Species Act (of 1973 16 U.S.C. 1351 et seq. ), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service included gray whales (among several genera of baleen whales) on its 1970 list of endangered species (35 FR 8491, June 2, 1970). The ENP distinct population segment was subsequently delisted on June 16, 1994 (59 FR 31094). In 1999, Makah hunters killed one ENP gray whale pursuant to an aboriginal subsistence harvest quota granted for 1998 through 2002 by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and domestically implemented by NMFS under the Whaling Convention Act (WCA)(16 U.S.C. 916 et seq. ). Due to a series of lawsuits, no whales were hunted by the Makah for the remainder of the 1998 through 2002 quota.

In May 2002, the IWC approved another aboriginal subsistence harvest quota of 620 gray whales for 2003 through 2007, on the basis of a joint request by the Russian Federation (approved for 600 whales) and the United States (approved for 20 whales). The United States' request was made on behalf of the Makah. On March 6, 2003 NMFS initiated an EIS to assess the environmental impacts of allocating the 2003 through 2007 quota to the Makah by soliciting comments and information to facilitate the environmental analysis (68 FR 10703). Due to litigation (described below), NMFS did not complete the EIS and did not allocate the quota under the WCA. The Makah have not conducted subsistence hunts to date under the 2003 through 2007 IWC quota.

On June 7, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the second amended version of Anderson v. Evans , 371 F.3d 475, held that the Tribe, to pursue any treaty rights for whaling, must comply with the process prescribed in the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) for authorizing “take” of marine mammals otherwise prohibited by a moratorium in section 101(a)(16 U.S.C. 1371(a)). The term "take" means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13)). Subsequent to the Anderson v. Evans ruling, the Makah submitted a request for a limited waiver of the moratorium on taking marine mammals, which we received on February 14, 2005. We published notice of availability of the waiver request for public inspection on March 3, 2005 (70 FR 10369), available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/makah (soon to be available on the NMFS Northwest Region website under the “gray whale” link at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov ).

To exercise subsistence hunting treaty rights of gray whales, the Makah Tribe must undergo three separate but related processes: (1) The United States must obtain an aboriginal subsistence quota from the IWC on the Makah Tribe's behalf, (2) NMFS must decide whether to waive the MMPA take moratorium for the Makah Tribe, including conducting a NEPA review and issuing possible regulations and permits (see Proposed Action for more details), and (3) NMFS must allocate the IWC quota under the WCA. More information regarding these processes will soon be available to the public under the NMFS Northwest Region website “gray whale” link at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov . The NEPA review initiated by this notice of intent is to comply with process number (2) described above, which requires preparation of a site-specific EIS related to the Makah Tribe's request for a waiver of the MMPA take moratorium.

The Makah's proposed action is to hunt up to 20 ENP gray whales during a 5-year period, subject to a maximum of five gray whales in any calendar year, within its adjudicated usual and accustomed grounds (See, United States v. Washington , 626 F.Supp. 1405, 1467 (W.D. Wash 1985)), subject to quotas granted by the IWC. The Makah proposes to hunt up to seven gray whales per year. The Makah's proposal to continue subsistence hunting of gray whales includes other standards for hunting, such as: (1) time and area restrictions designed to avoid any intentional harvest of gray whales comprising the Pacific Coast Feeding Aggregation (PCFA), (2) monitoring and adaptive management measures to ensure that any incidental harvest of gray whales from the PCFA remains at or below the annual strike limit, (3) measures to ensure that hunting is conducted in the most humane manner practicable, consistent with continued use of traditional hunting methods, and (4) measures to protect public safety. The full waiver request is posted online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/makah , and will soon be available at NMFS Northwest Region's website at http://www.nwr.noaa.gov under the “gray whale” link.

Based on the Makah's waiver request, the Federal action consists of three parts: (1) Waiving the moratorium on take of marine mammals under section 101(a)(3)(A)(16 U.S.C. 1371(3)(A)) of the MMPA, and subsequently (2) promulgating hunting regulations implementing the waiver in accordance with section 103 (16 U.S.C. 1373) of the MMPA, and (3) issuing any necessary permit(s) to the Makah for whale hunting.

If NMFS waives the MMPA take moratorium and issues the necessary regulations and permit(s), the Makah would be allowed to continue subsistence hunting of ENP gray whales, subject to IWC quotas and allocation of those quotas under the WCA. The NEPA review initiated by this notice of intent, therefore, involves preparation of a site-specific EIS related to the Makah Tribe's proposed action of continuing treaty right subsistence ENP whale hunting (i.e., request for a waiver of the MMPA take moratorium), and alternatives to the waiver request.

Pursuant to NEPA, which requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment, and in recognition of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Anderson v. Evans, we intend to conduct public scoping meetings and to prepare an EIS. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed action must be developed and considered in our environmental review. Alternatives considered for analysis in this EIS may include: variations in the scope of the hunting activities, variations in the hunting location, or a combination of these elements. In addition, the EIS will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on geology and soils, air quality, water quality, other fish and wildlife species and their habitat, vegetation, socioeconomics/tourism, treaty rights and Federal trust responsibilities, environmental justice, cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, transportation, public services, and human health and safety, and other environmental issues that could occur with the implementation of the Makah's proposed action and alternatives. For all potentially significant impacts, the EIS will identify avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where feasible, to a level below significance.

We have identified the following preliminary alternatives for public comment during the public scoping period, and encourage information on additional alternatives to consider:

Alternative 1: No Action - Under the No Action Alternative, we would not approve the requested whale hunting, would not grant the waiver of the moratorium on take under the MMPA, nor issue the necessary regulations and permits.

Alternative 2: The Proposed Action - Under the proposed action, the Makah Tribe would be allowed to continue treaty right subsistence hunting of gray whales imposing time and area restrictions designed to target migrating whales and to avoid any intentional harvest of whales from the PCFA. We would grant the waiver of the moratorium on take under the MMPA and issue the necessary regulations and permits.

Alternative 3: The proposed action would be modified to allow limited take of gray whales from the PCFA during hunts.

Alternative 4: The proposed action would be modified to remove time and area restrictions from the hunts.

Alternative 5: The proposed action would be modified to allow hunting to target migrating whales, imposing time and area restrictions different than those contained in the proposed action that would maximize the likelihood of taking a migrating whale (and minimize the likelihood of taking a PCFA whale).

We provide this notice to: (1) Advise other agencies and the public of our intentions, (2) obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to include in the EIS, (3) terminate the prior notice of intent to prepare an EIS on allocation of the 2003 through 2007 quota (68 FR 10703) published on March 6, 2003. Comments and suggestions received during the prior public comment period for the 2003 through 2007 quota allocation (March 6 through April 21, 2003), will be considered in developing the current EIS. Other comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that the full range of issues related to the Makah's waiver request and all significant issues are identified. We request that comments be as specific as possible. We seek public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives; associated impacts of any alternatives on the human environment, including geology and soils, air quality, water quality, other fish and wildlife species and their habitat, vegetation, socioeconomics/tourism, treaty rights and Federal trust responsibilities, environmental justice, cultural resources, noise, aesthetics, transportation, public services, and human health and safety; and suitable mitigation measures.

Comments concerning this environmental review process should be directed to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for questions. All comments and material received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

The environmental review of continuation of the Makah subsistence gray whale hunting will be conducted under the authority and in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508), other applicable Federal laws and regulations, and policies and procedures of NMFS for compliance with those regulations. This notice is being furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7 to obtain suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.

Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued.

Authorization may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if NMFS finds that the taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses. In addition, NMFS must prescribe regulations that include permissible methods of taking and other means effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species and its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. The regulations must include requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.

Regulations governing the taking of marine mammals incidental to the U.S. Navy's operation of SURTASS LFA sonar were published on July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46712), and remain in effect until August 15, 2007. For detailed information on this action, please refer to that document. These regulations include mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the incidental taking of marine mammals by the SURTASS LFA sonar system.

On November 24, 2003, the President signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (NDAA) (Public Law 108-136). Included in this law were amendments to the MMPA that apply where a “military readiness activity” is concerned. Of specific importance for the SURTASS LFA sonar take authorization, the NDAA amended section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA to exempt military readiness activities from the “specified geographical region” and “small numbers” requirements. The term “military readiness activity” is defined in Public Law 107-314 (16 U.S.C. 703 note) to include all training and operations of the Armed Forces that relate to combat; and the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat use. The term expressly does not include the routine operation of installation operating support functions, such as military offices, military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment facilities, storage facilities, schools, housing, motor pools, laundries, morale, welfare and recreation activities, shops, and mess halls; the operation of industrial activities; or the construction or demolition of facilities used for a military readiness activity.

NMFS published a proposed rule to amend its SURTASS LFA sonar final rule and regulations, to implement provisions of the NDAA (69 FR 38873; June 29, 2004). The public comment period ended on July 29, 2004. NMFS has not issued a final rule as of the date of this notice.

NMFS received an application from the U.S. Navy for two LOAs, one covering the R/V Cory Chouest and one the USNS IMPECCABLE, under the regulations issued on July 16, 2002 (67 FR 46712). The Navy requested that the LOAs become effective on August 16, 2005. The application requested authorization, for a period not to exceed 1 year, to take, by harassment, marine mammals incidental to employment of the SURTASS LFA sonar system for training, testing and routine military operations on the aforementioned ships. The application's take estimates are based on 16 nominal 9-day active sonar missions (or equivalent shorter missions) between both vessels, regardless of which vessel is performing a specific mission, not to exceed a total of 432 hours of LFA sonar transmission time combined for both vessels.

The specified geographic regions identified in the application in which the Navy proposes to operate SURTASS LFA sonar are the following oceanographic provinces described in Longhurst (1998) and identified in 50 CFR 216.180(a): the Archipelagic Deep Basins Province, the Western Pacific Warm Pool Province, and the North Pacific Tropical Gyre West Province, all within the Pacific Trade Wind Biome; the Kuroshio Current Province and the Northern Pacific Transition Zone Province within the Pacific Westerly Winds Biome; the North Pacific Epicontinental Sea Province within the Pacific Polar Biome; and the China Sea Coastal Province within the North Pacific Coastal Biome. The operational areas proposed in the Navy's application are portions of the provinces but do not encompass the entire area of the provinces. Due to critical naval warfare requirements, the U.S. Navy has identified the necessity for both SURTASS LFA sonar vessels to be stationed in the North Pacific Ocean during fiscal year 2006.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will consider the entire spectrum of intervention objects, including deterrence, dissuasion, remote pre-detonation, remote disarming, elimination of sources and/or manufacturing facilities, discovery and remove of critical personnel, discovery and removal of employed devices, or anything else that has the end effect of either lowering the value or raising the cost of employing IEDs as an insurgent or terrorist weapons of choice. The Task Force will have four primary objectives: Assess the current state of the art of allied forces in countering adversary use of IEDs in operations such as OIF; recommend a mid- to-long-term set of integrated activities aimed at improving the state of the art in reducing the effect of IEDs over the next three to ten years; provide recommendations on short term (over the next six months to three years) incremental improvements in U.S. forces' ability to counter or reduce the effectiveness of IEDs, and identify any synergies that may exist between current counter-IED and countermine efforts.

In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been determined that this Defense Science Board Task Force meeting concerns matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OAR-2003-0034, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov./edocket.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those engaged in primary aluminum production.

Title: Reporting Requirements under the Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP).

Abstract: EPA's Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP) was initiated in 1995 and is an important voluntary program contributing to the overall reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. This program focuses on reducing direct greenhouse gas emissions including perfluocorcarbon (PFC) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions from the production of primary aluminum. Seven of the eight U.S. producers of primary aluminum participate in this program. PFCs are very potent greenhouse gases with global warning potentials several thousand times that of carbon dioxide and they persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years. CO 2 is emitted from consumption of the carbon anode. EPA has developed this ICR to renew authorization to collect information from companies in the VAIP. Participants voluntarily agree to the following: designating a VAIP liaison; undertaking technically feasible and cost-effective actions to reduce PFC and direct CO 2 emissions; and reporting to EPA, on an annual basis, the PFC and CO 2 emissions or production parameters used to estimate emissions. The information contained in the annual reports of VAIP members is used by EPA to assess the success of the program in achieving its goals. The information contained in the annual reports may be considered confidential business information and is maintained as such. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Burden Statement: The VAIP is a continuing program and, as such, the burden for collecting relevant information has not changed significantly overtime as data collection processes have remained the same and no new one-time cost activities are expected that would impact all respondents. VAIP participants sign a voluntary Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which assigns responsibilities to EPA and participating companies. The MOU has been signed each of the seven participating companies and not expected to be revised or renewed. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 98.5 hours per response. The projected hour burden for this collection of information is as follows:

Average Annual Reporting Burden: 82 hours.

Average Annual RecordKeeping Burden: 0 hours.

Average Burden Hours/Response: 82 hours for the annual tracking report; and 16.5 hours associated with additional activities such as partnership meetings. Frequency of response=one per respondent per year. Estimated number of respondents per year=7. Cost burden to respondents ($7,354 per respondent).

Estimated Total Annualized Cost Burden: $51,478.

Total Labor Costs: $51,478.

Total Capital and Start-up Costs: $0.

Estimated Total Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.

Purchase of Services Costs: $0.

The purpose of this public meeting is to help educate the public on current water quality standards regulations, guidance and practices related to designated uses and use attainability analyses, and to provide a forum for the public to join in discussions, ask questions, and provide feedback. EPA also welcomes written remarks received by September 21, 2005, which can be sent to Ms. Harrigan by e-mail or by mail at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

EPA anticipates announcing and holding two additional public meetings on these subjects in 2006. One meeting will likely be held in the midwestern U.S., and the other will likely be held in the western U.S.

Any person needing special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact Ms. Harrigan at the phone number or e-mail address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Requests for special accommodations should be made at least five business days in advance of the public meeting.

Under the PRA, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3), 5 CFR 1320.3(c). In 2003, OMB approved the FTC's request to conduct a survey on ID Theft and assigned OMB Control Number 3084-0124. The FTC completed the consumer research in April 2003 and issued its report, Federal Trade Commission—Identity Theft Survey Report, in September 2003. 2 As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB reinstate the clearance for the survey, which expired in June 2003.

The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FTC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the FTC's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collecting 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. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before October 24, 2005.

The FTC proposes to survey up to 5,000 consumers in order to gather specific information on the incidence of ID Theft in the general population. All information will be collected on a voluntary basis, and the identities of the consumers will remain confidential. Subject to OMB approval for the survey, the FTC has contracted with a consumer research firm to identify consumers and conduct the survey. The results will assist the FTC in determining the incidence of ID Theft in the general population and whether the type and frequency of ID Theft is changing, and will inform the FTC about how best to combat ID Theft.

ID Theft has been the top consumer complaint reported to the FTC since calendar year 2000. The information collected by the survey will ensure that the FTC has accurate and timely information on the extent of ID Theft and its impact on victims. This information will be highly useful to Congress and others who often request statistical information on ID Theft from the FTC.

The FTC intends to use a larger sample size than the 2003 survey to allow for a more in-depth analysis of the resulting data. The additional data points will allow for statistically significant samples for particular types of ID Theft and particular demographic characteristics. The questions will be very similar to the 2003 survey so that the results from the 2003 survey can be used as a baseline for a time-series analysis. 3 The FTC may choose to conduct another follow-up survey in approximately two years.

The FTC will pretest the survey on approximately 100 respondents to ensure that all questions are easily understood. This pretest will take approximately 3 minutes on average per person and 5 hours as a whole (100 respondents × 3 minutes each). Based on FTC staff's experience with the 2003 survey, the staff estimates that approximately 12 percent of those interviewed will have experienced ID Theft within the last 5 years. Survey participants who have not experienced ID Theft in this period of time will only be asked the initial 4 or 5 survey questions. The staff expects that this will take less than 2 minutes. For those who have experienced ID Theft in the last 5 years, our experience with the earlier survey suggests that it will take about 12 to 15 minutes to complete the survey. The staff therefore anticipates that the average time per survey participant will be approximately 3 minutes. Answering the consumer survey will require approximately 250 hours as a whole (5,000 respondents × 3 minutes each). Thus, cumulative total burden hours for the first year of the clearance will approximate 255 hours.

The cost per respondent should be negligible. Participation is voluntary and will not require start-up, capital, or labor expenditures by respondents.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” means agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the regulations noted herein.

The FTC invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 submission of responses. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before October 24, 2005.

The Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR part 306 (OMB Control Number: 3084-0068), establishes standard procedures for determining, certifying, and disclosing the octane rating of automotive gasoline and the automotive fuel rating of alternative liquid automotive fuels, as required by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. 15 U.S.C. 2822(a)-(c). The Rule also requires refiners, producers, importers, distributors, and retailers to retain records showing how the ratings were determined, including delivery tickets or letters of certification.

Estimated annual hours burden:   2 40,000 total burden hours (16,000 recordkeeping hours + 24,000 disclosure hours).

Recordkeeping: Based on industry sources, staff estimates that 195,000 fuel industry members each incur an average annual burden of approximately five minutes to ensure retention of relevant business records for the period required by the Rule, resulting in a total of 16,000 hours.

Disclosure: Staff estimates that affected industry members incur an average burden of approximately one hour to produce, distribute, and post octane rating labels. Because the labels are durable, only about one of every eight industry members ( i.e. , approximately 24,000 of 195,000 industry members) incur this burden each year, resulting in a total annual burden of 24,000 hours.

Estimated annual cost burden: $804,000 ($720,000 in labor costs and $84,000 in non-labor costs).

Labor costs: Staff estimates that the work associated with the Rule's recordkeeping and disclosure requirements is performed by skilled information and record clerks at an average rate of $18.00 per hour. Thus, the annual labor cost to respondents of complying with the recordkeeping and disclosure requirements of the Rule is estimated to be $720,000 ((16,000 hours + 24,000 hours) × $18.00 per hour).

Capital or other non-labor costs: $84,000.

Staff believes that there are no current start-up costs associated with the Rule. Because the Rule has been effective since 1979 for gasoline, and since 1993 for liquid alternative automotive fuels, industry members already have in place the capital equipment and other means necessary to comply with the Rule. Retailers (approximately 170,000 industry members), however, do incur the cost of procuring (and replacing) fuel dispenser labels to comply with the Rule. According to industry input, the price per label is about fifty cents. Based on ranging industry estimates of a 6-10 year useful life per dispenser label, staff will conservatively factor into its calculation of labeling cost the shortest assumed useful life, i.e. , 6 years. Staff believes that the average retailer has six dispensers, with all of them being obtained either simultaneously or otherwise within the same year. Assuming that, in any given year, 1/6 th of all retailers (28,000 retailers) will replace their dispenser labels, staff estimates total labeling cost to be $84,000 (28,333 × 6 × .50 ).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), 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, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Respondents are sponsors of marketing applications that contain clinical data from studies covered by the regulations. These sponsors represent pharmaceutical, biologic and medical device firms. The applicant will incur reporting costs in order to comply with the final rule. Applicants will be required to submit, for example, the complete list of clinical investigators for each covered study, not employed by the applicant and/or sponsor of the covered study, and either certify to the absence of certain financial arrangements with clinical investigators or disclose the nature of those arrangements to FDA and the steps taken by the applicant or sponsor to minimize the potential for bias. The clinical investigator will have to supply information regarding financial interests or payments held in the sponsor of the covered study. FDA has said that it has no preference as to how this information is collected from investigators and that sponsors/applicants have the flexibility to collect the information in the most efficient and least burdensome manner that will be effective. FDA estimated that the total reporting costs of sponsors would be less than $450,000 annually. Costs could also occur after a marketing application is submitted if FDA determines that the financial interests of an investigator raise significant questions about the integrity of the data.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

The sponsors of covered studies will be required to maintain complete records of compensation agreements with any compensation paid to nonemployee clinical investigators, including information showing any financial interests held by the clinical investigator, for a time period of 2 years after the date of approval of the applications. This time is consistent with the current recordkeeping requirements for other information related to marketing applications for human drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Currently, sponsors of covered studies must maintain many records with regard to clinical investigators, including protocol agreements and investigator resumes or curriculum vitae. FDA estimates than an average of 15 minutes will be required for each recordkeeper to add this record to clinical investigators' file.

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is publishing a final rule classifying RNA preanalytical systems into class II (special controls) under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)). This guidance document will serve as the special control for RNA preanalytical systems.

Section 513(f)(2) of the act provides that any person who submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) for a device that has not previously been classified may, within 30 days after receiving an order classifying the device in class III under section 513(f)(1) of the act, request FDA to classify the device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the act. FDA shall, within 60 days of receiving such a request, classify the device by written order. This classification shall be the initial classification of the device. Within 30 days after the issuance of an order classifying the device, FDA must publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing such classification. Because of the timeframes established by section 513(f)(2) of the act, FDA has determined, under § 10.115(g)(2) (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)), that it is not feasible to allow for public participation before issuing this guidance as a final guidance document. Therefore, FDA is issuing this guidance document as a level 1 guidance document that is immediately in effect. FDA will consider any comments that are received in response to this notice to determine whether to amend the guidance document.

This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's GGP regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on RNA preanalytical systems. 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 statute and regulations.

To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: RNA Preanalytical Systems (RNA Collection, Stabilization and Purification Systems for RT-PCR used in Molecular Diagnostic Testing)” by fax call the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1563) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: RNA Preanalytical Systems (RNA Collection, Stabilization and Purification Systems for RT-PCR used in Molecular Diagnostic Testing),” you may either send a fax request to 301-443-8818 to receive a hard copy of the document, or send an e-mail request to gwa@cdrh.fda.gov to receive a hard copy or an electronic copy. Please use the document number (1563) to identify the guidance you are requesting.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may also do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information, including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html . Guidance documents are also available on the Division of Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information addressed in the guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E, OMB control number 0910-0120). The labeling provisions addressed in the guidance have been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Interested persons may submit written or electronic comments regarding this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ). 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. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A. Major Alteration of 09-17-0001, “Indian Health Service Health and Medical Records Systems, HHS/IHS/OHP”: IHS provides care and treatment to patients at IHS health care facilities and under contract. Whenever possible, IHS seeks reimbursement through third-party payers such as Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. IHS is proposing to alter the existing system of records as follows:

1. IHS is changing the title of the system from “Health and Medical Records System, HHS/IHS/OHP,” to “Medical, Health, and Billing Records System, HHS/IHS/OCPS,” to clarify that IHS also uses the records in the system to process, document, and monitor third-party payment billing and reimbursement claims, in addition to debt collection activities.

2. IHS is proposing to include contract health service records as an additional category of individuals covered by the system.

3. IHS is proposing to include several new purposes that are in line with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule provisions. These seven (7) new purposes are as follow: (1) To provide information to organ procurement organizations or other entities engaged in the procurement, banking, or transplantation of organs to facilitate organ, eye, or tissue donation and transplant. (2) To provide information to individuals about treatment alternatives or other types of health-related benefits and services. (3) To provide information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in connection with an FDA-regulated product or activity. (4) To provide information to correctional institutions as necessary for health and safety purposes. (5) To provide information to governmental authorities ( e.g. , social service or protective services agencies) on victims of abuse, neglect, sexual assault or domestic violence. (6) To provide information to the National Archives and Records Administration in records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. (7) To provide relevant health care information to funeral directors or representatives of funeral homes to allow necessary arrangements prior to and in anticipation of an individual's impending death.

4. IHS is proposing to modify/alter/delete several published routine uses and to include ten (10) new routine uses when all requirements have been met. IHS is modifying/altering routine use #1 by separating the medical treatment, payment, and health care operations to routine uses #1 and #2 respectively; routine uses #2 is renumbered as #4; routine uses #3 and #4 are modified to include business associate agreement language to comply with HIPAA Privacy standards and renumbered as #6 and #7 respectively; routine use #5 is altered to include a special requirement notice for sensitive protected health information (PHI) as such alcohol/drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, STD or mental health patient information and renumbered as #8; routine use #6 is modified/altered to reflect changes in research disclosures to comply with HIPAA Privacy standards and renumbered as #9; routine use #7 is modified/altered to include various cases of abuses, neglect, sexual assault and domestic violence with an emphasis on 42 CFR part 2 and renumbered as #10; routine use #8 is modified to clarify the disclosure under (a) and (b) with no statutory language change on child abuse and the deletion of statutory citation of 42 CFR Part 2 and renumbered as #11; routine use #9 is modified to include legal proceedings related to administrative claims and the inclusive provision of the DHHS/Office of General Counsel (OGC) representation in litigation matters and renumbered as #12; routine use #10 was modified/altered to reflect statutory requirement and renumbered as #5; routine use #11 is modified to include business associate agreement language to comply with the HIPAA Privacy standards and altered to eliminate the safeguard requirements of the Privacy Act and was renumbered as #13; routine uses #12 and #16 were modified and incorporated into one proposed routine use disclosure with minor edits and to efficiently administer health care operations and to assist in the planning and delivery of patient's medical care and renumbered as #14; routine use #13 was deleted as no longer applicable to the purpose and function of IHS; routine use #14 is modified to reflect the permitted use/disclosure requirement of 45 CFR 164.502(g) citation and renumbered as #15; routine use #15 is modified with some minor edits to reflect current changes and remains as #15; and routine use #16 is being deleted and incorporated into the new routine use #13.

IHS is proposing to add ten (10) new routine uses as follows: routine use #2 is to provide disclosure for third-party reimbursement, fiscal intermediary functions, and debt collection activities; routine use #3 is to provide state agencies or other entities acting pursuant to a contract with CMS for fraud and abuse control efforts to the extent required by law or under an agreement between IHS and respective state Medicaid agency or other entities; routine use #16 is to provide an individual having authority to act on behalf of an incompetent individual concerning health care decisions to the extent permitted under 45 CFR 164.502(g); routine use #17 is that certain protected health information may be used or disclosed from an IHS facility directory unless the individual objects to the disclosure and IHS may provide the religious affiliation only to members of the clergy to the extent permitted under 45 CFR 164.510; routine use #18 is that relevant protected health information may be disclosed to a relative, a close personal friend, or any other person identified by the individual with their care or payment for health care. Information may be used or disclosed to notify family members, personal representative, or other person responsible for the individual's care, of their location, general condition or death; routine use #20 to Federal and non-Federal protection and advocacy organization for purpose of investigating incidents of abuse and neglect of individuals with development disabilities as defined in 42 U.S.C. 10801-10805(a)(4) and 42 CFR 51.41-46 to the extent authorized by law and the conditions of 45 CFR 1386.22(a)(2) are met; routine use #21 is for disclosure to a correctional institution or a law enforcement official, during the period of time the individual is either an inmate or is otherwise in lawful custody, for the provision of health care to the individual or for health and safety purposes; routine use #22 is for disclosure to the Social Security Administration for validation of SSN(s) purposes only; routine use #23 is that disclosure of relevant health care information may be made to funeral director or representatives of funeral homes to allow for necessary arrangements; and routine use #24 is for disclosure to a public or private covered entity that is authorized by law or charter to assist in disaster relief efforts.

In addition to updating and making editorial corrections to improve the clarity of the system notice, this alteration requires the updating of the system manager listing, and revisions of the Categories of Records, Purposes, Authority, Safeguard, Retention and Disposal, Notification and Access Procedures sections.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Contractor's Requisition Project Mortgages.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0028.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information is collected on form HUD-92448 from contractors and is used to obtain program benefits, consisting of distribution of insured mortgage proceeds when construction costs are involved. The information regarding completed work items is used by the Multifamily Hub Centers to ensure that payments from mortgage proceeds are made for work actually completed in a satisfactory manner. The certification regarding prevailing wages is used by the Multifamily Hub Centers to ensure compliance with prevailing wage rates.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-92448.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents is 1,300 generating 15,600 responses annually, the estimated time needed to prepare each response is approximately 6 hours, the frequency of response is monthly, and the total burden hours requested is 93,600.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is an extension of a currently approved collection.

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Application for Housing Assistance Payments; Special Claims Processing.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-182.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Vouchers are submitted by owners/agents to HUD or their Contract Administrators (CA)/Performance Based Contract Administrators (PBCA) each month to receive assistance payments for the difference between the gross rent and the total tenant payment for all assisted tenants. In the instance of special claims, vouchers are submitted by owners/agents to HUD or their CA/PBCA to receive an amount of offset unpaid rents, tenant damages, vacancies, and/or debt service losses.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-52670; HUD-52670A, Part 1; HUD-52670A, Part 2; HUD-52671A, HUD-52671B, HUD-52671C, HUD-52671D.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 313,534; the number of respondents is 23,500 generating approximately 300,996 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion and monthly; and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 1 hour to 2.66 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Revision of a currently approved collection.

The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. ), 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)). We have asked OMB to renew approval of the collection of information for the NAWCA grants programs. The current OMB control number for this collection of information is 1018-0100, which expires on August 31, 2005. We are requesting the standard 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Federal agencies 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. Following our submittal, OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove our information collection request; however, OMB may make its decision as early as 30 days after submittal of our request. Therefore, to ensure that your comments receive consideration, send your comments and/or suggestions to OMB by the date referenced in the DATES section of this notice.

We received one comment regarding this notice. The commenter did not address the necessity, clarity, or accuracy of the information collection, but stated that the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Council, as constituted, are used to kill waterfowl, not save them. In addition, the commenter petitions to reconstitute the Council with different members and requests program materials. We have not made any changes to our information collection as a result of the comment.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), first signed in 1986, is a tripartite agreement among Canada, Mexico, and the United States to enhance, restore, and otherwise protect continental wetlands to benefit waterfowl and other wetlands-associated wildlife through partnerships between and among the private and public sectors. Because the 1986 NAWMP did not carry with it a mechanism to provide for broadly based and sustained financial support for wetland conservation activities, Congress passed and the President signed into law the NAWCA. The purpose of NAWCA, as amended, is to promote, through partnerships, long-term conservation of North American wetland ecosystems and the waterfowl and other migratory birds, fish, and wildlife that depend upon such habitat. Principal conservation actions supported by NAWCA are acquisition, enhancement, and restoration of wetlands and wetlands-associated habitat.

In addition to providing for a continuing and stable funding base, NAWCA establishes an administrative body, the North American Wetlands Conservation Council, made up of a State representative from each of the four flyways, three representatives from wetlands conservation organizations, the Secretary of the Board of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Director of the Service. The Council recommends funding of select wetlands conservation project proposals to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission (MBCC). Competing for grant funds involves applications from partnerships that describe in substantial detail project locations, project resources, future benefits, and other characteristics, to meet the standards established by the Council and the requirements of NAWCA.

Materials that describe the program and assist applicants in formulating project proposals for Council consideration are available on our Web site at http://birdhabitat.fws.gov. Persons who do not have access to the Web site may still obtain instructional materials by mail. There has been virtually no change in the scope and general nature of these instructions since the OMB first approved the information collection in 1999. Instructions assist applicants in formulating detailed project proposals for Council consideration. The instructional materials, including any hard or electronic copy and information or other instruments, are the basis for this information collection request. Notices of funding availability, which are updated regularly, are posted on the Grants.gov Web site (http://www.grants.gov) as well as in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. We use information collected under this program to respond to audits, program planning and management, program evaluation, Government Performance and Results Act reporting, Standard Form 424 (Application For Federal Assistance), grant agreements, budget reports and justifications, public and private requests for information, data provided to other programs for databases on similar programs, congressional inquiries, and reports required by NAWCA.

If we do not collect this information, we would have to eliminate the program because it would not be possible to determine eligibility and the relative worth of the proposed projects or to meet our legal responsibilities under the Act and regulations. Reducing the frequency of collection would only reduce the frequency of grant opportunities, as the information collected is unique to each project proposal. Discontinuation of the program is not a viable option.

Title of Collection: Information Collection in Support of Grant Programs Authorized by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA).

OMB Control Number: 1018-0100.

Form Number(s): None.

Frequency of Collection: Occasional. The Small Grants program has one project proposal period per year and the Standard Grants program has two per year. Annual reports are due 90 days after the anniversary date of the grant agreement. Final reports are due 90 days after the end of the project period. The project period is 2 years.

Description of Respondents: Households and/or individuals; businesses and/or other for-profits organizations; educational organizations; not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, local and/or tribal governments.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 37,600. We estimate 80 hours for each Small Grant and 400 hours for each Standard Grant.

Number of Respondents: Approximately 150. We estimate 70 proposals for the Small Grants program and 80 for the Standard Grants program. Approximately half of the projects submitted are funded.

We interviewed five previous and current recipients of NAWCA grants with regard to three aspects of the grants programs: the availability of the information requested, the clarity of the instructions, and the annual burden hours for preparing applications and other materials, such as annual and final reports for both the Small Grants and the Standard Grants programs. All respondents advised that the information regarding descriptions of both programs and application instructions are readily available and the clarity of the information/instructions for both programs is good, even considering the level of detail and technical information required in the Standard Grants program application.

We invite your comments on: (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the NAWCA grants programs, including whether or not in the opinion of the respondent the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the annual hour burden of information requested; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. The information collection in this program is part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)).

Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This Compact authorizes the Pueblo of Pojoaque of New Mexico to engage in certain Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. This compact is identical to the other New Mexico compacts that were approved by the Department in 2001.

Any party electing to participate in this exploration program shall notify, in writing , both the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, PO Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107-6800, and Spring Creek Coal Company, PO Box 67, Decker, Montana 59025. Such written notice must refer to serial number MTM 94825 and be received no later than September 26, 2005 or 10 calendar days after the last publication of this Notice in the Sheridan Press newspaper, whichever is later. This Notice will be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in the Sheridan Press , Sheridan, Wyoming.

The proposed exploration program is fully-described, and will be conducted pursuant to an exploration plan to be approved by the Bureau of Land Management. The exploration plan, as submitted by Spring Creek Coal Company, is available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land Management, 5001 Southgate Drive, Billings, Montana, during regular business hours (9 a.m. to 4 p.m.), Monday through Friday.

Copies of the original withdrawal orders containing a legal description of the lands involved are available from the BLM Idaho State Office at the address above.

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

1. The following Bureau of Reclamation Orders and Public Land Orders, which withdrew a total of (a) 2,767.04 acres of public lands, and (b) 4,018.71 acres of National Forest System lands, for the Minidoka Reclamation Project, are hereby revoked in their entirety: Bureau of Reclamation Orders dated September 6, 1956 (22 FR 2741), January 25, 1957 (22 FR 1968), June 21, 1957 (23 FR 8361), and September 5, 1957 (23 FR 2130), and Public Land Order No's. 2170 (25 FR 7497), and 3083 (28 FR 5051).

2. At 9 a.m. on September 26, 2005, the lands referenced as (a) in Paragraph 1 will be opened to all forms of appropriation under the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received at or prior to 9 a.m. on September 26, 2005 shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing.

3. At 9 a.m. on September 26, 2005, the lands referenced as (b) in Paragraph 1 will be opened to such forms of disposition as may be authorized by law on National Forest System lands, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.

4. At 9 a.m. on September 26, 2005, all of the lands referenced in Paragraph 1 will be opened to location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. Appropriation of any of the lands identified in this order under the general mining laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession is governed by State law where not in conflict with Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will not intervene in disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress has provided for such determinations in local courts.

A copy of the original withdrawal order, Public Land Order No. 7464, is available from the BLM Montana State Office at the address stated above.

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

1. Public Land Order No. 7464 (65 FR 59463, October 5, 2000), which withdrew 3,530.62 acres of public land from surface entry and mining to protect the Zortman-Landusky Mine Reclamation Site, is hereby extended for an additional 5-year period.

2. Public Land Order 7464 will expire on October 4, 2010, unless, as a result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (2000), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Superintendent Office, P.O. Drawer 170, Moose, Wyoming 83012-0170, Attention: Transportation Plan. You may also comment via the e-mail to http://parkplanning.nps.gov , choose “Grand Teton National Park” or “ Plan/Documents Open for Comment ” and then click “ Comment on Document ”. Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to the Grand Teton Visitor Center, Moose, Wyoming. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement concerning agenda items. The statement should be addressed to the Flight 93 Advisory Commission, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501.

Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act, (Act) 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule.

The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406 (b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.

As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFE 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The second is the Product and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.

The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Commercial Laundry Equipment, including Commercial Laundry Manufacturing, Dry Cleaning Equipment Manufacturing and Pressing Machine Manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 333312.

The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.

Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act, (Act) 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule.

The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.

As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFE 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) . The second is the Product and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.

The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Household Laundry Equipment, including Laundry Equipment (washers and dryers) and Household Type Manufacturing, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335224.

The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.

Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule.

The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.

As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFE 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal Government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The second is the Product and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.

The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Household Cooking Equipment, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335221.

The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.

Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule.

The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.

As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFE 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal Government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The second is the Product and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.

The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Household Refrigerator Equipment, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 335222.

The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.

Section 8(a)(17) of the Small Business Act, (Act) 15 U.S.C. 637 (a)(17), requires that recipients of Federal contracts set aside for small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, or SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor, if the recipient is other than the actual manufacturer or processor. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule.

The SBA regulations imposing this requirement are found at 13 CFR 121.406(b). Section 8(a)(17)(b)(iv) of the Act authorizes SBA to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for any “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors in the Federal market.

As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1204, in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or received a contract from the Federal government within the last 24 months. The SBA defines “class of products” based on six digit coding systems. The first coding system is the Office of Management and Budget North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) . The second is the Product and Service Code established by the Federal Procurement Data System.

The SBA is currently processing a request to waive the Nonmanufacturer Rule for Commercial Cooking Equipment, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 333319.

The public is invited to comment or provide source information to SBA on the proposed waiver of the nonmanufacturer rule for this NAICS code.

Type of Request: New collection.

Title: Evaluation of USTDA Performance.

Form Number: USTDA 1000E-2005a.

Frequency of Use: Annually for duration of project.

Type of Respondents: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Farms; Federal Government.

Description of Affected Public: U.S. companies and other entities that participate in USTDA-funded activities.

Reporting Hours: 866 hours per year.

Number of Responses: 2600 per year.

Federal Cost: $350,000 per year.

Authority for Information Collection: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 103 Public Law 62; 107 Stat. 285.

Abstract (Needs and Uses): USTDA and contractors will collect information from various stakeholders on USTDA-funded activities regarding developmental impact and/or commercial objectives as well as evaluate success regarding GPRA and OMB PART objectives.