A determination has been made by Donald W. Gohmert that the proposed works of improvement for the Sicily Island Watershed will not be installed. The sponsoring local organization(s) have concurred in this determination and agree that Federal funding should be deauthorized for the project. Information regarding this determination may be obtained from Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, at the above address and telephone number.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposed deauthorization will be taken until 60 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

The DoC is amending the Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements which was published in the Federal Register on October 1, 2001. This amendment updates provisions for review and approval of indirect cost rate proposals for those organizations for which DoC is cognizant or has oversight. In January 2002, the U. S. General Accounting Office issued Amendment No. 3, Independence, to the Government Auditing Standards. These new standards do not allow our Office of Inspector General to continue to perform these services, therefore, the Office of Executive Budgeting and Assistance Management, which is organizationally located under the DoC Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration, will be responsible for the review of cost allocation procedures and negotiation of indirect cost rates for those organizations for which DoC is cognizant or has oversight. Therefore, DoC procedures for review, negotiation, and approval of indirect cost rates are being revised.

In the first column on page 49919, paragraph B.5.(c)(1) should be replaced with the following:

(1) For those organizations for which DoC is cognizant or has oversight, DoC or its designee either will negotiate a fixed rate for the recipient or, in some instances, will limit its review to evaluating the procedures described in the recipient's cost allocation methodology plan. Indirect cost rates and cost allocation methodology reviews are subject to future audits to determine actual indirect costs. Within 90 days of the award start date, the recipient shall submit to the address listed below documentation (indirect cost proposal, cost allocation plan, etc.) necessary to perform the review. The recipient shall provide the Grants Officer with a copy of the transmittal letter. Office of Executive Assistance Management, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room H-6022, Washington, DC 20230.

2. In the second column on page 49919, paragraph B.5.(c)(3) should be replaced with the following:

(3) If the recipient fails to submit the required documentation to DoC or other oversight or cognizant Federal agency within 90 days of the award start date, the Grants Officer may amend the award to preclude the recovery of any indirect costs under the award. If the DoC, oversight, or cognizant Federal agency determines there is a finding of good and sufficient cause to excuse the recipient's delay in submitting the documentation, an extension of the 90-day due date may be approved by the Grants Officer.

This notice has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

Notice and comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), or any other law, for this notice relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts (5 U.SC. 553(a)). Because notice and comment are not required for this notice, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , are not required and has not been prepared for this notice.

It has been determined that this notice does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

This action does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection-of-information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

Accounting, Administrative practice and procedures, Grants administration, Grant programs-economic development, Grant programs-oceans, atmosphere and fisheries management, Grant programs-minority businesses, Grant programs-technology, Grant programs-telecommunications, Grant programs-international, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations as codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2002).

On July 1, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on industrial nitrocellulose (INC) from Germany (67 FR 44172).

On August 27, 2002, pursuant to a request made by Wolff Walstrode AG (Wolff), a producer and exporter of INC, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on INC from Germany. On October 16, 2002, Wolff withdrew its request for an administrative review of INC from Germany.

Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that a party that requests an administrative review may withdraw the request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested administrative review. The Department is rescinding the administrative review of the order on INC from Germany for the period July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, because the requesting party has withdrawn its request for this administrative review within the 90-day time limit, and no other interested parties have requested a review of INC from Germany for this time period.

This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 251.213(d)(4).

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).

This review covers five manufacturers/exporters ( i.e. , Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu), Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively, “Diler”), Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (collectively, “Ekinciler”), HABAS Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas), and ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS)).

On May 1, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634 (May 1, 2002) (Preliminary Results).

In May and August, 2002, respectively, Diler and ICDAS notified the Department that they did not have shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise to the United States. Because we were able to confirm this with the Customs Service, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review for Diler and ICDAS. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below.

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May and June, 2002, we received case briefs from the petitioner (AmeriSteel Corporation), Colakoglu, and Ekinciler. In June 2002, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Ekinciler, and Habas. In addition, from June through September 2002, at our request we received supplemental information related to the depreciation expenses reported by Ekinciler.

The Department held a hearing on July 10, 2002, at the request of the petitioner.

On August 19, 2002, the Department postponed the final results of this review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 53778 (Aug. 19, 2002).

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The period of review (POR) is April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001.

As noted above, Diler and ICDAS notified the Department that they had no shipments and/or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with the Customs Service. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to Diler and ICDAS. ( See, e.g., Certain Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 35190, 35191 (June 29, 1998); and Certain Fresh Cut Flowers from Colombia; Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 53287, 53288 (Oct. 14, 1997).)

As discussed in the Preliminary Results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results, except as discussed in the accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Richard W. Moreland, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, to Faryar Shirzad, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated October 24, 2002.

We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.

Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Colakoglu, Ekinciler, and Habas made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memo, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo, is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.

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

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001:

The Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Habas, we have calculated an importer-specific assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales. Regarding Colakoglu and Ekinciler, for assessment purposes, we do not have the information to calculate entered value because these companies are not the importers of record for the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the export prices. We will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates uniformly on all entries of that particular importer made during the POR. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above; (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

In French Plate , using the change-in-ownership methodology in place at that time, the Department determined that countervailable subsidies were being provided to producers and exporters of certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from France. GTS challenged this determination before the CIT.

On February 2, 2000, the CAFC ruled in Delverde SRL v. United States , 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g granted in part , (June 20, 2000) (“ Delverde III ”), that:

the Tariff Act as amended does not allow Commerce to presume conclusively, pursuant to a per se rule, that the subsidies granted to the former owner of Delverde's corporate assets automatically 'passed through' to Delverde following the sale. Rather, the Tariff Act requires that Commerce make such a determination by examining the particular facts and circumstances of the sale and determining whether Delverde directly or indirectly received both a financial contribution and benefit from the government.

202 F.3d at 1364. The methodology analyzing Delverde's change in ownership and struck down by the CAFC in Delverde III was similar to that employed in French Plate . Accordingly, the Department asked the CIT to remand the French Plate proceeding for reconsideration in light of Delverde III. The parties consented to this remand.

On August 9, 2000, the CIT remanded the French Plate proceeding to the Department with instructions to: (1) “determine the applicability, if any, of [ Delverde III ] to this proceeding, and (2) embark upon further fact finding, if appropriate.” GTS Industries S.A. v. United States , Court No. 00-03-00118, Remand Order August 9, 2000, modified by Order August 24, 2000.

On December 22, 2000, following a comment period, the Department issued the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand . In that redetermination, in light of Delverde III , the Department analyzed the facts and circumstances of the privatization transaction to determine whether the person to whom countervailable subsides had been given in the past was essentially the same person after privatization. Among the facts and circumstances considered, the Department examined the continuity of general business operations, the continuity of production facilities, continuity of assets and liabilities, and retention of personnel before and after the privatization. Based on these factors, the Department determined that post-privatization Usinor was essentially the same person as pre-privatization Usinor. Consequently, because the Department had attributed a portion of Usinor's pre-privatization subsidies to GTS, these subsidies remained attributable to GTS following Usinor's privatization.

After briefing and a hearing, the CIT, on January 4, 2002 1 , again remanded the French Plate proceeding to the Department. GTS Industries S.A. v. United States , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1369 (CIT 2002). The court explained that the central question was whether the Department's remand decision was consistent with the statute, as interpreted by the CAFC in Delverde III . The court found that Delverde III's requirements were as follows:

The Court specifically rejected, as contrary to Delverde III , the Department's argument that, if the pre and post-privatization companies are, in substance, the same legal person, the Department is not required to determine anew whether that same person has received a subsidy.

On June 3, 2002, following a comment period, the Department issued its Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand . In this second redetermination, the Department re-analyzed certain facts and circumstances of the privatization of Usinor, including the terms of the sale. The Department determined that: 1) some purchasers of Usinor's shares paid full, fair-market value for those shares and, thus, received no subsidy from the privatization transaction; and 2) other purchasers that did not pay full, fair-market value did receive a subsidy from the privatization transaction. However, regarding the purchasers that did not pay full, fair-market value, while they did receive a subsidy, the Department determined that this subsidy was not countervailable because it was conferred on the owners of the company, and not on the company itself. Consequently, the Department concluded that Usinor (and, thus, GTS) received no countervailable subsidies as a result of the privatization transaction. Accordingly, the Department recalculated a subsidy rate of 0.00 percent ad valorem for GTS for the POI.

The CIT affirmed the Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on September 24, 2002. See GTS Industries S.A. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 00-03-00118, Slip Op. 02-115 (CIT 2002).

The CAFC, in Timken , held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not “in harmony” with the Department's final determination. Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken , the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's September 24, 2002, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the CAFC. The Department will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate relevant entries covering the subject merchandise effective October 30, 2002, in the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the CAFC.

In French Stainless , using the change-in-ownership methodology in place at that time, the Department determined that countervailable subsidies were being provided to producers and exporters of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from France. Usinor challenged this determination before the CIT.

On February 2, 2000, the CAFC ruled in Delverde SRL v. United States, 202 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g granted in part , (June 20, 2000) (“ Delverde III ”), that:

202 F.3d at 1364. The methodology analyzing Delverde's change in ownership and struck down by the CAFC in Delverde III was similar to that employed in French Stainless . Accordingly, the Department asked the CIT to remand the French Stainless proceeding for reconsideration in light of Delverde III . The parties consented to this remand.

On August 15, 2000, the CIT remanded the French Stainless proceeding to the Department with instructions to issue a determination consistent with United States law, interpreted pursuant to all relevant authority, including the CAFC decision in Delverde III . Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al v. United States , Court No. 99-09-00566, Remand Order dated August 15, 2000.

On December 20, 2000, following a comment period, the Department issued the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand . In that redetermination, in light of Delverde III , the Department analyzed the facts and circumstances of Usinor's privatization transaction to determine whether the person to whom countervailable subsidies had been given in the past was essentially the same person after privatization. Among the facts and circumstances considered, the Department examined the continuity of general business operations, the continuity of production facilities, continuity of assets and liabilities, and retention of personnel before and after the privatization. Based on these factors, the Department determined that post-privatization Usinor was essentially the same person as pre-privatization Usinor. Consequently, the pre-privatization subsidies remained attributable to Usinor following its privatization.

After briefing and a hearing, the CIT, on January 4, 2002 1 , again remanded the French Stainless proceeding to the Department. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. United States , 182 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (CIT 2002). The court explained that the central question was whether the Department's remand redetermination was consistent with the statute, as interpreted by the CAFC in Delverde III . The court found that Delverde III's requirements were as follows:

The Court specifically rejected, as contrary to Delverde III , the Department's argument that, if the pre- and post-privatization companies are, in substance, the same legal person, the Department is not required to determine anew whether that same person has received a subsidy.

On June 3, 2002, following a comment period, the Department issued its Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand . In this second redetermination, the Department re-analyzed certain facts and circumstances of the privatization of Usinor, including the terms of the sale. The Department determined that: 1) some purchasers of Usinor's shares paid full, fair-market value for those shares and, thus, received no subsidy from the privatization transaction; and 2) other purchasers that did not pay full, fair-market value did receive a subsidy from the privatization transaction. However, regarding the purchasers that did not pay full, fair-market value, while they did receive a subsidy, the Department determined that this subsidy was not countervailable because it was conferred on the owners of the company, and not on the company itself. Consequently, the Department concluded that Usinor received no countervailable subsidies as a result of the privatization transaction, and recalculated a subsidy rate of 0.00 percent ad valorem for Usinor for the POI.

The CIT affirmed the Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand on September 24, 2002. See Allegheny Ludlum Corp., et al. v. United States , Consol. Court No. 99-09-00566, Slip. Op. 02-114 (CIT 2002).

The CAFC, in Timken , held that the Department must publish notice of a decision of the CIT or the CAFC which is not “in harmony” with the Department's final determination. Publication of this notice fulfills that obligation. The CAFC also held that the Department must suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise until there is a “conclusive” decision in the case. Therefore, pursuant to Timken , the Department must continue to suspend liquidation pending the expiration of the period to appeal the CIT's September 24, 2002, decision or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the CAFC. The Department will instruct the Customs Service to liquidate relevant entries covering the subject merchandise effective October 30, 2002, in the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or if appealed and upheld by the CAFC.

Title V of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (the Act of 2000) creates two tariff rate quotas, providing for temporary reductions in the import duties on two categories of worsted wool fabrics suitable for use in making suits, suit-type jackets, or trousers. For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters greater than 18.5 microns (Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) heading 9902.51.11), the reduction in duty was limited by the Act of 2000 to 2,500,000 square meter equivalents per year. This limitation was amended by Section 5102 of the Trade Act of 2002 to 3,500,000 square meters equivalents in calendar year 2002 and 4,500,000 square meter equivalents in calendar years 2003 through 2005. For worsted wool fabric with average fiber diameters of 18.5 microns or less (HTS heading 9902.51.12), the reduction was limited by the Act of 2000 to 1,500,000 square meter equivalents per year. This limitation was amended by Section 5102 of the Trade Act of 2002 to 2,500,000 square meters equivalents in calendar year 2002 and 3,500,000 square meter equivalents in calendar years 2003 through 2005.

The Act requires the annual consideration of requests by U.S. manufacturers of men's or boys' worsted wool suits, suit-type jackets and trousers for modification of the limitation on the quantity of fabric that may be imported under the tariff rate quotas, and grants the President the authority to proclaim modifications to the limitations not to exceed 1,000,000 square meter equivalents per year for each tariff rate quota. Authority to consider such requests was delegated to the Secretary of Commerce in Presidential Proclamation 7383 (December 1, 2000). On January 22, 2001, the Department published regulations establishing procedures for considering requests for modification of the limitations (66 FR 6459, 15 CFR 340).

On September 25, 2002, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register soliciting requests for modification of the limitation on the quantity of imports under the 2003 tariff rate quotas (67 FR 60224). No requests were received in response to this solicitation. As a result, the Department will not consider modification of these limits.

Applications postmarked later than the closing date or received after the closing date and time will not be considered.

Applicants must submit one signed original plus two (2) copies of the application.

Applicants are encouraged to submit their proposal electronically via the World Wide Web. However, the following paper forms must be submitted with original signatures in conjunction with any electronic submissions by the closing date and time stated above: (1) The SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; (2) the SF-424B, Assurances-Non-Construction Programs; (3) the SF-LLL (Rev. 7-97) Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable); (4) the CD-346, Applicant for Funding Assistance (if applicable); and (5) the CD-511, Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying. MBDA's web site address to submit an application on-line is http://www.mbda.gov . All required forms are located at this web address.

Failure to submit a signed, original SF-424 with the application, or separately in conjunction with submitting a proposal electronically, by the deadline will result in the application being rejected and returned to the applicant. Failure to sign and submit with the application, or separately in conjunction with submitting a proposal electronically, the other forms identified above by the deadline will automatically cause an application to lose two (2) points. Failure to submit other documents or information may adversely affect an applicant's overall score. MBDA shall not accept any changes, additions, revisions or deletions to competitive applications after the closing date for receiving applications, except through a formal negotiation process.

Program Description: In order for the proposals to receive consideration, applicants must comply with all information and requirements contained in this Notice.

The NABDC Program represents a significant programmatic and administrative enhancement of MBDA's traditional NABDC Program. In operation since 1982, the NABDCs provide generalized management and technical assistance and business development services to Native American business enterprises within their designated geographic service areas. The NABDC program described in this Notice updates the traditional NABDC model by leveraging the full benefit of telecommunications technology, including the Internet, and a variety of online computer resources to dramatically increase the level of service which the NABDCs can provide to their Native American business clients.

In addition, the NABDC Program guidelines further increase the impact of the NABDC projects by requiring that project operators not only deploy their business assistance services to the Native American business public directly, but that they also develop a network of strategic partnerships with third-party organizations located within the geographic service area. These strategic partnerships will be used to expand the reach of the NABDC project into communities and market segments that the project would have limited resources to cover otherwise, and are a key component of this program modification.

Individuals eligible for assistance under the NABDC Program are Native Americans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Spanish-speaking Americans, Aleuts, Asian Pacific Americans, Asian Indians, Eskimos and Hasidic Jews. References throughout this Notice to providing assistance to Native Americans also include eligible non-Native Americans listed in the preceding sentence. No service will be denied to any member of the eligible groups listed above.

For the past 18 years, MBDA has operated the NABDC Program as its approach for providing general business assistance and counseling to Native American business enterprises. MBDA established NABDCs in numerous cities throughout the country to assist in the development of local Native American firms. The NABDC Program was developed to address the needs of the majority of Native American-owned firms throughout the country at a basic level, and thus the traditional NABDCs are not designed to provide specialized expertise in any specific industry.

MBDA is now providing major enhancements to the NABDC Program, by leveraging the full benefit of telecommunications technology, including the Internet, and a variety of online computer-based resources to dramatically increase the level of service, which the new Centers can provide to their clients.

This approach also increases the reach of the Centers by requiring project operators to develop strategic alliances with public and private sector partners, as a means of reaching out to Native American firms within the project's geographic service area.

MBDA traditionally operated as many as 10 Centers in strategic locations throughout the country, for the benefit of Native American entrepreneurs. MBDA selected locations for the establishment of these Centers based on the size of the population in those markets, and the number of Native American-owned companies, as established by U.S. Census Bureau data.

In addition, the enhanced NABDC Program is a mainstay of MBDA's overall business development efforts. The NABDC Program is at the core of the Agency's comprehensive strategy for addressing the needs of growing Native American firms. Under this strategy, MBDA has identified the following four types of services which an NABDC will generally be expected to provide:

Access to Markets—This involves assisting Minority Business Entrepreneurs (MBE) to identify and exploit opportunities for increased sales and revenue. Activities include conducting market analysis, identifying sales leads, bid preparation assistance, creating market promotions, and assistance in developing joint ventures and strategic alliances.

Access to Capital—This involves assisting MBEs to secure the financial capital necessary to start-up, and thereafter to fuel growth and expansion of their businesses. Undercapitalization has been a major contributor to the failure of business ventures in the Native American community over the years. Hence the goal of this activity is to help Native American entrepreneurs obtain the amount of financing appropriate to the scope of the proposed business and, thereby, to help ensure the greatest likelihood of success for the Native American venture in the marketplace.

Management and Technical Assistance—This component of MBDA's approach involves assisting Native American firms in establishing, improving and/or successfully maintaining their business and/or to resolve key operational issues within the business. Such issues might include the need for a recruitment and hiring strategy, evaluating a capital equipment purchase, or developing internal operating procedures.

Education and Training—This involves providing basic education and training to Native American entrepreneurs on important business topics. Training should be hands-on, practical, and streamlined in order to reflect the time constraints of the typical small business owner. In addition, given the proliferation of online resources from MBDA as well as others, this training should be designed to educate MBEs in the use of the Agency's electronic business assistance tools and in the use of electronic commerce generally to better access suppliers, customers and information.

The NABDCs will operate through the use of trained professional business counselors who will assist Native American entrepreneurs through direct client engagements. To date, MBDA has served more than 20,000 Native American businesses through its Centers, enabling these companies to grow and expand, creating new jobs, increasing tax revenues, and contributing to the health of the overall economy.

Over the past three years, MBDA has developed a variety of new technology tools designed to leverage the benefits of information technology to assist the Native American business community. In addition, the Agency has developed a high-speed network strategy capable of linking all of its Centers into a single virtual organization. The goal of MBDA's NABDC Program strategy is to deploy these technology enhancements to all of the NABDCs, and create a state-of-the-art environment for bringing Native American businesses continuously-updated information, access to resources anywhere in the country, and the best available assistance in any given subject area at any time. The implementation of this strategy is the Minority Business Internet Portal (MBIP).

MBDA's technology tools that will be made available to the NABDCs through MBDA's MBIP site include:

Phoenix/Opportunity—an electronic bid-matching system that alerts participating minority companies of contract and teaming opportunities directly via e-mail or fax. Procurement leads are transmitted to minority firms on a targeted basis according to the company's industry classification and geographic market. Firms seeking to participate in this program need only to transmit their company profile to MBDA online via the Agency's Phoenix application.

Resource Locator—a new and unique software application that allows Native American business enterprises to search for business resources and locate them on a map—interactively on the Internet. The Resource Locator can help Native American firms identify trade associations representing their industries, government licensing and permit offices, management and technical assistance providers, and a host of other resources quickly and efficiently, through Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology.

Online Commercial Loan Identifier—an Internet-based tool that allows Native American enterprises to shop for commercial loans online, and identify the best available financing terms. The Commercial Loan Identifier is designed to give Native American firms the benefit of a nationwide market for commercial loan products.

Business and Market Planning Software—software packages to streamline and enhance the development of business plans, marketing plans and other strategic business documents.

The MBIP will serve as a very effective vehicle for enhancing the scope and service capability of the NABDC network. Through the portal site, each NABDC will receive a standardized electronic toolkit of business development tools and applications. This “electronic toolkit” will provide important programmatic benefits for the NABDCs.

Specifically:

These electronic tools will help to streamline the process of delivering client assistance to Native American business enterprises, giving the Centers the ability to service greater numbers of clients with existing resources.

In addition, MBDA expects that these electronic tools will be in high demand because of the significant added value that they are able to create for business enterprises. Demand for these tools will further enhance the position of the NABDCs as important resources within their local markets.

Finally, by participating in MBDA's nationwide high-speed network, each NABDC will be able to access the latest information regarding best practices, emerging market trends, success strategies, and other activities in the Native American business development arena.

Current trends in technology, procurement streamlining, globalization, and a host of other market factors have had a dramatic impact on the Native American business community. Native American-owned businesses, regardless of their industry, now find themselves subject to rapidly changing market conditions. To ensure their continued growth, these firms will need access to the best available information and expertise on a continuously updated basis. The new NABDC Program, combined with the MBIP site, directly respond to this need, by leveraging MBDA's traditional business development infrastructure through state-of-the-art technology and communications.

The work requirements specify the duties and responsibilities of each recipient operating an NABDC.

Although it is not necessary for the applicant to have an office in the geographic service area, the NABDC office must be strategically located in the geographic service area to ensure that it is close to the available public and private sector resources, within a reasonable commuting distance to the minority business community, and accessible to public transportation. The NABDC must be opened and be fully operational within 30 days after receipt of the award. Fully operational means that all staff are hired, all signs are up, all items of furniture and equipment are in place and operational, and the NABDC's doors have been fully opened to the public for service.

An NABDC operator must provide services to all eligible clients within its specified geographic service area. In addition, each operator must contribute its efforts to help support MBDA's online business assistance network as established by Agency policies.

NABDCs are required to perform work in four basic areas:

Market Building —To identify, develop and leverage public and private sector resources and business opportunities for their clients;

(a) Market Research and Development which systematically investigates the service area market to see what business and capital opportunities exist for Native American business enterprise development; search for sources of capital, sales opportunities, business buy-outs and new start possibilities; bring the research to a practical level of utility to fit the capability and needs of specific MBE client firms of the area. As market research is conducted, the NABDC will make optimum use of the MBDA network to ensure that the information is made available to fellow operators, and to MBEs throughout the country.

(b) Market Promotion which promotes Native American business development in the local business community by obtaining support from the community as a whole, leverages resources for minority businesses and informs potential and current minority businesses of the availability of business development services through the NABDC.

The NABDC will promote individual firms to the public and private sectors to make the market aware of the capability, talent and capacity of the local MBE firms. The NABDC may utilize public service announcements and paid advertising.

The NABDC promotes MBEs at local Chambers of Commerce, business and trade associations, corporate and company trade fairs and meetings, state and local government agency purchasing departments, economic development and planning offices and MBE development events. In addition, the NABDC shall promote and participate in MED Week activities involving the full participation of the private and public sectors. MED Week is a major annual event of MBDA on both the local and national levels.

Under this function, the NABDC shall carry out a plan-of-action that may include, but is not limited to, the following actions: (1) Publicize the NABDC and its services throughout the geographic service area; (2) Organize press briefings or distribute press releases for area newspapers; (3) Deliver speeches before key Native American audiences in the NABDC service area; (4) Secure a list of service area Native American vendors who are listed in MBDA's Phoenix System and use them in market promotion activities; (5) Interface with Native American Chambers of Commerce and trade associations for access to their mailing lists; (6) Communicate with bankers and other officers of financial institutions for possible referrals of Native American entrepreneurs as existing prospective Native American clients to the NABDC; (7) Identify existing lists of successful Native American managers, professionals, technical experts and skilled crafts-people, who may have an interest in or exhibit qualifications for business ownership; (8) Develop an NABDC brochure for mail-out and distribution to the public, as well as for inclusion on the MBDA Web site; and (9) E-mail information and/or newsletters to existing and prospective local Native American entrepreneurs.

c. Resource and Inventory Development which identifies local opportunities and resources as well as local Native American businesses, qualified to take advantage of them. This requirement will enable the NABDC to support the maintenance of content for the Phoenix/Opportunity application and other online systems as well as to track local market trends and market demand for goods and services. Under this function, the NABDC must (1) Develop and maintain inventories of area opportunities and resources, which should include: Electronic Commerce —information technology affecting the marketability of its clients, i.e., access to new markets, access to capital and business opportunities and other resources; Market Opportunities —both in the public sector (Federal, state and local) and in the private sector (foreign and domestic); Capital Opportunities — e.g. , loans, bonds, trade credits, and equity investments; Business Ownership Opportunities — e.g. , franchises, licensing arrangements, mergers and buy-outs; Education and Training Opportunities — e.g. , educational institution programs and other training resources; (2) Register eligible local Native American firms in MBDA's Phoenix database, which is a national inventory of Native American vendor firms capable of selling their goods and services to the public and private sector.

(d) Match Opportunities and Close Transactions which matches eligible Native American entrepreneurs with specific viable businesses, market and/or capital opportunities. This function contributes to an NABDC's financial packaging and/or procurement performance goals, and is the only market development function outside of the standard client business assistance in which a portion of an NABDC's time can be directly associated to individual Native American business clients and resource customers. This client specific time, no matter how small, is considered client assistance and may be subject to client fees. Under this function, the NABDC shall match qualified Native American entrepreneurs with identified opportunities and resources by: (1) Accessing vendor information systems, including the Phoenix/Opportunity database; (2) Maintaining a constant awareness of the Native American firms that operate within the geographic service area and their capabilities; (3) Maintaining direct contact with purchasing executives, government procurement officials, banking officials and others so that representatives of the NABDC are in a position to learn about available business opportunities, both formally and informally; (4) Engaging in relationship brokering between purchasing organization and individual Native American firms capable of fulfilling their requirements; and (5) Assisting in direct negotiations between purchasing organization and individual Native American firms, in appropriate cases, in order to help resolve issues, serve as an advocate for the Native American firm, or otherwise assist in bringing the transaction to closure.

Client Services —To provide direct client assistance to Native American business enterprise on the basis of individualized professional engagements. Under these duties, the NABDC shall assist Native American firms and individuals, which have agreed in writing to become clients, in establishing, improving and/or successfully maintaining their businesses. All new clients shall be entered into the Performance database and registered in the Phoenix System. It is required that clients and their service hours should be entered in the Performance database on a regular basis, preferably weekly.

This assistance is defined as the function by which the NABDC provides direct services to its clients. It may range from general counseling to the identification, analysis and resolution of specific business problems. Clients assisted more than once during the funding period may only be counted once in that funding period. Group sessions are one method an NABDC can use to provide business development services to Native American clients. This function may be subject to client fees and directly contributes to an NABDC's performance goals.

Under this function, the NABDC shall provide assistance to eligible Native American firms and individuals (as referenced in Executive Orders 11625 and 12432) seeking assistance from the NABDC, including 8(a) certified and graduate firms. However, the NABDC shall not perform or engage in the operation of a firm. Client services include, but are not limited to, the following types of assistance: (1) Marketing , e.g. , market research, promotion, advertising and sales, sales forecasting, market feasibility studies, pricing, procurement assistance, product and customer service, brochure design (excludes mass printing), and general counseling; (2) Finance and Accounting , e.g. , capital budgeting, general accounting, break-even analysis, cost accounting, financial planning and analysis budgeting, tax planning, financial packaging, general counseling, and mergers and acquisitions (excludes bookkeeping, tax preparation, and audits); (3) Manufacturing , e.g. , plant location and site selection, plant management, materials handling and distribution, total quality management, metrication for world market, and general counseling; (4) Construction and Assistance , e.g. , estimating, bid preparation, bonding, take-offs, and general counseling; (5) International Trade Assistance , e.g. , exporting, importing, letters of credit, bank draft, dealerships, agencies, distributorship, exporting trading companies, joint ventures, general counseling, and freight forwarding and handling; (6) Administration , e.g. , office management, procedures and systems, inventory control, purchasing, total quality management, awareness of metric system, and general counseling; (7) Personnel , e.g. , human resource management, job evaluation and rating system, training, and general counseling; (8) General Management , e.g. , organization and structure, formulating corporate policy, feasibility studies, reports and controls, public relations, staff scheduling, legal services (excludes litigation), business planning, organizational development, bid preparation, and general counseling.

In order to stay competitive in the increasingly global economy, Native American business owners should consider ISO 9000 or other quality assurance standards. The NABDC must have knowledge of what these standards are, how to properly implement the standards, and how to obtain ISO 9000 Quality System certification for its clients.

The one-on-one assistance to any client shall be limited to no more than 250 hours per funding period unless prior approval is requested from the appropriate MBDA Regional Director, and approved by the Grants Officer of the Department of Commerce.

3. Operational Quality —To maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of its overall operations as well as the quality of its client services. These duties are the means by which an NABDC maintains the efficiency and effectiveness of its overall operations as well as the quality of its client services. The function directly contributes to an NABDC's overall qualitative evaluation and rating as well as the successful completion of all work requirements. Under this function, the NABDC shall: (1) Execute signed work plan agreements and engagement letters with clients; (2) Formally describe the methodology that will be used in achieving the work plan objectives for each client; (3) Input progress/results to the performance database in a timely manner; (4) Establish procedures for collecting and accounting for all fees charged to clients; (5) Maintain records/files for all work charged to the program and clients; (6) Obtain written acceptance and verification (with client signatures) of services provided to its clients. For services reported, documentation must be in the NABDC's client files within 30 days after the end of every quarter in which a client receives services; (7) Comply with all reporting requirements provided upon award; (8) Cooperate with MBDA in maintaining content for the Phoenix/Opportunity database, Resource Locator, and other online tools located at http://www.mbda.gov; and (9) Promote and utilize the services and resources of other MBDA programs, sponsored efforts and/or voluntary activities. The NABDC shall identify MBDA as the funding sponsor by providing signs worded as follows:

The term Native American Business Development Center (NABDC) is a trademark of the Federal Government, and the Government reserves exclusive rights in the term. Permission to use the term is granted to the award recipient for the sole purpose of representing the activities of the award recipient in the fulfillment of the terms of the financial assistance award. The Minority Business Development Agency reserves the right to control the quality of the use of the term by the award recipient. Whenever possible, for example in promotional literature and stationery, use the  TM designation as in Native American Business Development Center  TM .

The work requirements for an award recipient under the NABDC Program include the development of a network of 3 alliances between the NABDC and key strategic partners selected by the recipient. The NABDC is required to establish the network of 3 Strategic Partners within 120 days after the award. The NABDC is required to maintain these alliances throughout the duration of the award. The NABDC must replace a Strategic Partner within 45 days after termination of a previously established alliance. The Strategic Partners shall be public or private sector organizations located within the project's geographic service area that are positioned to assist the project to achieve its goals for assisting the minority business community established under the terms of the award. Strategic Partners may include:

Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) programs operated by state, county or city governments;

Chambers of Commerce or trade associations focused on the needs of the Native American business community;

Small Business Development Centers, or other college and university entrepreneurial development programs;

Community Development Corporations (CDCs);

Banks and financial institutions; and

Faith organizations having economic development components, whose activities are not used for purposes the essential thrust of which is sectarian.

Each Strategic Partner shall be evidenced by a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expressly sets forth the conditions under which the partners agree to operate. Specifically, the Strategic Partners must agree to serve as a local resource for Native American-owned businesses seeking to obtain NABDC services. The Strategic Partner must at a minimum:

Provide effective guidance to Native American entrepreneurs in accessing MBDA's computer-based business assistance tools which are available on-site at the Strategic Partner's location;

Examples of other kinds of activities that might be required of the Strategic Partner include, but are not limited to:

Designate appropriate office space within their facilities for providing NABDC services; Establish a library of training materials, how-to guides, business publications and other information, both in print and electronic format, to be made available to Native American entrepreneurs on a walk-in basis;

Provide high-quality business counseling to Native American business enterprises if the Strategic Partner is one that offers direct client counseling;

Provide intake services for the NABDC with respect to Native American firms who approach the Strategic Partner for assistance but require counseling by the NABDC;

Provide Native American firms with high-quality referrals to outside resources where the firm has a need for specialized assistance which is outside the scope of the NABDC Program;

Support the NABDC project in coordinating MED Week activities within the geographic service area;

In selecting Strategic Partners, award recipient should consider establishing a diverse group that appropriately reflects the needs of the Native American business community within the service area. The skills, abilities and areas of concentration on the part of the Strategic Partners should be complementary, and collectively the skills and abilities of the Strategic Partners should complement those of the NABDC project operator.

In exchange for its compliance with the foregoing terms, and such other terms as the parties may seek to establish, the Strategic Partner will be eligible to serve as a host for the MBDA suite of business development tools described in the Enhancing the NABDCs Through Technology subsection of this Notice. The Strategic Partner will also be authorized to make public its relationship with MBDA through the NABDC project, and to refer to the partnership in brochures, advertisements, press releases and other media. Through the MOU relationship, the Strategic Partner will also be entitled to receive direct access to MBDA's information base of case studies, best practices, market research, and statistical data.

MBDA requires that all award recipients meet certain requirements related to the acquisition, installation, configuration, maintenance and security of information technology (IT) assets in order to ensure seamless and productive interface between and among all grant recipients, Native American-owned businesses, the MBDA Federal IT system and the public. These required assets and their configuration are hereinafter referred to as the “enterprise.” The basic components of the enterprise are the desktop workstations, local area network (LAN) components and a connection to the Internet.

At a minimum, the grantee shall provide one (1) desktop computer for the exclusive use of each employee delivering Native American business assistance to the public under an award from MBDA. All desktop computers shall be connected in a Local Area Network (LAN), enabling communication with all workstations on the network. Adequate provision shall also be made for Internet connectivity from each workstation during business hours. The recipient shall ensure that each of his/her employees, to include management, administrative personnel, contractors, full-time, part-time, and non-paid (volunteer) staff have a unique electronic mail (e-mail) address available to the public. The award recipient shall design, develop and maintain a presence on the World Wide Web, and shall maintain appropriate computer and network security precautions during all periods of funding by MBDA. Web servers, mail servers and/or servers maintained by a third party such as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) shall meet the minimum server specifications as stated herein. All IT requirements, as described herein, shall be met within 30 calendar days after the award.

1. Network Design: At all locations where services are delivered to the eligible public as defined by Executive Order 11625, the recipient shall operate a “Client-Server” configured local area network (LAN), providing each staff person delivering services to the eligible public exclusive access to a computer workstation during all business hours. MBDA may, from time to time, designate certain configurations of the enterprise hardware and software to meet interface requirements. The local area network shall include adequate provision for the retention of necessary data in the event of a failure (centralized data storage and regular backups). The network shall be protected in accordance with security best practices, to include the installation and maintenance of a regularly updated antivirus product.

2. Desktop Workstations: All desktop systems shall be not more than two (2) calendar years old at time of award and shall contain a processor (CPU) operating at speeds not less than 800 Megahertz (Mhz). Each desktop system shall contain a hard drive with a storage capacity of at least 10 GB. All desktop systems shall have installed software fully compatible with MS Office 97 Professional Edition or higher, and either Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.x or higher or Netscape 6.x or higher. At least 50% of all employee workstations shall be fully operational with a qualified staff person positioned at the keyboard during all business hours to include lunch and break periods.

3. Maintenance and Security: Documentation reflecting adherence to the computer and networking requirements set forth herein shall be maintained by the recipient for review by MBDA at any time. Each recipient shall designate and train one administrative person competent in the operation of a relevant PC operating system and local area network (LAN) technology as described herein. While emphasis is placed on the provision of services via the MBDA web portal, from time to time MBDA may require certain software be loaded on servers and desktops. In any given year, the cost of this additional software should not exceed $200.00 per workstation and $500.00 per server.

Every employee of the Center shall be assigned a unique username and password to access the system. Every employee shall be required to sign a written computer security agreement. (A suggested format for the computer security agreement will be provided at the time of award.) Every manager, employee, and contractor and any other person given access to the computer system shall sign the security agreement and an original copy of the signed agreement shall be kept in the Center's files. A photocopy of the agreement shall be sent by fax to MBDA at: (202) 482-2696 no later than 30 days after the award. All subsequent new hires and associations requiring access to Center or MBDA systems shall read, understand and sign the security agreement prior to issuance of a password. No employee shall have access to the MBDA system without a signed security agreement on file at MBDA.

4. Web site: Each recipient shall create and maintain a public web site using a unique address ( e.g., www.center- name.com ). The first page (Index page) of the web site shall clearly identify the recipient as a Native American Business Development Center funded by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency. The Index page of the web site shall load on software fully compatible with Microsoft Internet Explorer (5.x or higher) or Netscape 6.x or higher browser software using a 56Kb/s Internet connection in less than ten (10) seconds. The web site shall contain the names of all managers and employees, the business and mailing address of the Center, business phone and fax numbers and email addresses of the Center and employees, a statement referencing the services available at the Center, the hours under which the Center operates and a link to the MBDA web portal (http://www.mbda.gov). For the purpose of electronically directing clients to the appropriate Center staff, the web site shall also contain a short biographical statement for each employee of the Center including management, contractors, part-time, full time, and non-paid (volunteer) personnel, providing services directly to the eligible public under an award from MBDA. This biographical statement shall contain: the full name of the employee, and a brief description of the expertise of the employee to include academic degrees, certifications and any other pertinent information with respect to that employee's qualifications to deliver Native American business assistance services to eligible members of the public.

No third party advertising of commercial goods and services shall be permitted on the site. All links from the site to other than Federal, state or local government agencies and non-profit educational institutions must be requested for approval, in advance and in writing, through the Chief Information Officer, MBDA Office of Information Technology Services, to the Grants Office for written approval. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld but approval is subject to withdrawal if MBDA determines the linked site unsuitable. No employee of the Center, nor any other person, shall use the Center web site for any purpose other than that approved under the terms of the agreement between the recipient and MBDA. Every page of the web site shall be reviewed by the recipient for accuracy, currency, and appropriateness every three (3) months. Appropriate privacy notices and compliance with accessibility requirements will be prominently featured. From time to time, MBDA shall audit the recipient's web site and recommend changes in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein.

5. Time for Compliance: Within 30 days after the award, the recipient shall report via email to the Chief Information Officer, MBDA Office of Information Technology Services and the Grants Officer that he/she has complied with all technical requirements as specified herein. Within 30 days after the award, the recipient shall report the name, contact telephone numbers and email addresses of the Project Director, Network or System Administrator. As appropriate, the recipient shall also provide the telephone number and email address for the Technical Contact at the Internet Service Provider (ISP) providing Internet hosting and/or access for the grantee, and any other technical information as specified in the Technology Requirements.

6. Performance System: All required performance reporting to MBDA shall be conducted via the Internet using the Performance system to be found at the MBDA web portal (http://www.mbda.gov). Within 30 days after the award, each business development specialist (BDS) and/or anyone providing business assistance to the public under the award shall have satisfactorily completed the Performance System Training Course (PSTC). This course is available on-line from the MBDA web portal (http://www.mbda.gov). Only those persons giving direct assistance to the eligible public shall be given passwords and access to enter Performance data into the system. Only trained staff shall enter data into the Performance system. Performance data shall be entered by the person providing service to the client, not by administrative personnel. There shall be no “sharing” of passwords on the Performance system. Although not required, MBDA encourages input of information on a daily basis.

7. Data Integrity: The recipient shall take the necessary steps to ensure that all data entered into MBDA systems, and systems operated by the recipient in support of the award, or by any employee of the recipient, is accurate and timely.

In accordance with 15 CFR Parts 14 and 24, applicants selected will be responsible for the effective management of all functions and activities supported by the financial assistance award. Recipients will be required to use program performance measures in a performance report due thirty (30) days after the end of the second quarter and to provide an end-of-year assessment of the accomplishments of the project using these measures. The end-of-year or final performance report is due 90 days after the end of the budget year. Once the project is awarded, the evaluation criteria, along with the assigned weight value, to be used for measuring the project performance on an ongoing basis are:

The number of completed work products (20);

The dollar value of transactions (40);

The number of Strategic Partners (20);

Operational Quality (20)

Number of new clients (5);

Number of Client Service Hours (5);

Client Satisfaction (5);

Management Score (5)

The minimum performance goals required for the above listed performance measures for the solicited geographic service area is outlined under the Funding Availability sub-heading for the geographic service area. The minimum performance goals are listed on an annual basis and will be broken out into quarterly increments by recipients, within 30 days after the award, for actual evaluation purposes.

Completed Work Product —Completed work product consists of work assignments which the project performs under a professional engagement of an eligible client firm. For a task to constitute completed work product it is necessary that the task: Be one requiring the business expertise of the project staff; be agreed to by the client; be fully completed and delivered to the client; and be performed in a high quality and professional manner.

Dollar Value of Transactions —The dollar value of completed financial transactions represents the total principal value of executed contracts, approved loans, equity financing, acquisitions, mergers, or other binding financial agreements secured by clients of the project, with the assistance of project staff. For purposes of this performance element, eligible financial transactions are those which have a specific dollar value, and which increase the revenues of the client firm, expand its capital base, or produce some other direct commercial benefit for client firms. In order to be deemed complete, a financial transaction must be documented by an executed and binding agreement between the client firm and a party capable of performing its obligations under the terms of the agreement.

MBDA recognizes that the financial obligations evidenced by these transactions may be long-term, and require performance over an extended period. Consequently it is not necessary that the funds or other financial value specified under the agreements have actually changed hands for the project to receive credit under this performance element, so long as the agreement of the parties is documented and binding.

Operational Quality —Operational quality refers to the quality and effectiveness of the project operator's delivery of client services, as evidenced by the following performance elements relating to the day-to-day management of the project: Number of new clients; number of client service hours; client satisfaction; and management assessment.

Client satisfaction will be determined through a consultation process with clients of the individual NABDC. The consultation will be used to rate the level of quality for client satisfaction.

The management assessment reflects MBDA's own evaluation of the overall management of the project, based on the Agency's internal review of the project's operations. The management assessment reflects such areas as the development of written engagement letters and work plans, proper staffing, adherence to scheduled work hours, recordkeeping, and any other areas which MBDA may deem to be relevant to determining the overall quality of the project's operations.

Strategic Partners —Strategic partners are those organizations with whom the recipient enters into specific agreements for mutual support. Strategic partners may be either public or private sector institutions, must have a clear mission, and must have a permanent organizational structure. Individuals or organizations that have a loosely defined structure or that operate on an ad hoc basis will not be considered as strategic partners for purposes of this performance element. MBDA will have no relationship with or responsibility to strategic partners.

In order to get credit for obtaining a strategic partner, a project operator must prepare a written agreement identifying: The responsibilities and duties which the project and the strategic partner each agree to undertake; the resources which each party agrees to commit to the partnership; the goals which the project and the strategic partner each seek to achieve by entering into the partnership; and the point of contact within the strategic partner organization for issues involving the partnership.

That strategic partners will not be allowed to charge and collect fees for services related to the project.

The year-to-date performance of an NABDC will be based on the following rating system:

MBDA recognizes and rewards those NABDCs that have maintained high performance throughout their award (three funding periods). NABDCs can earn additional 2 bonus funding periods without competition based upon their overall actual year-to-date performance for the duration of the award. The NABDC Performance Standards outlined above allow each NABDC with an overall “excellent” rating for its performance during the initial competitive funding period to qualify for up to 2 additional funding periods without further competition. A year-to-date excellent rating for the first two funding periods and part of the third funding period of an award will result in “bonus funding periods” as follows:

Performance of at least 25% above the minimum goal in each performance element for at least 28 months will allow an NABDC to receive one bonus funding period. Therefore, the award can total up to four funding periods prior to a required competition.

Performance of at least 25% above the minimum goal in each performance element for at least 6 months of the first bonus funding period will allow an NABDC to receive a second bonus funding period. Therefore, the award can total up to five funding periods prior to a required competition.

No award may be longer than five funding periods without competition no matter what an NABDC's performance happens to be.

Funding Availability: MBDA anticipates that a total of approximately $188 thousand will be available in FY 2003 for Federal assistance for the New Mexico NABDC, based upon Native American population, the size of the market and its need for MBDA resources. MBDA issues this notice subject to appropriations made available under the current continuing resolution (CR), H.J. Res. 111, “Making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes,” Public Law 107-229, as amended by H.J. Res. 112, Public Law 107-235, H.J. Res. 122, Public Law 107-240, and H.J. Res. 123, Public Law 107-224. MBDA anticipates making this award provided that funding for the NABDC Program is continued beyond November 22, 2002, the expiration of the current continuing resolution. Issuance of this award, however, is subject to the future availability of fiscal year 2003 funds. In no event will MBDA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is canceled because of other agency priorities.

Geographic Service Areas: An operator must provide services to eligible clients within its specified geographic service area. MBDA has defined the service area for the award below. To determine its geographic service areas, MBDA uses states, counties, Metropolitan Areas (MA), which comprise metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSA) and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSA) as defined by the OMB Committee on MAs (See: attachment to OMB Bulletin 99-04, Revised Statistical Definitions of Metropolitan Areas (MAs) and Guidance on Uses of MA Definitions found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/bulletins/index.html ) and other demographic boundaries as specified herein. Services to eligible clients outside of an operator's specified service area may be requested, on a case-by-case basis, through the appropriate MBDA Regional Director and granted by the Grants Officer.

Geographic Service Area: State of New Mexico.

Award Number: 06-10-03001-01.

The recipient is required to maintain its NABDC in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Contingent upon the availability of Federal funds, the cost of performance for each of the three 12-month funding periods from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005, is estimated at $188,000. The total Federal amount is $564,000. The minimum cost share of 15% is not required.

The minimum goals for the NABDC are:

Completed Work Products: 124.

Dollar Value of Transactions: $13,976,471.

Number of New Clients: 146.

Number of Client Service Hours: 2,475.

Matching Requirements: It is not required that an applicant for an award to operate an NABDC propose a cost-share contribution. Cost sharing is the portion of the project cost not borne by the Federal Government. However, an applicant may propose a cost-share contribution in any of the following four means or a combination thereof: (1) Cash contributions, (2) non-cash applicant contributions, (3) third party in-kind contributions, and (4) client fees for services rendered.

If the NABDC chooses to contribute a cost-share amount by charging fees, there are policy restrictions with which it must comply:

First, client fees charged for one-on-one assistance must be based on a rate of $100 per hour. Second, the NABDC must set fee rates based on the following chart:

Third, the NABDC must contribute cash for uncollected fees that were included as part of the cost sharing contribution committed for this award. Fourth, client fees applied directly to the award's cost sharing requirement must be used in furtherance of the program objectives. Fifth, if the NABDC elects to charge fees, they must be charged to all eligible clients, regardless of minority group identification.

Eligibility Criteria: For-profit and non-profit organizations (including sole-proprietorships), state and local government entities, American Indian Tribes, and educational institutions are eligible to operate NABDCs.

Award Period: The total award period is three (3) years. Applicants must submit project plans and budgets for three years. The annual awards must have Scopes of Work that are clearly severable and can be easily separated into annual increments of meaningful work that will produce measurable programmatic objectives. Maintaining the severability of each annual funding request is necessary to ensure the orderly management and closure of a project in the event funding is not available for the second or third year continuation of the project. Projects will be funded for no more than one year at a time. Funding for subsequent years will be at the sole discretion of the Department of Commerce (DoC) and will depend on satisfactory performance by the recipient and the availability of funds to support the continuation of the project. Project proposals accepted for funding will not compete for funding in subsequent funding periods within the approved award period. Publication of this notice does not obligate MBDA or DoC to award any specific cooperative agreement or to obligate all or any part of available funds.

Funding Instrument: Financial assistance awards will be in the form of a cooperative agreement. MBDA's substantial involvement with recipients will include performing the following duties to further the NABDC's objectives:

a. Post-Award Conference —MBDA shall conduct a post-award conference for the NABDC award recipient to insure that each NABDC has a clear understanding of the program and its components. The conference will: (1) Provide an MBDA Directory for NABDCs and orient NABDC program officers; (2) Explain program reporting requirements and procedures; (3) Identify available resources that can enhance the capabilities of the NABDC; and (4) Provide detailed information about MBDA's business and other information systems.

b. Networking, Promotion and Information Exchange —MBDA shall provide the following: (1) Access to business information systems, which support the work of the NABDC, as described in the Enhancing the NABDCs Through Technology section. This information will be provided by MBDA's Office of Information Technology. The specific information systems and access to them will be provided at the time of the award; (2) Sponsor one national and at least one regional conference; (3) Expand the Phoenix data bank of Native American-owned firms by requiring other MBDA-funded programs to provide additional entries; (4) Promote the exchange of business opportunity information within the MBDA funded system using the Phoenix and Opportunity databases located at http://www.mbda.gov ; (5) Work closely with the NABDC to establish a system in which procurement and contract opportunities can be shared with the network of NABDCs. This system will include opportunities identified throughout the MBDA network using the Phoenix and Opportunity databases located at http://www.mbda.gov ; (6) Help promote special events to be scheduled at the local community, state and national levels in celebration of MED Week, which occurs annually; and (7) Identify Federal, state and local governments, and private sector market opportunities to the NABDCs using the Phoenix and Opportunity databases located at http://www.mbda.gov.

Project Monitoring —MBDA will systematically monitor the performance of the NABDC. This monitoring includes regular review of data input to the performance database system, assessment of the end of the second quarter progress report, and an on-site review, when deemed necessary and appropriate by the regional office, of the center's client files to verify NABDC performance, reported assistance and interviews with clients assisted. In consultation with clients of the individual NABDC, MBDA will assess the Center's effectiveness in providing business development services to their respective Native American business communities. MBDA will then provide a report of findings and recommendations for improvement as a result of evaluations and monitoring visits. MBDA will approve qualifications of key NABDC staff and respond in a timely manner to correspondence requesting MBDA action.

Application Forms and Package: Standard Forms 424, Application for Federal Assistance; 424A, Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs; and 424B, Assurances-Non-Construction Programs, SF-LLL (Rev. 7-97); Department of Commerce forms, CD-346, Applicant for Funding Assistance, CD-511, Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility matters: Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying shall be used in applying for financial assistance. These forms may be obtained by (1) contacting MBDA as described in the CONTACT section above; (2) by downloading Standard forms at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/index.html ; (3) and Department of Commerce forms may be downloaded at http://www.doc.gov/forms. or (4) by applying on-line via the World Wide Web at MBDA's Web site located at http://www.mbda.gov/egrants.

Project Funding Priorities: MBDA is especially interested in receiving innovative proposals that focus on the following: (1) Identifying and working to eliminate barriers which limit the access of Native American businesses to markets and capital; (2) identifying and working to meet the special needs of Native American businesses seeking to obtain large-scale contracts (in excess of $500,000) with institutional customers; and (3) promoting the understanding and use of Electronic Commerce by the Native American business community.

Proposal Format Requirements: The structure of the proposal should contain the following headings, in the following order:

Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be evaluated and applicants will be selected based on the following criteria.

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated with respect to the applicant firm's experience and expertise in providing the work requirements listed. Specifically, the proposals will be evaluated as follows:

Level of experience in and knowledge of the Native American business sector and strategies for enhancing its growth and profitability (10 points);

Extent of resources and professional relationships within the corporate, banking and investment community that may be beneficial to Native American-owned firms (10 points);

Level of experience and expertise in advocating on behalf of Native American businesses, both as to specific transactions in which a Native American business seeks to engage, and as to broad market advocacy for the benefit of the Native American community at large (10 points); and

Assessment of the qualifications, experience and proposed role of staff who will operate the project, including possessing the expertise in utilizing information systems as contemplated under the Computer Requirements section of this Notice. (15 points).

Qualifications of the project director of the NABDC are of particular importance and must be included as part of the application, along with a copy of his/her college transcript and a letter committing to one (1) year's service. Position descriptions and qualification standards for all staff should be included as part of the application. Applicants must provide a copy of their Articles of Incorporation, by-laws and IRS 501(c)(3) non-profit letter or other evidence of non-profit status.

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated according to the following sub-criteria:

Adequacy of the plan to recruit, establish and maintain the network of 3 Strategic Partners (10 points).

Adequacy of your plan to accomplish the computer hardware and software requirements (5 points).

Likelihood of obtaining resources (not included as part of the cost-sharing arrangement) that will be used. Include commitment letters from those resources listed and indicate their willingness to work with the applicant. These resources can include such items as computer facilities, voluntary staff time and space, and financial resources. Three to five letters of support (with telephone numbers) from business or community organizations should be included from those resources willing to work with the applicant (10 points).

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated with respect to the proposed action plans and operation techniques. Specifically, the proposals will be evaluated as follows:

The applicant's specific plan-of-action detailing how each work requirement, except for Strategic Partners which is addressed under Resources, will be met and how the techniques to be used will be implemented. The applicant will be evaluated on the effectiveness and efficiency of use of all staff time to achieve the work requirements (10 points).

Fulfillment of performance measures will be evaluated by relating each one to the financial, information and market resources available in the geographic service area to the applicant and how the goals will be met (10 points).

The applicant's proposal will be evaluated on the following sub-criteria:

Reasonableness, allowability and allocability of costs (10 points).

Bonus Points: Proposed cost sharing, although not a requirement for NABDC application, will be awarded bonus points on the following scale: more than 0-5%—1 point; 6-10%—2 points; 11-15%—3 points; 16-20%—4 points; and over 20%—5 points.

An application must receive an average of at least 70% of the total points available for all four evaluation criterion, in order for the application to be considered for funding.

For-profit as well as not-for-profit organizations may negotiate their management fees, but they shall not exceed 7% of total estimated direct costs (Federal plus non-Federal) for the proposed award.

Many of MBDA's business development services programs allow their awardees to charge a fee for services rendered to clients. Where applicable, fees are considered program income and shall be accounted for and may be used to finance the non-Federal cost-share of the project. Any excess fee income shall be used to further the program purpose in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award.

Prior to the formal paneling process, each application will receive an initial screening to ensure that all required forms, signatures and documentation are present. Each application will receive an independent, objective review by a panel qualified to evaluate the applications submitted. The independent review panel, consisting of at least three federal and/or non-federal individuals, reviews all applications based on the above criteria. Each member of the independent review panel will individually evaluate and rank the proposals and submit their rankings and recommendation to the National Director. The National Director of MBDA makes the final recommendation to the Department of Commerce Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications, taking into account the following selection criteria:

The evaluations and rankings of the independent review panel;

The degree to which applications address MBDA priorities as established under the project funding priorities;

Site Visits. The National Director or his/her designee reserves the right to conduct a site visit to applicant organizations receiving an average of at least 70% of the total points available for all four evaluation criteria. Site visits will be used to confirm the applicant's ability to best fulfill MBDA's funding priorities, particularly identifying and working to meet the needs of minority businesses seeking to obtain large scale contracts with institutional customers.

The availability of funding.

On occasion, competitive solicitations or competitive panels may produce less than optimum results, such as competition resulting in the receipt of no applications or competition resulting in all unresponsive applications received. If the competition results in the receipt of only one application, it may or may not require additional action from MBDA depending upon the competitive history of the area, the quality of the application received, and the time and cost limits involved. In the event that any or all of these conditions arise, MBDA shall take the most time and cost-effective approach available that is in the best interest of the Government. The approaches available are: (1) Re-competition or (2) Re-Paneling or (3) Negotiation.

Upon the execution of an award by the Department of Commerce, MBDA will notify the unsuccessful applicants, in writing, indicating the winner of the award and indicating a 30-day timeframe in which to request return of the unsuccessful application. Once this 30-day notice has lapsed, MBDA will destroy all unsuccessful applications.

Applications under this program are not subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register Notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), are applicable to this solicitation.

This notice was determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.

Because notice and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), or any other law, for notices relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , is not required and has not been prepared for this notice.

This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0348-0046, and 0605-0001.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

On October 15, 2002, NIST announced in the Federal Register (67 FR 63622) a partially closed meeting of the ATP Advisory Committee. The meeting was scheduled for October 29, 2002, from 8:45 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. at NIST, Lecture Room B, Administration Building, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

The meeting is being postponed due to budget restraints during the Continuing Resolution and will be rescheduled at a later date.

The purpose of the meeting was to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for the ATP, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda included an ATP update, a panel discussion from the international community on technology programs, an update on the ATP competition and a presentation on emerging knowledge about ATP's impact on firm behavior, collaboration, etc.

The FY 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Act directed the Secretary of Commerce to establish a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) to protect important areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion, and to issue guidelines for this program delineating the criteria for grant awards. The guidelines establish procedures for eligible applicants who choose to participate in the program to use when developing state conservation plans, proposing or soliciting projects under this program, applying for funds, and carrying out projects under this program in a manner that is consistent with the purposes of the program. NOAA also has, or is given, authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act, annual appropriations or other authorities, to issue funds to coastal states and localities for planning, conservation, acquisition, protection, restoration, or construction projects. This information collection enables NOAA to implement the CELCP, under its current or future authorization, and facilitate the review of similar projects under different, but related authorities.

The Project Application Checklist is a form. The other information is submitted in accordance with guidance. The information can be submitted in electronic or paper format.

OMB Number: 0648-0459.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government; not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 hours for a CELCP plan; and 10 hours for a project application and checklist.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,520.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $505.

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

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

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that the Secretary of Commerce implement a Cost Recovery Program to cover the management and enforcement costs of the Alaska Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. This Cost Recovery Program requires IFQ permit holders and registered buyers to submit information about the value of landings of IFQ species and for the permit holders to calculate and submit fees.

Forms are used except for appeals, which involve the submission of evidence/documentation.

OMB Number: 0648-0398.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, individuals or households, and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,100.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2 hours for a fee submission form; 2 hours for a Register Buyer Ex-vessel Value and Volume Report; 2 hours for an appeal; and 30 minutes for a prepayment of fees.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 8,400.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $17,116.

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

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

The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) are covered in the permit:

Steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ): endangered Upper Columbia River.

Chinook salmon ( O. tshawytscha ): endangered Upper Columbia River spring run.

Notice of proposed actions similar in scope to the proposed amendment actions was published on August 1, 2002 (67 FR 49906). A public meeting was held in Wenatchee, WA on August 27, 2002. The amended permit authorizes WDFW to manage adult hatchery steelhead returns that are surplus to recovery and broodstock needs. Permit 1094 authorizes WDFW's activities related to carrying out the steelhead artificial propagation enhancement program in the Upper Columbia River. After evaluating the potential effects of this amendment on listed salmon and steelhead in the Upper Columbia River ESUs and the environmental consequences, NOAA Fisheries issued an amended permit with conditions authorizing takes of the ESA-listed anadromous fish species. NOAA Fisheries' conditions will ensure that the takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild. The permit expires May 31, 2003.

Favorable environmental conditions leading to a return of hatchery steelhead surplus to the number needed on spawning grounds precipitate the need to provide additional scope to available techniques for managing these experimental enhancement program fish, responsive to conservation needs of natural spawning populations in the Upper Columbia River basin. This amendment provides additional mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for the anticipated takes of ESA-listed anadromous fish.

The amended permit was granted only after NOAA Fisheries determined that all permit issuance criteria were met, including the requirement that granting the permit would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and that the permit is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

On July 11, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 45958) that a request for an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 42-1642-01 to take Steller sea lions had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit amendment has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Issuance of this permit amendment, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The permit amendment authorizes the permit holder to import one male Steller sea lion from the Vancouver Aquarium, Vancouver, Canada, for breeding with female Steller sea lions currently held by Mystic Aquarium in support of their study of changes in vitamin A and E status in relation to various life history stages in captive Steller sea lions.

On March 27, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 14698) that a modification of Permit No. 1266, issued May 8, 2001 (66 FR 27940), had been requested by REMSA, Inc. The requested modification has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit 1266 authorizes capturing via trawl, handling, flipper tagging and releasing sea turtles while removing them from the path of hopper dredges. Originally the Permit authorized the take of 30 loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), 7 green ( Chelonia mydas ), 5 Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), 4 hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), and 4 leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) sea turtles. This modification increases the annual take to 350 loggerhead, 150 green, 150 Kemp's ridley, 10 hawksbill and 10 leatherback sea turtles. The applicant will also begin passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging the sea turtles in addition to the previously authorized activities. Research is conducted in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

On April 24, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 20094) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by Coastwise Consulting. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 1380 authorizes the capture of live sea turtles using shrimp trawlers in association with hopper dredge activities along the southeastern U.S. coast and the Gulf of Mexico. Trawling may be conducted prior to dredging to assess the abundance of sea turtles in an area and/or during dredging operations to relocate turtles away from the channel being dredged. Captured turtles will be identified, measured, photographed, tagged with both flipper and PIT tags, and genetically sampled before being released. The annual number of takes authorized are: 800 loggerhead, 235 Kemp's ridley, 155 green, 51 hawksbill, and 24 leatherback turtles.

On July 23, 2002, notice was published in the Federal Register (67 FR 48135) that a request for a scientific research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by Dr. Nelson. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 1388 authorizes sea turtle research in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. The first project involves relocation trawling in association with hopper dredge activity. A total of 200 loggerhead, 100 green, 30 Kemp's ridley, 2 hawksbill, and 2 leatherback sea turtles are authorized to be captured, handled, measured, flipper and PIT tagged, and released. The second project uses a subset of the turtles caught via relocation trawling to investigate large-scale movements and diving behavior. Twenty loggerhead, 5 Kemp's ridley, and 5 green turtles will be satellite tagged in addition to the above activities before being released. The third project is an abundance and habitat survey of green sea turtles along the shoreline of Cape Canaveral. A total of 75 green sea turtles may be captured, handled, flipper and PIT tagged, and fitted with a radio/sonic transmitter or a time-depth recorder/radio transmitter, before being released.

Issuance of these permits and modification, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such modification/permits: (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which are the subject of these permits, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in Section 2 of the ESA.

The ESA requires that permits, permit modifications, and permit amendments be issued based on a finding that such actions: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the actions; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits, modifications, and amendments are issued in accordance with, and are subject to, the ESA and NOAA Fisheries regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).

The ESA-listed species/evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) covered by this notice are identified below and listed in the subsequent table by the numbers that precede each of them in the following text:

(1) Puget Sound chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha )

(2) Lower Columbia River chinook salmon

(3) Snake River spring/summer chinook salmon

(4) Snake River fall chinook salmon

(5) Upper Columbia River spring-run chinook salmon

(6) Upper Willamette River chinook salmon

(7) Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon ( O. keta )

(8) Columbia River chum salmon

(9) Lower Columbia River steelhead ( O. mykiss )

(10) Middle Columbia River steelhead

(11) Snake River steelhead

(12) Upper Willamette River steelhead

(13) Upper Columbia River steelhead

(14) Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho salmon ( O. kisutch )

(15) Oregon Coast coho salmon

(16) Snake River sockeye salmon ( O. nerka )

(17) Ozette Lake sockeye salmon

The CME live cattle futures contract's speculative position limit rules currently specify an individual contract month limit of 3,300 contracts, a “scale down” spot month speculative position limit of 600 contracts that becomes effective at the close of business on the first business day following the first Friday of the contract month, and a 300-contract spot month limit that becomes effective at the close of business on the business day immediately preceding the last five business days of the expiring contract month. 1 The proposed amendments will eliminate the “scale down” limit of 600 contracts, and require that speculative positions be reduced immediately to 300 contracts as of the close of business on the first business day following the first Friday of the contract month.

In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed level is “more in balance with deliverable supplies” for the live cattle futures contract. In particular, the Exchange states that deliverable supplies of live cattle meeting the futures contract's existing weight specifications have been adversely impacted by the “significant increase in slaughter weights of cattle in the U.S.” As a result, “a growing proportion of the U.S. fed steer population is rapidly becoming ineligible for delivery against the Live Cattle contract.” In this regard, the futures contract does not permit the delivery on a live-graded basis of individual steers weighing more than 1,350 pounds (or 1,375 pounds effective with the June 2003 contract month). However, the average carcass weight for steers has increased steadily in recent years, and in August 2002 was 837 pounds, for a live-weight equivalent of 1,329 pounds.

The Exchange has proposed to implement the subject proposed amendments only for existing contracts, beginning with the December 2002 contract month through the October 2003 contract month. The Exchange has separately notified the Commission that it will delay listing of the December 2003 contract month, pending its consideration of additional contract changes. In this regard, the Exchange notes that it is contemplating amendments that will increase the weight specifications for the live cattle futures contract to accommodate the higher observed weights in the cash market and will make additional amendments to the spot-month speculative position limits.

The Division is requesting comment on the proposal. Copies of the Exchange's proposed amendments will be available for inspection at the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Copies of the proposed amendments can also be obtained through the Office of the Secretariat by mail at the above address or by phone at (202) 418-5100.

Other materials submitted by the CME in support of the request for approval may be available upon request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Commission's regulations there under (17 CFR part 145 (2000)), except to the extent they are entitled to confidential treatment as set forth in 17 CFR 145.5 and 145.9. Requests for copies of such materials should be made to the FOI, Privacy and Sunshine Act Compliance Staff of the Office of Secretariat at the Commission's headquarters in accordance with 17 CFR 145.7 and 145.8.

Any person interested in submitting written data, views, or arguments pertaining to the proposed amendments or with respect to other materials submitted by the CME should send such comments to Jean A. Webb, Secretary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 by the specified date.

The contractor's proposal of final indirect cost rates is necessary for the establishment of rates used to reimburse the contractor for the costs of performing under the contract. The supporting cost data are the cost accounting information normally prepared by organizations under sound management and accounting practices.The proposal and supporting data is used by the contracting official and auditor to verify and analyze the indirect costs and to determine the final indirect cost rates or to prepare the Government negotiating position if negotiation of the rates is required under the contract terms.

Respondents: 3,000.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,000.

Hours Per Response: 2,188.

Total Burden Hours: 6,564,000.

Burden hours are based on an estimated 3000 business segments that have overhead rates established annually. The hours per response are based on the sum of estimated hours per response for reporting and estimated hours per response for recordkeeping. The estimated total burden hours increased substantially from 2,469 hours to 6,564,000 hours for all respondents because we changed the method of estimating, not because the burden has increased. Prior estimates were based on the time to generate a proposal document. The new estimate is based on the time necessary to keep records, analyze information and generate a proposal document.

Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0069, Indirect Cost Rates, in all correspondence.

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

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Application for Grants Under the Strengthening Institutions Program, American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program, and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program.

Frequency: Biennially.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 300.

Burden Hours: 17150.

Abstract: The information is required of institutions of higher education that apply for grants under the Strengthening Institutions Program, the American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program, and the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions Program, authorized under Title III, Part A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This information will be used in the peer review and in making funding recommendations.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2179. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to SCHUBART at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: Application for Grants Under the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program.

Frequency: Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 100.

Burden Hours: 850.

Abstract: This information is required of institutions of higher education designated eligible to apply for grants as Hispanic-Serving Institutions under Title V, Part A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. This information will be used in the evaluation process to determine whether proposed activities are consistent with legislated activities, and to determine the dollar share of the Congressional appropriation.

This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grants Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, this 30-day public comment notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2178. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: Student Aid Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household (primary).

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 20524631.

Burden Hours: 4871526.

Abstract: The Student Aid Report (SAR) is used to notify all applicants of their eligibility to receive Federal student aid for postsecondary education. The form is submitted by the applicant to the institution of their choice.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2097. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Type of Review: New Collection.

Title: FIPSE Comprehensive Programs Final Report Guidelines.

Frequency: Other: once, at project period end.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 75.

Burden Hours: 1500.

Abstract: The Comprehensive program is a discretionary grant award program of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). The program supports innovative reform projects that hold promise as models for the resolution of important issues and problems in postsecondary education. Grants made under this program are expected to contribute new information in educational practice that can be shared with others. The Comprehensive Program has established a record of meaningful and lasting improvement to access and quality in postsecondary education. A final report at the end of the grant period is required of all funded projects by Education Department regulations.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the Browse Pending Collections link and by clicking on link number 2140. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov . Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joe Schubart at (202) 708-9266. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

• Reports from the Environmental Restoration, Stewardship, and Waste Management Committees

• Presentation focusing on the draft EPA report “September 2001 Sampling Report for the Scarboro Community, Oak Ridge, Tennessee”

• Public Comment Period

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Committee either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. This federal register notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date.

Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

Entities potentially affected by this action are hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) covered by 40 CFR part 63 (Subpart EEE) which generate, treat and store hazardous waste. Examples include hazardous waste incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous waste.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICR, any public comments received, and other information related to this ICR. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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) 566-1742, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270.

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

You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI, and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket, but will be available only in printed paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.

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

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

For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket, visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

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

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

(i) EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EPA Dockets.” Once in the system, select “Search,” and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

(ii) E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to rcra-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By Mail. Send one original and two copies of your comments to: RCRA Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, (Mailcode 5305T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030 .

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.

4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-0224, Attention Docket ID. No. RCRA-2002-0030.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. An original and two copies of the CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania, Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-2002-0030. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. If you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens for reporting and record Keeping requirements of the proposed collections of information.

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

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

A. Title: Information Collection Request for MACT Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements for the Hazardous Waste Combustors (OMB Control No. 2050-0171; EPA ICR No.1773.06), expiring February 28, 2003. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection.

B. Abstract: EPA regulates the burning of hazardous waste by several source categories of hazardous waste combustors under 40 CFR Part 63, Parts 264/265 (Subpart O), and Part 266 (Subpart H). On September 30, 1999, EPA promulgated (64 FR 52828) standards to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from incinerators, cement kilns and lightweight aggregate kilns that burn hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Part 63. The ICR # 1773.02 pertaining to the provisions of this rule was approved under OMB Control # 2050-0171, expires on February 28, 2003, and is being renewed.

The emission standards of the September 30, 1999 rule updated the earlier rules in effect on these sources under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265, and were issued using both Clean Air Act (CAA) and RCRA authorities in a coordinated fashion. Rules under CAA created maximum achievable control technology (MACT) based standards for hazardous air pollutant emissions, assuring that combustion of hazardous waste in these devices is properly controlled, while the RCRA provisions satisfied our obligation to ensure that hazardous waste combustion is conducted in a manner protective of human health and the environment. We thus consolidated regulatory control of hazardous waste combustion into a single set of regulations, thereby minimizing the potential for conflicting or duplicative federal requirements and burden on the regulated community.

A number of parties, representing interests of both industrial sources and of the environmental community, sought judicial review of the September 30, 1999 rule. On July 24, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) granted the Sierra Club's petition for review and vacated the challenged portions of the rule. However, the Court invited us and the parties to the proceeding to file a motion to delay issuance of its mandate to request either that the current standards remain in place or that EPA be allowed reasonable time to develop interim standards. EPA and the parties to the proceeding agreed to take several actions, and the Court concurred on them. First, we agreed to issue a one-year extension to the compliance date of September 30, 2002 promulgated in the September 30, 1999 rule. On December 6, 2001 (66 FR 63313), we published a final rule which extended the compliance date to September 30, 2003. Second, we committed to publish an interim rule with revised emission standards and to finalize several compliance and implementation amendments to the rule. These interim standards and compliance and implementation amendments were promulgated on February 13 and 14, 2002 (67 FR 6792 and 67 FR 6968). The interim standards replace the vacated standards, until we finalize final replacement standards that comply with the Court's mandate. Finally, we agreed to issue the final replacement standards by June 14, 2005. EPA also issued three technical correction notices to the rule since the last ICR was approved. They were published at 65 FR 42292 (July 10, 2000), 65 FR 67268 (November 9, 2000), and 66 FR 24270 (May 14, 2001). This ICR revision takes into account the changes to the paperwork burden related to all the above stated changes to the September 30, 1999 rule to-date, as well as to the changes in the hazardous waste combustor universe since the last ICR approval.

During the settlement negotiations, we have had several meetings with all the parties affected by the rule. We collected new information about the operations of the HWCs through these meetings. We also obtained newer test burn and trial burn reports from the EPA Regions and the States, which updated our earlier information on the regulated community. We then published a Federal Register notice of data availability (NODA) for these sources at 67 FR 44452 (July 2, 2002) inviting public comments on our updated database. In response, we received over 55 comments, many of which included detailed information about the operation of the HWCs and supplementary test reports. These comments are available for public viewing under Docket # RCRA-2002-0019 and were used in the preparation of this renewal ICR.

The information collection required under this ICR is mandatory for the regulated sources, as it is essential to properly enforce the emission limitation requirements of the rule and will be used to further the proper performance of the functions of EPA. EPA believes that if the minimum requirements specified under the regulations are not met, EPA will not fulfill its Congressional mandate to protect public health and the environment. EPA, however, has made extensive efforts to integrate the monitoring, compliance testing and recordkeeping requirements of the CAA and RCRA, so that the facilities are able to avoid the burden of duplicate and unnecessary submissions. We also ensure, to the fullest extent by law, the confidentiality of the submitted to information. EPA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

C. Burden Statement: The current annual burden to the 171 respondents under this ICR is estimated at 68,269 hours, or an average of 399 hours per respondent. See ICR Numbers 1773.02 thru 1773.06 in the Docket No. RCRA-2002-0030 for details. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

As described in previous Federal Register (FR) documents, 1 the Parties to the Protocol agreed during the Fourth Meeting in Copenhagen on November 23-25, 1992, to accelerate the phase-out schedules for Class I ozone-depleting substances. Specifically, the Parties agreed that non-Article 5 Parties (developed countries) would phase out the production and consumption of halons by January 1, 1994, and the production and consumption of other class I substances (under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A), except methyl bromide, by January 1, 1996. The Parties also reached decisions and adopted resolutions on a variety of other matters, including the criteria to be used for allowing “essential use” exemptions from the phaseout of production and importation of controlled substances. Decision IV/25 of the Fourth Meeting of the Parties details the specific criteria and review process for granting essential use exemptions.

Decision IV/25 states that “* * * a use of a controlled substance should qualify as “essential” only if: (i) it is necessary for the health, safety or is critical for the functioning of society (encompassing cultural and intellectual aspects); and (ii) there are no available technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health.” In addition, the Parties agreed “that production and consumption, if any, of a controlled substance, for essential uses should be permitted only if: (i) all economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the essential use and any associated emission of the controlled substance; and (ii) the controlled substance is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from the existing stocks of banked or recycled controlled substances * * *.” Decision XII/2 taken at the thirteenth meeting of the Parties states that any CFC metered dose inhaler (MDI) product approved after December 31, 2000, is non-essential unless the product meets the criteria in Decision IV/25 paragraph 1(a).

The first step in obtaining essential use allowances is for the user to consider whether the use of the controlled substance meets the criteria of Decision IV/25. If the essential use request is for an MDI product, that product must also meet the criteria of Decision XII/2. The user should then send a completed application in order to notify EPA of the candidate use and provide information for U.S. government agencies and the Protocol Parties to evaluate that use according to the criteria under the Protocol.

Upon receipt of the essential use exemption application, EPA reviews the information provided and works with other interested Federal agencies to determine whether it meets the essential use criteria and warrants being nominated by the United States for an exemption. In the case of multiple exemption requests for a single use such as for MDIs, EPA aggregates exemption requests received from individual entities into a single U.S. request. An important part of the EPA review of requests for CFCs for MDIs is to determine that the aggregate request for a particular future year adequately reflects the total market need for CFC MDIs and expected availability of CFC substitutes by that point in time. If the sum of individual requests does not account for such factors, the U.S. government may adjust the aggregate request to better reflect true market needs.

Nominations submitted by the United States and other Parties are forwarded from the United Nations Ozone Secretariat to the Montreal Protocol's Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Technical Options Committees (TOCs), which review the submissions and make recommendations to the Protocol Parties for essential use exemptions. Those recommendations are then considered by the Parties at their annual meeting for final decision. If the Parties declare a specified use of a controlled substance as essential, and issue the necessary exemption from the production and consumption phaseout, EPA may propose regulatory changes to reflect the decisions by the Parties, but only to the extent such action is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Applicants should be aware that essential use exemptions granted to the United States for the year 2003 under the Protocol were limited to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) to treat asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and methyl chloroform for use in manufacturing solid rocket motors.

The timing of this process is such that in any given year the Parties review nominations for essential use exemptions from the production and consumption phaseout intended for the following year and subsequent years. This means that, if nominated, applications submitted in response to today's notice for an exemption in 2004 and 2005 will be considered by the Parties in 2003 for final action.

The quantities of controlled ODSs that are requested in response to this notice, if approved by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in 2003, will then be allocated as essential-use allowances (EUAs) to the specific U.S. companies through notice and comment rulemaking. EUAs for the year 2004 will be allocated to U.S. companies at the end of 2003, and EUAs for the year 2005 will be made at the end of 2004.

Through this action, EPA requests applications for essential use exemptions for all class I substances, except methyl bromide, for calendar years 2004 and 2005. The Parties to the Montreal Protocol have approved 2,975 metric tons of CFCs for the year 2004; therefore, this notice is the last opportunity to submit new or revised applications for 2004. This notice is also the first opportunity to submit requests for 2005. Companies will have an opportunity to submit new, supplemental, or amended applications for 2005 next year. All requests for exemptions submitted to EPA must present information as prescribed in the current version of the TEAP “Handbook on Essential Use Nominations” (or “handbook”), which was published in June 2001. The handbook is available electronically on the web at http://www.teap.org, or at http://www.epa.gov/ozone.

In brief, the TEAP Handbook states that applicants must present information on:

• Role of use in society;

• Alternatives to use;

• Steps to minimize use;

• Steps to minimize emissions;

• Recycling and stockpiling;

• Quantity of controlled substances requested; and

• Approval date and indications (for MDIs).

First, in order to obtain complete information from essential use applicants for CFC MDIs, EPA requires that parties (such as the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium) who request CFCs for multiple pharmaceutical companies make clear the amount of CFCs requested for each member company. Second, all essential use applications for CFCs must provide a breakdown of the quantity of CFCs necessary for each MDI product to be produced. This detailed breakdown of EUAs will allow EPA and the Food and Drug Administration to make informed decisions on the amount of CFC to be nominated by the U.S. Government for the years 2004 and 2005. Third, all new drug application (NDA) holders for CFC MDI products produced in the United States must submit a complete application for essential use allowances either on their own or in conjunction with their contract filler. In the case where a contract filler produces a portion of an NDA holder's CFC MDIs, the contract filler and the NDA holder must determine the total amount of CFCs necessary to produce the NDA holder's entire product line of CFC MDIs. The NDA holder must provide an estimate of how the CFCs would be split between the contract filler and the NDA holder in the allocation year. This estimate will be used only as a basis for determining the nomination amount, and may be adjusted prior to allocation of EUAs. Since the U.S. Government cannot forward incomplete or inadequate nominations to the Ozone Secretariat, it is important for applicants to provide all information requested in the Handbook, including the information specified in the supplemental research and development form (page 45).

The accounting framework matrix in the handbook entitled “Table IV: Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses Other Than Laboratory and Analytical” requests data for the year 2002 on the amount of ODS exempted for an essential use, the amount acquired by production, the amount acquired by import, the amount on hand at the start of the year, the amount available for use in 2002, the amount used for the essential use, the quantity contained in exported products, the amount destroyed, and the amount on hand at the end of 2002. Because the data necessary to complete Table IV will not be available until after January 1, 2003, companies should not include this chart with their EUA applications in response to this action. EPA plans to send letters to each essential use applicant requesting the information in Table IV in the first two weeks of January 2003. Companies will have only fourteen days in which to respond since EPA must compile companies' responses to complete the U.S. CFC Accounting Framework for submission to the Parties to the Montreal Protocol by the end of January.

EPA anticipates that the Parties' review of MDI essential use requests will focus extensively on the United States' progress in developing alternatives to CFC MDIs, including education programs to inform patients and health care providers of the CFC phaseout and the transition to alternatives. Accordingly, applicants are strongly advised to present detailed information on these points, including the scope and cost of such efforts and the medical and patient organizations involved in the work. Applicants should submit their exemption requests to EPA as noted in the Addresses section at the beginning of today's document.

The plant that currently produces pharmaceutical grade CFCs for U.S. MDIs is scheduled to close at the end of 2005. As such, it is necessary for MDI manufacturers who wish to continue production after that time to identify a source of pharmaceutical grade CFC past this date. The Parties to the Protocol have identified two possible options. One is to qualify another plant to continue to produce pharmaceutical grade CFCs on a just-in-time basis. A second option is to request that CFCs be produced from the existing plant in a “final campaign” production of CFC to be produced in 2005. The CFCs produced in a final campaign could, in theory, then supply the remainder of the transition to CFC-free MDIs. It is important to note that this second option is under consideration but has not yet been approved by the Parties.

In order for EPA to plan effectively for the future of the essential use process, and in order for the U.S. Government to be fully informed, EPA must gather information about how MDI manufacturers intend to procure CFCs after 2005. Therefore, we request that all essential use applicants for MDIs answer the following two questions as completely as possible.

1. What steps has your company taken to ensure a continued supply of CFCs beyond 2005? Please be specific and explain whether there are plans to qualify a plant to produce pharmaceutical grade CFCs. Please identify the chemical company, the location of the plant, and the date the new plant is expected to begin production.

2. Does your company wish to make an essential use request for final campaign production of pharmaceutical grade CFCs for the year 2005 and beyond? If yes, how much CFCs does your company anticipate requesting?

The answers you provide will be considered confidential business information, and will only be shared with authorized government officials. While we are requesting information related to the possibility of campaign production of CFCs for MDIs in 2005, we are not requesting that companies make an official nomination for campaign production in 2005. If it is determined that campaign production is necessary and allowed under the Montreal Protocol, EPA will issue a separate notice requesting nominations for campaign production.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticides users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2002-0255. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2002-0255. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2002-0255. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2002-0255.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2002-0255. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.

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

The Agency has issued a RED for the pesticide active ingredient listed in this document. Under FIFRA, as amended in 1988, EPA is conducting an accelerated reregistration program to reevaluate existing pesticides to make sure they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. The data base to support the reregistration of the chemical listed in this document is substantially complete, and the pesticide's risks have been mitigated so that it will not pose unreasonable risks to people or the environment when used according to its approved labeling. In addition, EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides and reassessing tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. The pesticides included in this notice also have been found to meet the FQPA safety standard.

All registrants of pesticide products containing the active ingredient listed in this document have been sent the appropriate RED, and must respond to labeling requirements and product specific data requirements (if applicable) within 8 months of receipt. Products also containing other pesticide active ingredients will not be reregistered until those other active ingredients are determined to be eligible for reregistration.

The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes both the need to make timely reregistration decisions and to involve the public. Therefore, EPA is issuing this RED as a final document with a 60-day comment period. Although the 60-day public comment period does not affect the registrant's response due date, it is intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments will be considered by the Agency. If any comment significantly affects the RED, EPA will amend the RED by publishing the amendment in the Federal Register .

The legal authority for these REDs falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products, and either reregistering products or taking “other appropriate regulatory action.”

This assessment was conducted to review the new information that has become available since EPA's 1985 health assessment of 1,3-butadiene.

1,3-Butadiene is a gas used commercially in the production of styrene-butadiene rubber, plastics, and thermoplastic resins. The major environmental source of 1,3-butadiene is the incomplete combustion of fuels from mobile sources ( e.g. , automobile exhaust). Tobacco smoke can be a significant source of 1,3-butadiene in indoor air.

This assessment concludes that 1,3-butadiene is carcinogenic to humans by inhalation, based on the total weight of evidence. The specific mechanisms of 1,3-butadiene-induced carcinogenesis are unknown, however, it is virtually certain that the carcinogenic effects are mediated by genotoxic metabolites of 1,3-butadiene.

Animal data suggest that females may be more sensitive than males for cancer effects; nevertheless, there are insufficient data from which to draw any conclusions on potentially sensitive subpopulations.

The human incremental lifetime unit cancer (incidence) risk estimate is based on extrapolation from leukemias observed in an occupational epidemiologic study. A twofold adjustment to the epidemiologic-based unit cancer risk is then applied to reflect evidence from the rodent bioassays suggesting that the epidemiologic-based estimate may underestimate total cancer risk from 1,3-butadiene exposure in the general population.

1,3-Butadiene also causes a variety of reproductive and developmental effects in mice; no human data on these effects are available. The most sensitive effect was ovarian atrophy observed in a lifetime bioassay of female mice. Based on this critical effect and using the benchmark concentration methodology, an RfC ( i.e. , a chronic exposure level presumed to be “without appreciable risk” for noncancer effects) was calculated.

Electronic Copies: Electronic copies of this document are available from the EPA Home Page under the link “Laws and Regulations” at the Federal Register —Environmental Documents entry (http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr).

NEXTEL Communications, Inc., its subsidiaries, and NII Holdings, Inc. are telecommunications companies incorporated in the States of Delaware, Georgia, and Texas. NEXTEL is located at 2001 Edmond Halley Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20191 and NII Holdings, Inc. is located at 10700 Parkridge Boulevard, Suite 600, Reston, Virginia, 20191. NEXTEL disclosed, pursuant to the EPA “Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosures, Correction and Prevention of Violations'' (“Audit Policy”), 65 FR 19618 (April 11, 2000), that they failed to prepare SPCC plans for forty-eight facilities where they stored diesel oil in above ground storage tanks, in violation of the CWA section 311(b)(3) and 40 CFR part 112. NEXTEL disclosed that for eight facilities they had failed to obtain operating permits or exemptions in violation of CAA section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and various SIP requirements for emergency generators. Nextel disclosed that at seventy-two facilities they had failed to file emergency planning notifications with the SERC and failed to provide the name of an emergency contact to the LEPC, in violation of EPCRA sections 302 and 393, 42 U.S.C. 7413(a)(1). Nextel further disclosed that at seventy-five facilities they had failed to submit MSDS’ or a list of chemicals to the LEPC, SERC, and the fire departments with jurisdiction over the facilities, in violation of EPCRA section 311, 42 U.S.C. 11021; and that at sixty-six facilities had failed to submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory for the LEPC, SERC, and fire departments with jurisdiction over the facilities, in violation of EPCRA section 312, 42 U.S.C. 11022. At four facilities Nextel failed to ensure that the language in their financial assurance insurance policies for underground storage tanks was not exactly as required by regulation, in violation of RCRA section 9003(d), 42 U.S.C. 6991(d). Nextel violated RCRA section 9002(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 6991(a)(1) when it failed to notify the state of the existence of an underground storage tank at one facility; and Nextel violated RCRA section 9003, 42 U.S.C. 6991b and all of the relevant underground storage tank regulations at one facility. Nextel failed to make a hazardous waste determination and improperly disposed of hazardous waste at one facility in violation of 9-VAC 20-60-261(A).

EPA determined that Nextel met the criteria set out in the Audit Policy for a 100% waiver of the gravity component of the penalty. As a result, EPA waived the gravity based penalty ($1,994,810) and proposed a settlement penalty amount of thirty-five thousand and four dollars ($35,004). This is the amount of the economic benefit gained by Nextel, attributable to their delayed compliance with the CWA, CAA, RCRA, and EPCRA regulations. Nextel Communications, Inc. has agreed to pay this amount. EPA and Nextel negotiated and signed an administrative consent agreement, following the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 CFR 22.13(b), on October 18, 2002 ( In Re: Nextel Communications, Inc et. al. and NII Holdings, Inc., Docket Nos. CWA-HQ-2002-6001, EPCRA-HQ-2002-6001, CAA-HQ-2002-6001, and RCRA-HQ-2002-6001). This consent agreement is subject to public notice and comment under CWA section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6). EPA is expanding this opportunity for public comment to all other aspects of this consent agreement.

Under CWA section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b)(6)(A), any owner, operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of the CWA section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321 (b)(3), or who fails or refuses to comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed an administrative civil penalty of up to $137,500 by EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA section 311(b)(6) are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

Under CAA section 113(d), the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any person who has violated an applicable implementation plan or any other requirement of the Act, including any rule, order, waiver, permit or plan. Proceedings under CAA section 113(d) are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

Under EPCRA section 325, the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any person who has violated applicable emergency planning or right to know requirements, or any other requirement of the Act. Proceedings under EPCRA section 325 are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

Under RCRA section 3008, the Administrator may issue an administrative order assessing a civil penalty against any person who has violated applicable underground storage tank or hazardous waste requirements, or any other requirement of the Act. Proceedings under RCRA section 3008 are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed Class II penalty order, or participate in a Clean Water Act Class II penalty proceeding, are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting public comment on this proposed final order is November 29, 2002. All comments will be transferred to the Environmental Appeals Board (“EAB”) of EPA for consideration. The powers and duties of the EAB are outlined in 40 CFR 22.4(a).

Pursuant to CWA section 311(b)(6)(C), EPA will not issue an order in this proceeding prior to the close of the public comment period.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0532.

Title: Scanning Receiver Compliance Exhibit, Section 2.1033 (b)(10) and Section 15.121.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions; Business or other for-profit entities; Federal Government; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 40.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 40 hours.

Total Estimated Cost: $2,000.

Needs and Uses: The FCC rules under 47 CFR 2.1033(b)(10) require manufacturers of scanning receivers to design their equipment so that: it has 38 dB of image rejection for Cellular Service frequencies, tuning, control, and filtering circuitry are inaccessible, and any attempt to modify the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions will likely render the scanning receiver inoperable. The Commission also requires manufacturers to submit information with any application for certification that describes: the testing method used to determine compliance with the 38 dB image rejection ratio, the design features that prevent modification of the scanning receiver to receive Cellular Service transmissions, and the design steps taken to make tuning, control, and filtering circuitry inaccessible. Furthermore, the FCC requires equipment to carry a statement assessing the vulnerability of the scanning receiver to modification and to have a label affixed to the scanning receiver, similar to the following:

Warning: Modification of this device to receive cellular radiotelephone service signals is prohibited under FCC Rules and Federal Law.