Codex was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. The Codex Committee on General Principles was established to deal with such procedural and general matters as are referred to it by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Such matters have included the establishment of the General Principles that define the purpose and scope of the Codex Alimentarius, the nature of Codex standards and the forms of acceptance by countries of Codex standards; the development of Guidelines for Codex Committees; the development of a mechanism for examining any economic impact statements submitted by governments concerning possible implications for their economies of some of the individual standards or some of the provisions thereof; and the establishment of a Code of Ethics for the International Trade in Food. The Committee is hosted by the government of France.

Items on the Provisional Agenda will be discussed at the public meeting.

At the public meeting, the issues and draft United States' positions on the issues will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Comments may be sent to the FSIS Docket Room ( see ADDRESSES ). In addition, they may be sent electronically to the U.S. Delegate ( see ADDRESSES ). Please state that your comments relate to CCGP activities and specify which issues your comments address.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade, and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

The committee will meet jointly with the Lake Tahoe Basin Executives Committee. Items to be covered on the agenda include: Welcome Introductions & Review of Agenda, Federal Transportation Administration participation discussion, Role of LTFAC With the SNPLMA, USACE Tahoe Framework Implementation Study Update, TIIMS Prototype Rollout Presentation, Logistics/Review, and public comment. All Lake Tahoe Basin Federal Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. Issues may be brought to the attention of the Committee during the open public comment period at the meeting or by filing written statements with the secretary for the Committee before or after the meeting. Please refer any written comments to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit at the contact address stated above.

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring Payments to States Fresno County Title II project matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting.

Public sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by November 18, 2003 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Call for new projects; (2) Status report from project recipients; and (3) Public comment.

The Sherman Pass project involves the areas with roads in them on the Kern Plateau. Of particular interest is the approximately 4,900 acres of conifer stands severely damaged or destroyed by the fire. The analysis area is over 20,000 acres.

The Roadless project involves inventoried roadless areas outside of the Giant Sequoia National Monument. Again, of particular interest is the approximately 11,000 acres of conifer stands severely damaged or destroyed by fire. The analysis area is over 60,000 acres.

The meeting is open to the public. If you are planning to attend, please contact Cindy Thill at the Cannell Meadow Ranger District by November 17. Some transportation will be available, but we will also rely on participants to provide assistance in transporting people in the sites. Please bring your own lunch and wear appropriate field clothing. The meeting is accessible to persons with disabilities. If you need accommodations, please contact Cindy Thill at the number provided.

The Forest Service is issuing an interim directive (ID) to Forest Service Manual (FSM) chapter 2720 to guide its employees in the streamlining of proposal and application procedures for interstate natural gas pipelines certified by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and adopted in a May 2002 agreement between the FERC, the Department of Agriculture, and other Federal agencies.

The May 2002 agreement entitled “Interagency Agreement on Early Coordination of Required Environmental and Historic Preservation Reviews Conducted in Conjunction with the Issuance of Authorizations to Construct and Operate Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines Certificated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission” eliminates overlapping and duplicative environmental processes required by the numerous Federal agencies having jurisdiction in the permitting of interstate natural gas pipeline projects. Minimizing the duplication and overlap of procedures shortens the cumulative processing time for evaluating applications and making decisions on these projects. The ID to FSM 2720 provides Forest Service field officers with specific procedures to ensure that the agency carries out the streamlining processes in the agreement and directs that field officers fully engage as a cooperating agency in the FERC's processing of these types of applications.

The interim directive to FSM 2720 is issued as ID number 2720-2003-2.

The preliminary information of this Federally assisted proposed action indicates that the project may cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Richard Sims, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is needed for this project.

The objective of the Little Wood River Irrigation District proposed action is to maximize the conservation and use of irrigation water and the energy required to irrigate all of the existing cropland within the project area. The proposed project would convert the open canal irrigation delivery system to a closed, gravity pressurized delivery system. Alternatives evaluated were No Action, Gravity Pressurized Irrigation Delivery System with On-Farm Irrigation Systems and Gravity Pressurized Irrigation Delivery System with On-Farm Irrigation Systems and Hydroelectric Generation.

The Little Wood River Irrigation District invites participation and consultation of agencies and individuals that have special expertise, legal jurisdiction, or interest in the preparation of the draft environmental impact statement. A limited number of copies of the EIS are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Richard Sims.

Further information on the proposed action or future public meetings may be obtained from Richard Sims, State Conservationist, at the above address or telephone 208-378-5700.

On August 22, 2003, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (68 FR 50750) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

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

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

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

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

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

Service Type/Location: Custodial Services, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Building 2644, Oak Harbor, Washington.

NPA: New Leaf, Inc., Oak Harbor, Washington.

Contract Activity: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Oak Harbor, Washington.

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments of the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

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

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

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

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

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

Product/NSN: Nylon Duffel Bag, 8465-01-117-8699 (Surge requirements only above current contractor capacity, not to exceed 180,000 units).

NPA: Industrial Opportunities, Inc., Andrews, North Carolina.

Contract Activity: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Service Type/Location: Custodial Services, Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

NPA: Coastal Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc., Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Contract Activity: Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Service Type/Location: Mail and Messenger Service, Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.

NPA: The Burnley Workshop of the Poconos, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Contract Activity: Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.

The record keeping requirement is necessary for administration and enforcement of delegated authority under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq. ) and the Selective Service Act of 1948 (50 U.S.C. App. 468). Any person who receives a priority rated order under the implementing DPAS regulation (15 CFR 700) must retain records for at least 3 years.

Records retention.

OMB Number: 0694-0053.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Regular Submission.

Affected Public: Businesses and other for-profit institutions, small businesses or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 700,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 to 31.5 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 14,477 hours.

Estimated Total Record Keeping Costs: $10,150.00.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: No start-up costs or capital expenditures.

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 will also become a matter of public record.

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with September anniversary dates.

In accordance with sections 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than September 30, 2004.

None.

None.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

On April 7, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on automotive replacement glass windshields (“ARG”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 16761 (April 7, 2003). On April 15, 2003, Dongguan Kongwan Automobile Glass Limited and Peaceful City Limited, requested an administrative review of their sales to the United States during the period of review (“POR”). On April 21, 2003, an importer, Pilkington North America requested an administrative review of the sales of Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Company Limited, Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Company Limited, Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Autoglass Company Limited, and Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass Company Limited to the United States during the POR. On April 22, 2003, TCG International Inc. (“TCGI”), requested an administrative review of its sales to the United States during the POR. On April 30, 2003, Xinyi Automotive Glass (Shenzhen) Company, Limited (“Xinyi”), Shenzhen CSG Automotive Glass Company, Limited (reported to be the former company Shenzhen Benxun Auto Glass Company, Limited) (“Benxun”), and Fuyao Glass Industry Group Company, Limited requested an administrative review of their sales to the United States during the POR. On May 21, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of the initiation of the antidumping duty administrative review of ARG from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003). On September 8, 2003, the Department published a notice in the Federal Register rescinding the administrative reviews of TCGI, Xinyi, and Benxun. 1 See Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 52893 (September 8, 2003). The preliminary results of review are currently due no later than December 31, 2003.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 245-day period to issue its preliminary results by up to 120 days. Completion of the preliminary results of this review within the 245-day period is not practicable for the following reasons: (1) The review involves several complicated issues which require the Department to gather and analyze a significant amount of information pertaining to each company's sales practices, factors of production, and corporate relationships; and (2) responses from the participating companies required the Department to issue multiple supplemental questionnaires which delayed the planned verification schedules and, therefore, will not allow sufficient time to complete the preliminary results by the scheduled deadline of December 31, 2003.

Because it is not practicable to complete this review within the time specified under the Act, we are extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of review by 60 days until February 29, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results continue to be due 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results.

On October 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register its notice of final determination that sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands were being sold at less than fair value (LTFV) in the United States, and on November 2, 2001 the Department published an amended final determination regarding the sale of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands at LTFV in the United States. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands , 66 FR 50408 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended , Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands , 66 FR 55637 (November 2, 2001) (collectively, Final Determination ). On November 15, 2001, the International Trade Commission (the Commission) published its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Hot Rolled Steel Products From China, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, The Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine , 66 FR 57482 (November 15, 2001). On November 29, 2001, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From The Netherlands , 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001).

Subsequent to the publication of the Department's antidumping duty order, the petitioners (National Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation) and the respondent (Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc. (collectively, Corus)) challenged certain aspects of the Department's Final Determination before the Court. In addition, the Department requested a voluntary remand with respect to the inadvertent omission of the proper language from the antidumping duty order to cease collection of provisional measures six months after the publication of the preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act. Corus also raised this issue, but argued the Department had interpreted the six month provisional measures period as constituting 180 days, as opposed to six calendar months. This issue arose due to the following chain of events: In the underlying investigation, the Department published its preliminary determination on May 3, 2001. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands , 66 FR 22146 (May 3, 2001). Following publication of the preliminary determination, Corus requested that the Department extend the deadline for the final determination, and in making this request, agreed to an extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. However, the Department inadvertently excluded language from the antidumping duty order indicating it would lift suspension of liquidation ( i.e. , cease collection of provisional measures) six months after the date of the preliminary determination, consistent with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act.

On March 7, 2003, the Court issued a remand order to the Department to revise its antidumping duty order to preclude collection of provisional measures beyond the six month period, and to also explain its practice of interpreting the provisional measures time period, i.e. , in calendar months or the equivalent in six 30-day periods. See Corus Staal BV et al. v. United States I , Consol. Ct. No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-25 (March 7, 2003). The Department released its “Draft Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand” (Draft Results) on March 20, 2003, noting that in cases subsequent to the final determination in the underlying investigation, the Department has followed the practice of interpreting six months to mean 180 days. See , e.g. , Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Antidumping Investigation of Low Enriched Uranium From France , 67 FR 6680 (February 13, 2002) and Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine , 67 FR 65945, 65947 (October 29, 2002). Because 180 days from the publication of the preliminary determination was October 30, 2001, the Department stated in its Draft Results that provisional measures should not have been collected after October 29, 2001 and therefore it would amend its instructions to Customs to lift suspension of liquidation on October 30, 2001. The Department also clarified in its Draft Results that the appropriate date to resume collection of definitive duties, pursuant to section 737 of the Tariff Act, was the date when the Commission publishes a final injury determination, which in this case was November 15, 2001. Therefore, the Department proposed instructing Customs to resume collection of cash deposits effective November 15, 2001. In response to the Department's Draft Results, Corus submitted comments on March 31, 2003, stating that while it agreed with the Department on the date of termination of suspension of liquidation, it disagreed with the Department on the date on which the collection of definitive duties was to resume. Instead, Corus argued, the collection of cash deposits should resume on the date of publication of the antidumping duty order, i.e. , November 29, 2001.

On April 7, 2003, the Department filed with the Court its Final Results of Redetermination, stating that upon approval by the Court it would issue an amended antidumping duty order and instructions to Customs including language lifting suspension of liquidation “180 days from the publication of the preliminary determination until publication of the Commission's final affirmative determination.” On August 12, 2003, the Court sustained the portion of the Department's Final Results of Redetermination which stated that provisional measures should not have been collected more than 180 days after the preliminary determination. However, the Court ruled that the issue of the end date of the provisional measures time period could not be raised on remand. Thus, the Court ordered the Department to amend its remand determination to declare the date of publication of the antidumping duty order ( i.e. , November 29, 2001) to be the end date for the termination of suspension of liquidation in this case. See Corus Staal BV et al. v. United States II , Consol. Ct. No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-101 (August 12, 2003). Pursuant to the Court's order in Corus Staal BV v. United States II , on September 2, 2003 the Department filed a revised final results of redetermination stating that consistent with the Court's order, the end date for the termination of suspension of liquidation in this case was November 29, 2001. The Department also indicated that upon issuance of a final and conclusive decision by the Court, it would publish an amended antidumping duty order and issue instructions to Customs to resume the collection of cash deposits effective November 29, 2001. See “Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Second Court Remand: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands,” Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-101 (CIT 2003). On September 29, 2003, the Court affirmed the Department's amended remand redetermination and entered a final judgment order with regards to the Final Determination . See Corus Staal BV et al. v. United States III , Consol. Court No. 02-00003, Slip Op. 03-127 (CIT September 29, 2003). As there is now a final court decision with respect to this litigation, we are publishing this notice of final court decision affirming our remand redetermination.

In Timken , the Federal Circuit held that the Department must publish notice of a decision made by the Court or the Federal Circuit which is not “in harmony” with the Department's final determination or final results. The Federal Circuit 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 for all subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption between October 30, 2001 and November 28, 2001, inclusive, pending the expiration of the period of appeal for Corus Staal BV v. United States III , or, if that decision is appealed, pending a final decision by the Federal Circuit. Upon expiration of the period of appeal or completion of any future litigation in this matter, the Department will issue instructions to Customs to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise made between October 30, 2001 and November 28, 2001, inclusive, without regard to antidumping duties ( i.e. , release all bonds and refund all cash deposits). The Department will also instruct Customs to resume collection, effective November 29, 2001, of a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins published in the Final Determination.

On December 6, 1973, the Treasury Department published in the Federal Register (38 FR 33593) the antidumping finding on PR from Japan. On June 17, 2003, SDEL and SDK submitted a letter stating that they are the successor-in-interest to SDEM and DDE Japan, and, as such, entitled to receive the same antidumping treatment as these companies have been accorded. On July 18, 2003, at the request of the Department, SDEL and SDK submitted additional information and documentation pertaining its change circumstances request.

Imports covered by this review are shipments of PR, an oil resistant synthetic rubber also known as polymerized chlorobutadiene or neoprene, currently classifiable under items 4002.42.00, 4002.49.00, 4003.00.00, 4462.15.21 and 4462.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

In submissions to the Department dated June 17 and July 18, 2003, SDEL and SDK advised the Department that on November 1, 2002, the joint venture of SDEM and DDE Japan was restructured. Prior to the current restructure, SDEM and DDE Japan were co-owned by Dupont Dow Elastomers L.L.C. (Dupont Dow) and SDK. See Notice of Final Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan , 67 FR 58 (January 2, 2002). In the original joint venture, SDEM was the manufacturing arm of joint venture producing PR while DDE Japan was the marketing arm of the joint venture. As part of the current restructuring, DuPont Dow transferred its interest in SDEM to SDK. SDK , in turn, transferred its interest in DDE Japan to DuPont Dow. As a result of these interest transfers, SDK became the sole owner of SDEM and DuPont Dow became the sole owner of DDE Japan. On the same date, SDEM was renamed SDEL while maintaining the original production facility. The marketing end of SDEL's business was assumed by SDK.

In making a successor-in-interest determination, the Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, changes in: (1) management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base. See Brass Sheet and Strip from Canada: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review , 57 FR 20460, 20462 (May 13, 1992) ( Canadian Brass ). While no one or several of these factors will necessarily provide a dispositive indication, the Department will generally consider the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See, e.g., Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review , 59 FR 6944, 6945 (February 14, 1994) and Canadian Brass , 57 FR 20460. Therefore, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the production and sale of the subject merchandise, the new company essentially operates as the same business entity as the former company, the Department will assign the new company the cash deposit rate of its predecessor.

Our review of the evidence provided by SDEL and SDK indicates, preliminarily, that the change in ownership has not significantly changed the companies' personnel, operations, supplier/customer relationship, or production facilities. The new corporate entity of SDEL and SDK provided a certified copy of the official corporate registry showing SDEL as a successor to SDEM as of November 1, 2002, the effective date of the restructuring, as well as documents showing that since the name change, SDEL continued its production of PR in the same manner using the same suppliers and facilities as it did under its previous name of SDEM. Additionally, the corporate registry indicates that the majority of SDEM's management was retained by the new corporate entity SDEL.

Furthermore, SDK provided certified statements from its general manager that certain activities undertaken by DDE Japan prior to November 1, 2002, ( i.e. , sales and marketing, technical services, order receiving and freight forwarding of PR) have since been performed by SDK. SDK also certified that it rehired key marketing personnel from DDE Japan. Finally, SDK provided a copy of Stock Purchase Agreement for DDE Japan and a copy of Offers of Employment for DDE Japan's key marketing employees as evidence that the marketing functions, performed originally by DDE Japan, have been assumed by SDK.

In sum, SDEL and SDK have presented evidence to establish a prima facie case of their successorship status. The restructuring has precipitated minimal changes to the original structure of the SDEM and DDE Japan joint venture. The management, production facilities, supplier relationships, sales facilities and customer base are essentially unchanged from those of SDEM and DDE Japan. Therefore, the record evidence demonstrates that the new entity essentially operates in the same manner as the predecessor companies of SDEM and DDE Japan. As SDEL manufactures PR and SDK sells/distributes PR produced by SDEL for the newly restructured entity, we preliminarily determine that SDEL and SDK should be given the same antidumping duty treatment as SDEM and DDE Japan, i.e. , zero percent antidumping duty cash deposit rate.

The cash deposit determination from this changed circumstances review will apply to all entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this changed circumstances review. See Granular Polytetrafluoroethylene Resin from Italy; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review , 68 FR 25327 (May 12, 2003). This deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review in which SDK and SDEL participate.

Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. 19 CFR 351.310 (c)(2003). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication of this notice, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii)(2003). Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2003). Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.

Consistent with section 351.216(e) of the Department's regulations, we will issue the final results of this changed circumstances review no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated.

This notice is in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.221(c)(3)(i)(2003) of the Department's regulations.

This notice is relevant to the Oregon Coast coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit.

The ODFW has submitted to NMFS a FMEP for a recreational fishery in Siltcoos and Tahkenitch Lakes, located along the Oregon Coast. As specified in the July 10, 2000, Endangered Species Act 4(d) rule for salmon and steelhead (65 FR 42422), NMFS may approve an FMEP if it meets criteria set forth in § 223.203 (b)(4)(i)(A) through (I). Prior to final approval of an FMEP, NMFS must publish notification announcing its availability for public review and comment. The notice of availability of this FMEP was published on August 29, 2003 (68 FR 51995). The comment period closed on September 29, 2003.

NEPA requires Federal agencies to conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may affect the human environment. The proposed action is to approve the FMEP submitted by the ODFW. The proposed coho salmon fishery would occur in Siltcoos and Tahkenitch Lakes in years when returns are high and expected to exceed specified spawning escapement guidelines. In the draft EA currently available for public comment, NMFS considered the effects of this action on the physical, biological, and socioeconomic environments. NMFS is seeking public input on the scope of the required NEPA analysis, including the range of reasonable alternatives and associated impacts of any alternatives.

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

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

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Under section 3(18)(A), the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

The term “Level A harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(i). The term “Level B harassment” means harassment described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.

On June 16, 2003, NMFS received an application from SIO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey program in international waters of the ETP and in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of several coastal states (Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, Ecuador, and Peru), from which permission to conduct this type of scientific research has been requested. SIO's R/V Roger Revelle is scheduled to undertake a multidisciplinary research cruise, including some seismic reflection profiling and echo-sounding studies, in the ETP from September 2003 to February 2004, primarily 100-400 nautical miles (nm) (185 - 741 km) west of northern Peru and 200-1000 nm (370 - 1852 km) west of the Galapagos Islands. None of these operations would be in U.S. territorial waters or in the U.S. EEZ. A low-energy seismic reflection profiler with a small airgun sound source will be used on 3 of the 8 legs of the cruise. The purpose of this survey is to study the shape and structure of the sediment-buried oceanic crust in this part of the ETP.

SIO's seismic surveys will involve one vessel, the R/V Roger Revelle (under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Navy, owner of the vessel). The Roger Revelle will deploy two airguns as an energy source, plus a single short (300 m or 984 ft) towed streamer of hydrophones to receive the returning acoustic signals, that can be retrieved and deployed in less than 20 minutes.

The bubble-generating chambers of the two small General-Injector (GI) airguns have a combined volume of 90 cubic inches (1475 cubic centimeters (cc)), contrasting with 3000-9000 cubic inches (49,161-147,484 cc) of the large gun arrays typical of academic and commercial seismic surveys. The primary seismic pulse is produced by a 45-in 3 (737 cc) generator chamber, while compressed air from a 105-in 3 (1721 cc) injector chamber is used to maintain the shape of the bubble and reduce its sound-making oscillation. The pair of simultaneously fired airguns would have a peak-to-peak (p-p) amplitude of 236 dB re 1 microPa. In addition, a hull-mounted mid-frequency multibeam echo-sounder sonar for seafloor mapping will be routinely operated whenever the Revelle is underway. The Kongsberg-Simard EM-120 sonar images the seafloor over a 120-140 degree-wide swath (about 10-20 km, or 5-10 nm wide), using very short (15 msec) transmit pulses with a 10-20 second repetition rate and a 11.25-12.60 kHz frequency sweep. Source level in deep water is 240 dB root-mean-squared (rms), but the brevity, directivity, and narrow beam-width (1 degree fore-and-aft) of the transmit pulses make it unlikely that operation of this depth sonar will affect marine mammals.

None of the 3 research legs for which an IHA is requested will be a dedicated seismic reflection survey of the sort typically conducted by a specialized seismic vessel. The seismic reflection profiler will be used as just one tool in integrated marine geology and geophysical studies that also employ bathymetric echo-sounders, passive geophysical sensors (such as a gravimeter and magnetometer), and geologic sampling tools (like rock dredges and cores). Typical operating procedure during these three legs of the cruise will be to conduct seismic profiling, at a ship speed of 9-11 knots for periods of 8-12 hours, interspersed with episodes of geologic sampling and periods of faster steaming with no profiling system deployed. In a few instances (1-3 per leg), longer profiles will need to be collected, requiring up to 36 hours of continuous airgun operation. The objective is not to image deep crustal structureor the stratigraphy of thick sedimentary units (the typical goals of seismic surveys); instead the purpose is to measure the varying thickness of the 100-400 m-thick (328-1312 ft) cover of pelagic sediment that buries and obscures the igneous oceanic crust in the study areas, because establishing the relief of the buried crust is essential for interpreting the bathymetric, magnetic and gravity data. For this limited objective, the large powerful sound sources and hydrophone streamers several kilometers long that typify dedicated seismic surveys are not required. Nor will any broad ocean volume be ensonified by profiling on closely-spaced seismic lines.

Leg 1 of the cruise, from San Diego to Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica, is planned for September 27 - October 9, 2003. This will be primarily a staging and instrument testing and calibration leg, but with 2 days of seismic reflection profiling and rock-dredging 40-80 nm (74-148 km) off the coast of Costa Rica. In addition to the approximately 24 hours of seismic profiling, SIO also plans to test and calibrate new components of the system, and train shipboard technicians in their use, with 2 or 3 12-18 hour test runs along parts of the transit track. Because these test profiles may obtain scientifically useful data, specific sites that are of interest to Mexican researchers have been targeted, in partial fulfillment of SIO's foreign-clearance obligation to collect data of value to coastal states.

Leg 2, from Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica, to Manta, Ecuador, is planned for October 10 - November 6, 2003. The plan for this leg is to (i) conduct a 2-day seismic reflection plus rock dredging survey of Cobia Ridge, south of Panama, (ii) collect a north-south seismic reflection plus magnetics profile across the eastern Panama Basin, and (iii) conduct a 14-day seismic reflection plus bathymetry plus rock dredging survey off northern Peru. A total of 200-250 hours of seismic reflection profiling is anticipated for this leg of the cruise.

Leg 5, from Callao, Peru, to Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica, is planned to take place from December 28, 2003 - February 23, 2004. Primary survey tools will be a multibeam echo-sounder and a new magnetometer system. Seismic reflection profiling will have a subsidiary role, imaging the relief of the igneous crust in the approximately 20 percent of the survey area that has a significant cover of structure-obscuring sediment. A total of 150-200 hours of profiling is anticipated for this leg of the cruise. All three legs will use the same bathymetric sonar and seismic profiling system, described above.

All planned geophysical data acquisition activities are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and will be conducted by SIO scientists, with a specific Principal Investigator aboard the vessel. Additional information on the airgun array and bathymetric multibeam sonar is contained in the application, which is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

A notice of receipt of the Scripps' application and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2003 (68 FR 51240). During the 30-day public comment period, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

Comment 1: The Marine Mammal Commission (the Commission) believes that NMFS' preliminary determinations are reasonable, provided NMFS is satisfied that the proposed mitigation and monitoring activities are adequate to detect marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed operations and ensure that marine mammals are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers. In this regard, NMFS' Federal Register notice states that “[b]ecause of the ineffectiveness of mammal observers during darkness (even though the vessel is equipped with night-vision binoculars), seismic reflection profiling will be concentrated during daylight hours [but that on] 1-3 occasions....limited night profiling is needed to allow completion of the marine geophysical research.” However, it remains unclear that, for nighttime activities, the monitoring effort will be sufficient to determine that no marine mammals are within or about to enter the safety zone.

Response: Because the SIO's scientific research cruise is multi-disciplinary, and because the seismic research is fairly short-term, SIO does not propose to use the 2-GI airgun array during nighttime. If a seismic trackline has not been completed, that work will continue provided observers are able to see the entire safety zone. However, because the size of the airgun array to be used is small, and because the safety zones are relatively small, it is unlikely that mammals will be within the appropriate safety zones whenever the airguns are on, either in daylight or nighttime.

Comment 2: The NMFS' Federal Register notice states that “[o]perations would not resume until the animal is observed outside the safety radius or until a minimum of 15 minutes has elapsed since the last sighting.” The Commission notes, however, that beaked and sperm whales can dive for much longer than 15 minutes and, thus, could be directly below the sound source when it is reactivated.

Response: The NMFS concurs with the Commission on this point. SIO will not proceed with powering up the 2 GI-airgun array unless the entire safety radius is visible and no marine mammals are detected within the appropriate safety zones; or until 15 minutes (for small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for mysticetes/large odontocetes) after there has been no further visual detection of the mammal(s) within the safety zone and the trained marine mammal observer on duty is confident that no marine mammals or sea turtles remain within the appropriate safety zone. As added mitigation, SIO will follow standard ramp-up procedures (see Mitigation below). Also, while some whale species may dive for up to 45 minutes, it is unlikely that the ship's bridge personel (who are always on watch) would miss a large whale surfacing from its previous dive if it is within a mile or two of the vessel.

Comment 3: The Commission notes that it is unclear whether vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring will be conducted as an adjunct to visual monitoring during daytime and particularly during nighttime operations to detect, locate, and identify marine mammals, and, if not, why not.

Response: Passive acoustical monitoring equipment similar to that onboard the R/V Maurice Ewing during the 2003 Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS), is not the property of SIO or the Revelle , and therefore is not available for the ETP cruise. In addition, the expense and logistics involved in operating passive acoustical monitoring as a mitigation measure (requiring triangulation on the vocalization), the fact that the zone where Level A harassment could occur is small (738 ft, 225 m), and no nighttime acoustics are planned during this cruise, indicate that use of passive acoustical monitoring is neither warranted nor practical. The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) is presently evaluating the scientific results of the passive sonar from the SWSS trip to determine whether it is practical to incorporate it into future seismic research cruises using large airgun arrays. NMFS expects a report on this analysis shortly.

Comment 4: With respect to pinnipeds, the CBD states that NMFS neglects to state the number that the SIO project will take. Instead, the proposed authorization notes that SIO “did not estimate numbers of pinnipeds potentially vulnerable to harassment due to insufficient data on distribution, abundance, and pinniped response,” and nonetheless concludes that the Revelle is unlikely to encounter significant numbers of pinnipeds (68 FR 51242). Practical considerations or unavailability of information is no excuse for failing to make the required MMPA findings. The proper course of action in the absence of sufficient data to make the required MMPA findings and ensure compliance with the MMPA is to deny authorization of the project.

Response: The application contains references of known studies on pinniped abundances in the ETP. Insufficient data on distribution, abundance, and pinniped response makes it impossible to estimate an actual number of pinnipeds potentially vulnerable to harassment. However, based on data from these studies, general information exists on locations and seasons in which these pinniped species have been observed in the past. Because of these estimated species ranges and the near-shore nature of many species of pinnipeds, very few, if any, pinnipeds are expected to be encountered along the well-offshore seismic lines proposed by Scripps. Mitigation measures, the downwards directional nature of the low-volume airguns, the brevity of seismic profiling in certain habitats, and the fact that many pinnipeds have been shown to be highly tolerant of high levels of airgun noise, make it even less likely that any pinnipeds encountered will experience harassment.

Comment 5: With respect to cetaceans, the proposed authorization does not provide actual numbers taken, but rather states that the total estimated take by harassment will be less than 1 percent of most cetaceans (including the endangered sperm and blue whales), 1.8 percent of pygmy sperm whales, 6.2 percent of dwarf sperm whales, and 1.8 percent of the endangered humpback whales in the area (68 FR 51243). By dismissing the number of cetaceans affected by the proposed activity with this reasoning, NMFS has improperly conflated its two, distinct statutory obligations to only authorize take of (1) of small numbers; and (2) with no more than a negligible impact.

Response: The SIO application, available by request (see ADDRESSES ), contains both numbers and percentages of estimated takes. Based on the analysis found in this document and in SIO's application, which NMFS believes is based on the best scientific information available, the notice of proposed authorization (68 FR 51240) used percentages to show that even in cases where the absolute numbers may not seem “small”, they are small relative to the size of the affected species or stocks. As the SIO application indicates, the absolute numbers of takes by species ranges from 1 animal to 21,450.

Comment 6: While the proposed authorization does outline several monitoring, mitigation, and reporting measures, these measures do not insure the “least practicable adverse impact” as required by the MMPA. In addition, NMFS provides no explanation for why seismic profiling cannot be limited to daylight hours when observers are on surveillance duty and marine mammals are far more detectable. Furthermore, under the proposed authorization's shut-down procedures, it is unclear why NMFS only addressed measures necessary to avoid Level A and not Level B harassment when both are prohibited by the MMPA. Also, NMFS failed to mention or require any exclusion zones to avoid seismic operations in coastal areas and key habitat for feeding, mating, breeding and migration.

Response: NMFS is requiring SIO to incorporate the mitigation measures that are standard for significantly larger seismic arrays. SIO may need to continue its operations into night-time hours. Limiting activities to daylight hours only would require the Roger Revelle to return to the site during daylight, approach the area for which data is lacking, and begin seismic activities once again. Since this area could not be located exactly, additional seismic operations would need to be conducted. This would result in additional noise in the environment and is not cost-effective (ship operations are approximately $35,000/day). Therefore, the IHA authorizes Scripps to continue seismic into night-time hours. However, if the array is shut-down at night, seismic operations may not begin again until daylight allows the safety zone to be observed for the time period noted in this document.

For similar reasons, shutting down seismic operations to protect marine mammals from Level B disturbance, if protracted, would also require the Roger Revelle to return to the site again to re-shoot the seismic lines. It should be understood that ramp-up and the ship's forward speed both allow marine mammals to be exposed to sounds at low levels and thereby move out of the area of annoyance, further limiting Level B harassment. For those reasons, NMFS prefers to limit the amount of noise projected into the water and believes that this suggested mitigation measures are not practicable.

Comment 7: The CBD believes that NMFS determining that a Categorical Exclusion is not appropriate for this action and that use of another Environmental Assessment (EA) for this action is not sufficient.

Response: NMFS followed NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6 before making a determination that this action qualifies for a Categorical Exclusion. As noted in the proposed authorization notice and this document, an Environmental Assessment (EA) on a similar (i.e., oceanographic research) seismic survey action for this area of the Pacific Ocean was prepared and released to the public on July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41314) for a 30-day public comment period. The seismic airgun

array used in that survey and addressed in the EA was for an array of up to 12-airguns with a total volume of 3,721 in 3 . No comments were received during that period on the subject EA, and NMFS' analysis of that action resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)(see 68 FR 41314, July 11, 2003). One of the alternatives addressed in that EA was for alternative seasons of the year, which would include the time of the subject SIO survey. In addition, the acoustic survey described in this document by SIO will use acoustic instruments that are significantly less intense (total volume of 90 in3) and will therefore have a significantly lower impact on the marine environment than acoustic sources used by the R/V Maurice Ewing addressed in the EA. Furthermore, under NAO 216-6, this is an action of limited size or magnitude. Therefore, based on that EA, and a review of the information contained in the IHA application from Scripps, NMFS determined that this action will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. Accordingly, the action is categorically excluded from the need to prepare another EA or environmental impact statement. A copy of the categorical exclusion documentation has been sent to the CBD as requested.

Comment 8: Direct impacts of SIO's project on the environment include but are not limited to its effects on marine mammals, fish species, and other sea creatures, such as the giant squid, an important food source for sperm whales that has recently suffered injury linked to acoustic testing. NMFS has failed to assess the cumulative impacts of SIO's project in conjunction with other actions on the environment. A proper cumulative impacts analysis in this case should include past, present, and reasonably forseeable seismic and other actions in the area.

Response: The EA relied upon here describes impacts, both individual and cumulative on marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine life. Scientific information providing a link between low frequency seismic research and squid is limited (see McCauley et al. , 2000). A recent news-wire article noting the possible linkage between Spanish naval exercises and a stranding of several large squid does not establish a causal link until (or if) necropsies can be conducted on those animals.

For the proposed seismic operations in the ETP, SIO will use 2-GI guns with a total volume of 90 in3 (1475 cc). These airguns will be spread out horizontally, so that the energy from the array will be directed mostly downward. The following mitigation measures, as well as marine mammal monitoring, will be adopted during the proposed ETP seismic survey program.

SIO has adopted conservative methods in defining safety zone calculations using (i) a 9-dB difference between peak-to-peak (p-p) and rms, and (ii) spherical spreading of the sound, even though it is clear that at the low acoustic frequencies which dominate SIO's airgun output, the generated sound pulses have considerable directivity, favoring downward propagation over horizontal propagation. This is because in the near-horizontal direction the direct gun pulse is closely followed by the opposite-phased bounce off the sea surface, if the source is within an acoustic wavelength of the surface. This effect can reduce the effective near-horizontal output by as much as 10 dB. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level.

The pair of simultaneously fired airguns would have a p-p amplitude of 236 dB re 1 μPa. Converting to rms using the 9 dB difference between p-p and rms for a sine wave yields an output level of 227 dB rms. Therefore, SIO's modeled results for the 2-gun array indicate that, assuming spherical spreading, the paired guns would produce sound levels of 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms) at a range of about 225 m (738 ft); i.e., the radius around the 2-gun array where the received level would be 180 dB re 1 μPa (rms), is estimated to be 225 m (738 ft). The effect of using a conservative calculation, which yields this safety zone for 180 dB rms sound, is to build a safety factor into the airgun shut-down radius; this is desirable because mammals may not be observed while submerged, and might move towards the acoustic sources during dives.

SIO proposes to shut down seismic sources whenever marine mammals are observed close enough to the vessel that they are at risk of exposure to sound levels greater than 180 dB (rms), where there is a possibility of Level A harassment. Airgun operations will be suspended immediately when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, this designated safety zone.

SIO will not proceed with powering up the seismic airgun array unless the safety zone is visible and no marine mammals are detected within the appropriate safety zones or until 15 minutes (for small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes (for mysticetes/large odontocetes) after there has been no further visual detection of the mammal(s) within the safety zone and the trained marine mammal observer on duty is confident that no marine mammals or sea turtles remain within the appropriate safety zone. Once the safety zone is clear of marine mammals, the observer will advise that seismic surveys can re-commence.

A standard “ramp-up” (soft start) procedure will be followed when the airgun array begins operating after a period without any airgun operations as specified in this paragraph. From shut-down, ramp-up will commence such that the source level of the array will increase in steps not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5-minute period. Prior to ramp-up, SIO will conduct a 30-minute period of observation by at least one trained marine mammal observer at the commencement of seismic operations and at any time electrical power to the airgun array is discontinued for a period of 1 hour or more. SIO will not commence with ramping-up of the airguns unless the complete safety radii are visible for at least 30 minutes prior in either daylight or nighttime. SIO will not initiate seismic profiling during darkness.

If a marine mammal is detected at any range beyond the 225 m (738 ft) safety radius but, based on its position and the relative motion, appears to be on a converging course with the ship while profiling is underway, the vessel will be maneuvered in an attempt to maintain a range greater than the shut-down radius. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach within the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e., either further course alterations or shutdown of the airguns.

Because of the relative ineffectiveness of mammal observers during darkness (even though the vessel is equipped with night-vision binoculars), seismic reflection profiling will be concentrated during daylight hours.

Effective implementation of these procedures requires surveillance by appropriately equipped skilled observers, who will monitor for marine mammals in the vicinity of the array. Each leg of the cruise will be staffed with two observers who have previously worked for the Southwest Fisheries Science Center of NMFS, and who are recommended by the Center. These observers will share surveillance duties during daylight hours, and be responsible for computer entry of their observations while off watch. They will be equipped with binoculars and have access to the 50X “big-eye” binoculars mounted on the Revelle's bridge. For estimating the range of marine mammals that are sighted, the observers will use the optical fixed-interval range-finder described by Heinemann (1981); this instrument relies on measuring the angle between the mammal and the visual horizon, by an observer at known height above sea-level. The observers will be in wireless communication with ship officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need for avoidance maneuvers or G.I. gun shut-down.

Monitoring of marine mammals by experienced observers will occur during all daylight hours of the 3 legs of the cruise on the Revelle , whether or not G.I. guns are in operation. Except in bad weather, when they will occupy the bridge, observers will be stationed outside, forward on the 03 upper deck at a height of 9 m (30 ft) above the waterline; this has proved to be an effective station for marine mammal surveillance during previous mammal and seabird monitoring exercises from the Revelle .

Observers will record their observations and range measurements on tape, for subsequent transcription into NMFS format. When a marine mammal or sea turtle sighting is made, the following information about the sighting will be recorded: (1) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, apparent reaction to seismic vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace; and (2) time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel (seismic activity or not), sea state, visibility, cloud cover, and sun glare. The data listed under (2) above will also be recorded at the start and end of each observation watch and during a watch, and whenever there is a change in one or more of the variables.

Results from the vessel-based observations of marine mammals and sea turtles will provide: (1) the basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shutdown); (2) information needed to estimate the number of animals potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS; (3) data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine mammals and sea turtles in the area where the seismic study is conducted; (4) information to compare the distance and distribution of animals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity; and (5) data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals and sea turtles seen at times with and without seismic activity.

SIO will submit a report to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the seismic profiling program (June 2004). The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to most all monitoring tasks. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, sound measurement data, marine mammal and sea turtle sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential “take” of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. The draft report will be considered the final report unless comments and suggestions are provided by NMFS within 60 days of its receipt of the draft report.

As described previously (see 68 FR 17909, April 14, 2003), animals subjected to sound levels >160 dB may experience disruption in their behavioral patterns and therefore might be taken by Level B harassment.

The estimates of takes by harassment are based on the number of marine mammals that might be found within the 160-dB isopleth radius and potentially disturbed by operations with the 2 GI-guns planned for the project. Based on summer/fall marine mammal density calculations by Ferguson and Barlow (2001), SIO used their average marine mammal densities from the ETP to compute a “best estimate” of the number of marine mammals that may be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB re 1μPa (rms) (NMFS' current criterion for onset of Level B harassment). The average densities were then converted to per-km abundances and multiplied (for the appropriate region) by the area that is planned to be ensonified at levels ≥160 dB re 1μPa (rms) during the proposed seismic survey program. Where abundance estimates for certain species (pacific white-sided dolphins, pygmy sperm whales, minke whales, and humpback whales) were not readily available for stocks found within the proposed survey areas, minimum population estimates were taken from individual Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online as mentioned previously.

SIO did not estimate numbers of pinnipeds potentially vulnerable to harassment due to insufficient data on distribution, seasonal abundance, and pinniped response. However, NMFS agrees with SIO's determination that it is unlikely to encounter significant numbers of any of the pinniped species that live, at least part of the year, in the area of the proposed activity.

Based on this method, Table 3 in the application gives the best estimates of numbers for each species of cetacean that might be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and thus potentially taken by Level B harassment, during seismic surveys in the proposed study areas of the ETP.

Eight species of delphinidae would account for 95 percent of the overall estimate for potential taking by harassment. Common dolphins are the most abundant delphinid in the proposed seismic survey areas, representing 71 percent of the total estimate for potential taking by harassment. Most of the remaining 5 percent of the overall estimate for potential taking by harassment consists of pilot whales, dwarf sperm whales, and five species of beaked whales.

Baleen whales have been seen to avoid operating airguns with avoidance radii that are quite variable, while some baleen whales show considerable tolerance of seismic pulses. Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to airgun pulses at distances beyond a few kilometers, even though the pulses remain well above ambient noise levels out to much longer distances. However, recent studies of humpback and especially bowhead whales in the arctic show that reactions, including avoidance, sometimes extend to greater distances than documented earlier, possibly even exceeding the distances at which boat-based observers can see whales. However, reactions at such long distances appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes, and even for bowheads may only apply during migration. Moreover, few mysticetes occur in the area where seismic surveys are proposed.

Odontocete reactions to seismic pulses, or at least those of dolphins, are expected to extend to lesser distances than those of mysticetes. Odontocete low-frequency hearing is less sensitive than that of mysticetes, and dolphins are often seen from seismic vessels, occasionally even at close distances. In fact, there are documented instances of dolphins approaching active seismic vessels. However, dolphins as well as some other types of odontocetes sometimes show avoidance responses and/or other changes in behavior when near operating seismic vessels.

For most species, including endangered sperm and blue whales, the total estimated “take by harassment” by species presented in Table 3 of the application (Scripps 2003) represents less than 1.0 percent of the eastern tropical Pacific population of any of these species. For the remaining three cetacean species, the total estimated “take by harassment” is 1.8 percent of the estimated pygmy sperm whale population in and adjacent to the study area, 6.2 percent of the dwarf sperm whale population, and 1.8 percent of endangered humpback whales. Although the absolute numbers of odontocetes that may be harassed by the proposed activities may be large, the population sizes of the main species are also large; therefore, the numbers potentially affected are small relative to the population sizes.

Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Based on the relatively low numbers of marine mammals that will be exposed at levels >160 dB and the expected impacts at these levels, NMFS has determined that this action will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of cetaceans.

Responses of pinnipeds to acoustic disturbance are variable, but usually quite limited. Early observations provided considerable evidence that pinnipeds are often quite tolerant of strong pulsed sounds. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds, and only slight (if any) changes in behavior. These studies show that pinnipeds frequently do not avoid the area within a few hundred meters of an operating airgun array. Even so, results from initial telemetry studies suggest that avoidance and other behavioral reactions may be stronger than has been evident from visual studies.

Very few, if any, pinnipeds are expected to be encountered during the proposed seismic survey by Scripps in the ETP.

If pinnipeds are encountered, the proposed seismic activities would have, at most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on individual seals or their populations. Effects are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. These effects would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of pinnipeds.

Based on the information contained in the SIO application, the EA referenced herein, and the August 26, 2003 (68 FR 51245) Federal Register notice and this document, NMFS has determined that conducting a seismic survey program in the ETP by the Revelle would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses. This activity will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by certain species of marine mammals. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of seismic survey activities, this behavioral change is expected to result in no more than a negligible impact on the affected species. While the number of potential incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required under the IHA. For these reasons therefore, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

NMFS has concluded consultation under section 7 of the ESA on NMFS' issuance of an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting an oceanographic seismic survey in the ETP by SIO. The consultation concluded with a biological opinion that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of marine species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the ETP; therefore, none will be affected. The Biological Opinion concluded that 1 fin whale may be harassed during the seismic surveys, and that Guadalupefur seals are not likely to be adversely affected by the proposed research activities. Therefore, NMFS has removed the Guadalupe fur seal from, and added the fin whale to, the proposed list of species authorized to be taken by Level B harassment under the IHA. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available upon request (see ADDRESSES ).

An Environmental Assessment (EA) on a similar action for this area of the Pacific Ocean was prepared and released to the public on July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41314). NMFS' analysis resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The SIO acoustic survey described in this document will use acoustic instruments that are significantly less intense and will therefore have a significantly lower impact on the marine environment than acoustic sources addressed in the EA. Therefore, based on that EA, and review of the information contained in the IHA application from Scripps, NMFS has made a finding that this action will not have a significant effect, individually or cumulatively, on the human environment. Further, this is an action of limited size or magnitude. Accordingly, under NAO 216-6, the action is categorically excluded from the need to prepare another environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. A copy of the relevant EA and FONSI is available (see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS has issued an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting a seismic survey by the Revelle in the ETP to Scripps for a 1-year period, provided the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this document and the IHA are incorporated.

The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Bulgaria and exported during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the 2004 limits.

These limits are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body. However, as the ATC and all restrictions thereunder will terminate on January 1, 2005, no adjustment for carryforward (borrowing from next year's limits for use in the current year) will be available.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003). Information regarding the availability of the 2004 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in the Czech Republic and exported during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the 2004 limits.

These limits are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body. However, as the ATC and all restrictions thereunder will terminate on January 1, 2005, no adjustment for carryforward (borrowing from next year's limits for use in the current year) will be available.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003). Information regarding the availability of the 2004 CORRELATION will be published in the Federal Register at a later date.

The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Thailand and exported during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the 2004 limits. Carryforward applied to the 2003 limits is being deducted from the 2004 limits.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and carryover.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003). Also see 67 FR 63898, published on October 16, 2002.

The final rule published on September 1, 1987 (52 FR 32992) set forth the basic procedures used under the CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system. This was subsequently amended by final rules published August 31, 1988 (53 FR 33461), October 21, 1988 (53 FR 41331), December 16, 1988 (53 FR 50515), May 30, 1990 (55 FR 21863), October 22, 1990 (55 FR 42560), and September 10, 1998 (63 FR 48439).

An explicit tenet of these final rules, and one based on the statute authorizing the use of DRGs by TRICARE, is that the TRICARE DRG-based payment system is modeled on the Medicare PPS, and that, whenever practical, the TRICARE system will follow the same rules that apply to the Medicare PPS. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes these changes annually in the Federal Register and discusses in detail the impact of the changes.

In addition, this notice updates the rates and weights in accordance with our previous final rules. The actual changes we are making, along with a description of their relationship to the Medicare PPS, are detailed below.

Following is a discussion of the changes CMS has made to the Medicare PPS that affect the TRICARE DRG-based payment system.

Under both the Medicare PPS and the TRICARE DRG-based payment system, cases are classified into the appropriate DRG by a Grouper program. The Grouper classifies each case into a DRG on the basis of the diagnosis and procedure codes and demographic information (that is, sex, age, and discharge status). The Grouper used for the TRICARE DRG-based payment system is the same as the current Medicare Grouper with two modifications. The TRICARE system has replaced Medicare DRG 435 with two age-based DRGs (00 and 901), and has implemented thirty-four (34) neonatal DRGs in place of Medicare DRGs 385 through 390. For admissions occurring on or after October 1, 2001, DRG 435 has been replaced by DRG 523. The TRICARE system has replaced DRG 523 with the two age-based DRGs (900 and 901). For admissions occurring on or after October 1, 1995, the CHAMPUS grouper hierarchy logic was changed so the age split (age <29 days) and assignments to MDS 15 occur before assignment of the PreMDC DRGs. This resulted in all neonate tracheostomies and organ transplants to be grouped to MDC 15 and not to DRGs 480-483 or 495. For admissions occurring on or after October 1, 1998, the CHAMPUS grouper hierarchy logic was changed to move DRG 103 to the PreMDC DRGs and to assign patients to PreMDC DRGs 480, 103 and 495 before assignment to MDC 15 DRGs and the neonatal DRGs. For admissions occurring on or after October 1, 2001, DRGs 512 and 513 were added to the PreMDC DRGs, between DRGs 480 and 103 in the TRICARE grouper hierarchy logic.

For FY 2004, SCMS will implement classification changes, including surgical hierarchy changes. The TRICARE Grouper will incorporate all changes made to the Medicare Grouper.

TRICARE will continue to use the same wage index amounts used for the Medicare PPS. In addition, TRICARE will duplicate all changes with regard to the wage index for specific hospitals that are redesignated by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board.

TRICARE will update the adjusted standardized amounts according to the final updated hospital market basket used for the Medicare PPS according to CMS's August 1, 2003, final rule.

Since TRICARE does not include capital payments in our DRG-based payments, we will use the fixed loss cost outlier threshold calculated by CMS for paying cost outliers in the absence of capital prospective payments. For FY 2004, the fixed loss cost outlier the absence of capital prospective payments. For FY 2004, the fixed loss cost outlier threshold is based on the sum of the applicable DRG-based payment rate plus any amounts payable for IDME plus a fixed dollar amount. Thus, for FY 2004, in order for a case to qualify for cost outlier payments, the costs must exceed the TRICARE DRG base payment rate (wage adjusted) for the DRG plus the IDME payment plus $28,365 (wage adjusted). The marginal cost factor for cost outliers continues to be 80 percent.

For FY 2004, the contractors shall price the blood clotting factors using the “J” code pricing file provided by TRICARE Management Activity. TRICARE uses the same ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes as CMS for add-on payment for blood clotting factors.

The FY 2004 TRICARE National Operating Standard Cost as a Share of Total Costs used in calculating the cost outlier threshold is 0.915.

For FY 2004 TRICARE is adopting CMS' expanded post acute care transfer policy according to CMS' final rule published August 1, 2003.

For FY 2004, the cost-to-charge ratio used for the TRICARE DRG-based payment system will be 0.4865, which is increased to 0.4935 to account for bad debts. This shall be used to calculate the adjusted standardized amounts and to calculate cost outlier payments, except for children's hospitals. For children's hospital cost outlier, the cost-to-charge ratio used is 0.5388.

The updated rates and weights are accessible through the Internet at www.tricare.osd.mil under the sequential heading TRICARE Provider Information, Rates and Reimbursements, and DRG Information. Table 1 provides the ASA rates and Table 2 provides the DRG weights to be used under the TRICARE DRG-based payment system during FY 2004 and which is a result of the changes described above. The implementing regulations for the TRICARE/CHAMPUS DRG-based payment system are in 32 CFR part 199.

The entire meeting is devoted to the discussion of classified information as defined in section 552b(c)(I), Title 5 of the U.S. Code, and therefore will be closed to the public. The Board will receive briefings and discuss several current critical intelligence issues in order to advise the Director, DIA.

Interested persons may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and make an oral presentation of such. Persons desiring to make an oral presentation or submit a written statement to the Committee must notify the point of contact listed above no later than noon, October 24, 2003. Oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted only on Monday, October 27, 2003, from 4:45 p.m. to 5 p.m. before the full Committee. Presentations will be limited to two minutes. Number of oral presentations to be made will depend on the number of requests received from members of the public. Each person desiring to make an oral presentation must provide the point of contact listed above with one (1) copy of the presentation by noon, October 24, 2003 and bring 35 copies of any material that is intended for distribution at the meeting. Persons submitting a written statement must submit one 35 copies of the statement to the DACOWITS staff by noon on October 24, 2003.

Fort Belvoir, comprising 8,419 acres (excluding the Engineer Proving Ground), is approximately 18 miles southwest of Washington, DC, and serves as a strategic sustaining base for America's Army. The post is home to one Army major command headquarters and elements of 10 others, 2 Direct Reporting Units, 19 agencies of the Department of Army, 8 elements of the U.S. Army Reserve and the Army National Guard, and numerous Department of Defense and other Federal agencies. Tenant organizations perform work vital to the success of the goals and objectives of the Nation's defense strategy. Fort Belvoir contributes to the Nation's defense by efficiently and effectively supporting the various Army and DoD elements in the performance of their missions.

A Real Property Master Plan is an installation's strategy for the orderly management and development of its real property assets, including land, facilities, resources, and infrastructure. The Real Property Master Plan forms the foundation for the development of an installation, provides the framework for analyzing resource allocations, and aids the management of peacetime and mobilization construction and development activities.

Army Regulation 210-20, Installation Master Planning, provides that an installation's Real Property Master Plan shall consist of four major components: Long-Range Component, Capital Investment Strategy, Short-Range Component, and Mobilization Mission Planning Component. Contributory plans support and accompany the four major components. The Long-Range Component provides the “big picture” and long-range real property management for an installation.

In 1993, Fort Belvoir prepared a comprehensive update to the Real Property Master Plan. Over the past decade, numerous developments have resulted in a need for Fort Belvoir to provide support to a growing number of Army and Department of Defense entities. Further expansion of Fort Belvoir's critical role in supporting the national defense is likely to occur.

Alternative potential development scenarios for EIS analysis are under development. Preference will be given to alternative development plan scenarios that afford operational efficiency, minimize environmental and community impacts, and provide flexibility to respond to changes in future installation mission requirements. The potential for alternatives to provide for sustainable, long-term use of resources will be central to their selection for evaluation in detail.

The Army solicits input in the scoping process to identify issues of concern, identify information sources bearing on evaluation of impacts, and to obtain public input on the range and reasonableness of alternatives.

The Army recognizes numerous resource areas and issues that will require consideration in the EIS. These include, but are not limited to: Air quality; surface water quality; cultural resources; transportation system; environmentally sensitive areas such as wildlife corridors, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife refuges, Chesapeake Bay Protection Areas; biological resources, to include, in particular, protected fauna and flora species; site topography and soils; socioeconomic conditions; land use; and community facilities and services. Additional resources and conditions may be identified as a result of the scoping process initiated by this Notice.

The general public, local governments, other Federal agencies, and state agencies are invited to submit written comments or suggestions concerning the scope of the analysis and issues and alternatives to be analyzed. The Army will host a scoping meeting to enable the submission of oral or written comments by interested parties. Comments, whether provided orally or in writing, will be considered in determining the scope of the EIS. The scoping meeting will be held near Fort Belvoir with the time and place of the scoping meeting being announced in local media not less than 15 days before the event.

In addition, the Army will provide direct notification of the time and location of the scoping meeting to individuals, community organizations, local government personnel, state agencies, Federally recognized Indian tribes, and other Federal agencies that so request it as a result of this Notice. Requests must be addressed to the individual and office shown in the ADDRESSES section above.

Pursuant to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a), the DMDC and VA have concluded an agreement to conduct a computer matching program between the agencies. The purpose of this agreement is to verify an individual's continuing eligibility for VA benefits by identifying VA disability benefit recipients who return to active duty and to ensure that benefits are terminated if appropriate.

The parties to this agreement have determined that a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining and processing the information needed by the VA to identify ineligible VA disability compensation recipients who have returned to active duty. This matching agreement will identify those veterans who have returned to active duty, but are still receiving disability compensation. If this identification is not accomplished by computer matching, but is done manually, the cost would be prohibitive and it is possible that not all individuals would be identified.

A copy of the computer matching agreement between VA and DMDC is available upon request to the public. Requests should be submitted to the address caption above or to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefit Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420.

Set forth below is the notice of the establishment of a computer matching program required by paragraph 6.c. of the Office of Management and Budget Guidelines on computer matching published in the Federal Register at 54 FR 25818 on June 19, 1989.

The matching agreement, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, and an advance copy of this notice was submitted on October 3, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records about Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (61 FR 6435).

Participants in this computer matching program are the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the Department of Defense (DoD). The VA is the source agency, i.e. , the activity disclosing the records for the purpose of the match. The DMDC is the specific recipient activity or matching agency, i.e. , the agency that actually performs the computer matching.

The purpose of this agreement is to verify an individual's continuing eligibility for VA benefits by identifying VA disability benefit recipients who return to active duty and to ensure that benefits are terminated if appropriate. VA will provide identifying information on disability compensation recipients to DMDC to match against a file of active duty (including full-time National Guard and Reserve) personnel. The purpose is to identify those recipients who have returned to active duty and are ineligible to receive VA compensation so that benefits can be adjusted or terminated, if in order.

The legal authority for conducting the matching program for use in the administration of VA's Compensation and Pension Benefits Program is contained in 38 U.S.C. 5304(c), Prohibition Against Duplication of Benefits, which precludes pension, compensation, or retirement pay on account of any person's own service, for any period for which he receives active duty pay. The head of any Federal department or agency shall provide, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5106, such information as requested by VA for the purpose of determining eligibility for, or amount of benefits, or verifying other information which respect thereto.

The systems of records maintained by the respective agencies under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, from which records will be disclosed for the purpose of this computer match are as follows:

VA will use the system of records identified as “VA Compensation, Pension and Education and Rehabilitation Records—VA (58 VA 21/22),” first published at 41 FR 9294, March 3, 1976, and last amended at 66 FR 47727 (09/13/2001), with other amendments, as cited therein. Attachment 4 is a copy of the system notice with the appropriate routine use, i.e. , RU 46, annotated.

DoD will use the system of records identified as S322.10 DMDC, entitled, “Defense Manpower Data Center Data Base,” last published at 67 FR 78781, December 26, 2002. Attachment 5 is a copy of the system notice with the appropriate routine use, i.e. , RU 1(d)(1), annotated.

The Veterans Benefits Administration will provide DMDC with an electronic file which contains specified data elements of individual VA disability compensation recipients. Upon receipt of the electronic file, DMDC will perform a computer match using all nine digits of the SSNs in the VA file against a DMDC computer database. The DMDC database consists of personnel records of active duty (including full-time National Guard and Reserve) military members. Matching records, “hits” based on the SSN, will produce the member's name, branch of service, and unit designation, and other pertinent data elements. The hits will be furnished to the Veterans Benefits Administration which is responsible for verifying and determining that the data on the DMDC electronic reply file are consistent with the source file and for resolving any discrepancies or inconsistencies on an individual basis. The Veterans Benefits Administration will also be responsible for making final determinations as to positive identification, eligibility for benefits, and verifying any other information with respect thereto.

The electronic file provided by VA will contain information on approximately 2.4 million disability compensation recipients.

The DMDC computer database file contains approximately 1.5 million records of active duty military members, including full-time National Guard and Reserve.

This computer matching program is subject to public comment and review by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. If the mandatory 30 day period for comment has expired and no comments are received and if no objections are raised by either Congress or the Office of Management and Budget within 40 days of being notified of the proposed match, the computer matching program becomes effective and the respective agencies may begin the exchange at a mutually agreeable time and thereafter on a quarterly basis. By agreement between VA and DMDC, the matching program will be in effect for 18 months with an option to renew for 12 additional months unless one of the parties to the agreement advises the other by written request to terminate or modify the agreement.

Director, Defense Privacy Office, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 920, Arlington, VA 22202-4502. Telephone (703) 607-2943.

The Defense Logistics Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address above.

The Defense Logistics Agency proposes to amend a system of records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The amendment is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

The existing hydroelectric power rate for the Robert D. Willis project is $353,700 per year. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved this rate on a final basis on October 22, 2001, for the period ending September 30, 2005. The FY 2003 Robert D. Willis Power Repayment Studies indicates the need for an increase in the annual rate by $99,952 or 28.1 percent beginning November 1, 2003.

The Administrator of Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) has followed Title 10, Part 903 Subpart A, of the Code of Federal Regulations, “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions” in connection with the proposed rate schedule. On June 24, 2003, Southwestern published notice in the Federal Register , 68 FR 37483, of a 60-day comment period, together with a Public Information Forum and a Public Comment Forum, to provide an opportunity for customers and other interested members of the public to review and comment on a proposed rate increase for the Robert D. Willis project. Both public forums were canceled when no one expressed an intention to participate. Written comments were accepted through August 25, 2003. The only comment received was from Gillis & Angley, Counsellors at Law, on behalf of Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency (SRMPA), which stated that SRMPA (the sole hydropower customer) had no objection to the proposed rate adjustment.

Information regarding this rate proposal, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, Suite 1400, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

Following review of Southwestern's proposal within the Department of Energy, I approved Rate Order No. SWPA-50, which increases the existing Robert D. Willis rate to $452,952 per year for the period November 1, 2003, through September 30, 2007.

In the matter of: Southwestern Power Administration, Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower Project; Rate Order No. SWPA-50.

Pursuant to Sections 302(a) and 301(b) of the Department of Energy Organization Act, Public Law 95-91, the functions of the Secretary of the Interior and the Federal Power Commission under Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, relating to the Southwestern Power Administration (Southwestern) were transferred to and vested in the Secretary of Energy. By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00 (December 6, 2001), the Secretary of Energy delegated to the Administrator of Southeastern the authority to develop power and transmission rates, and delegated to the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Energy the authority to confirm, approve, and place in effect such rates on an interim basis and delegated to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to confirm and approve on a final basis or to disapprove rates developed by the Administrator under the delegation. This rate order is issued by the Deputy Secretary pursuant to said delegation, and pursuant to Delegation Order No. 00-001-00A, effective September 17, 2002.

Dam B (Town Bluff Dam), located on the Neches River in eastern Texas downstream from the Sam Rayburn Dam, was originally constructed in 1951 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and provides streamflow regulation of releases from the Sam Rayburn Dam. The Lower Neches Valley Authority contributed funds toward construction of both projects and makes established annual payments for the right to withdraw up to 2000 cubic feet of water per second from Town Bluff Dam for its own use. Power was legislatively authorized at the project, but installation of hydroelectric facilities was deferred until justified by economic conditions. A determination of feasibility was made in a 1982 Corps study. In 1983, the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency (SRMPA) proposed to sponsor and finance the development at Town Bluff Dam in return for the output of the project to be delivered to its member municipalities and participating member cooperatives of the Sam Rayburn Dam Electric Cooperative. Since the hydroelectric facilities at the Town Bluff Dam have been completed, the facilities have been renamed the Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower Project (Robert D. Willis).

The Robert D. Willis rate is unique in that it excludes the costs associated with the hydropower design and construction performed by the Corps, because all funds for these costs were provided by SRMPA. Under the Southwestern/SRMPA power sales Contract No. DE-PM75-85SW00117, SRMPA will continue to pay all annual operating and marketing costs, as well as expected capital replacement costs, through the rate paid to Southwestern, and will receive all power and energy produced at the project for a period of 50 years.

The existing rate for the Robert D. Willis project was approved by FERC on October 22, 2001, for the period October 1, 2001, through September 30, 2005.

The 2003 current Robert D. Willis power repayment study (PRS) tests the adequacy of the existing rate, based on the latest cost evaluation period extending from FY 2003 through FY 2007, to cover annual expenses for marketing, operation and maintenance, and to amortize additions to plant and major replacements of the generating facilities. The current PRS for the Robert D. Willis project, using the existing annual rate of $353,700, indicates that the legal requirements to repay all costs will not be met without additional revenue. This shortfall is primarily a result of increased operations and maintenance expenses estimated by the Corps. The revised PRS shows that an additional $99,252 (28.1 percent) annually is needed to satisfy repayment criteria. Accordingly, Southwestern developed a rate schedule with a proposed annual rate of $452,952 that would satisfy repayment criteria.

Pursuant to Title 10, Part 903, Subpart A of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 903.21), “Procedures for Public Participation in Power and Transmission Rate Adjustments and Extensions,” 50 FR 37837, the Administrator, published notice in the Federal Register on June 24, 2003, 68 FR 37483, announcing a 60-day period for public review and comment concerning the proposed minor rate adjustment increase. Southwestern provided notice of the Federal Register , together with supporting data, to the customer and interested parties for review and comment during the formal period of public participation. In addition, prior to the formal 60-day public participation process, Southwestern met with the customer representative to discuss with them preliminary information on the proposed rate adjustment. Subsequent to discussions with the customer regarding the initial PRS findings, Southwestern again questioned the Corps regarding the large increase in the operations and maintenance expense estimates. This questioning led to the Corps revising their expense estimates downward, and thereby changing the preliminary results from the initial 35 percent rate increase as stated in the Federal Register to a 28.1 percent rate increase. As no requests were received to convene either of the public forums, neither was held. Only one formal comment was received during the public process. That comment, on behalf of the sole customer SRMPA, expressed no objection to the final proposed rate.

Upon conclusion of the comment period, Southwestern finalized the PRS and rate schedule for the proposed annual rate of $452,952 which is the lowest possible rate needed to satisfy repayment criteria. This rate represents an increase of 28.1 percent over the existing rate.

Information regarding this rate increase, including studies and other supporting material, is available for public review and comment in the offices of Southwestern Power Administration, One West Third Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-3519.

Southwestern received one written comment in which the customer representative expressed no objection to the proposed rate adjustment.

There were no other issues raised during the informal meeting or during the formal public participation period.

The FY 2003 revised Robert D. Willis PRS indicates that the annual power rate of $452,952 will repay all costs of the project, including amortization of additions to plant and major replacements of the generating facilities consistent with provisions of the Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. RA 6120.2. In accordance with Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, December 6, 2001, and Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Administrator has determined that the proposed Robert D. Willis power rate is consistent with applicable law and the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles.

The environmental impact of the rate increase proposal was evaluated in consideration of DOE's guidelines for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 10 CFR 1021, and was determined to fall within the class of actions that are categorically excluded from the requirements of preparing either an Environmental Impact Statement or an Environmental Assessment.

In view of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Secretary of Energy, I hereby confirm, approve and place in effect on an interim basis, for the period November 1, 2003, through September 30, 2007, the annual Robert D. Willis rate of $452,952 for the sale of power and energy from Robert D. Willis project to the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency, under Contract No. DE-PM75-85SW00117, as amended. This rate shall remain in effect on an interim basis through September 30, 2007, or until the FERC confirms and approves the rate on a final basis.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA. 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 identification (ID) number OPPT-2003-0004. 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 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 EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

Under Contract Number 68-W02-077, Abt Associates, of 55 Wheeler St, Cambridge, MA and 4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 400, Bethesda, MD; Eastern Research Group of 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA and Avion Lakeside Drive D, 14555 Avion Parkway, Chantilly, VA; and Syracuse Research Corporation, of SRC Arlington, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 405, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, will assist EPA in economic and regulatory impact analysis to support all aspects of EPA decision-making. These analyses will largely be of the costs, economic impacts, benefits, and regulatory impacts of actual or potential EPA actions taken under TSCA.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under Contract Number 68-W02-077, Abt, ERG, and SRC will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA, to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract.

Abt, ERG, and SRC personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA, that the Agency may provide Abt, ERG, and SRC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters and Abt's sites located at 55 Wheeler Street, Cambridge, MA and 4800 Montgomery Lane, Suite 400, Bethesda, MD; ERG's sites located at 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA and Avion Lakeside Drive D, 14555 Avion Parkway, Chantilly, VA; and SRC's site located at SRC Arlington, Crystal Gateway 3, Suite 405, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.

Abt, ERG, and SRC personnel will adhere to all provisions of EPA's TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual .

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under Contract Number 68-W02-077 may continue until September 30, 2007.

Abt, ERG, and SRC personnel were required to sign nondisclosure agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to TSCA CBI.

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 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. 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 DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2003-0338. 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/ .

EPA's position paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and consultants for this meeting) and the meeting agenda will be available as soon as possible, but no later than late November 2003. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

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 pulic 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.

Public commenters should 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 delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments in hard copy that are 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 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. 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-2003-0338. 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-2003-0338. 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 deliver as described 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 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-2003-0338. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

3. By mail . Due to potential delays in EPA's receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments either electronically or by hand delivery or courier. We cannot guarantee that comments sent via mail will be received prior to the close of the comment period. If mailed, please send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0338. For questions about delivery options, please contact the DFO 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. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

6. 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.

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2003-0338 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Oral comments . Oral comments presented at the meetings should not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written comments. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP is strongly advised to submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, eastern time, December 1, 2003, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. To the extent that time permits, interested persons may be permitted by the Chair of FIFRA SAP to present oral comments at the meeting. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

2. Written comments . Although submission of written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), the Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in Unit I., no later than noon, eastern time, November 24, 2003, to provide the FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. There is no limit on the extent of written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP. Persons wishing to submit written comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact the DFO at least 5 business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting . The FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicit the stakeholder community for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for each meeting. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for a specific meeting. No interested person shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except EPA). Individuals nominated should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: Toxicology, especially the data/criteria necessary to establish the PPAR-alpha agonist mode of action; the human relevance of the PPAR-alpha agonist mode of action; and interpretation of the PPAR-alpha agonist mode of action with respect to the sensitivity of the young. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before November 3, 2003.

The criteria for selecting scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP are that these persons be recognized scientists—experts in their fields; that they be as impartial and objective as possible; that they represent an array of backgrounds and perspectives (within their disciplines); have no financial conflict of interest; have not previously been involved with the scientific peer review of the issue(s) presented; and that they be available to participate fully in the review, which will be conducted over a relatively short-time frame. Nominees will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. Finally, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes.

If a FIFRA SAP nominee is considered to assist in a review by the FIFRA SAP for a particular session, the nominee is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the FIFRA SAP nominee is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at EPA (EPA Form 3110-48 [5-02]) which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the nominee's financial disclosure form to assess that there are no formal conflicts of interest before the nominee is considered to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Selected FIFRA SAP members will be hired as a Special Government Employee. The Agency will review all nominations. FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

Amendments to FIFRA enacted November 28, 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide regulations pursuant to section 6(b)(2) of FIFRA, as well as proposed and final forms of rulemaking pursuant to section 25(a) of FIFRA, be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The FIFRA SAP also shall make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Section 104 of FQPA (Public Law 104-170) established the FQPA Science Review Board (SRB). These scientists shall be available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.

The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review the proposed OPPTS science policy on evaluating PPAR-alpha agonist induced rodent liver tumors. Recent developments in the area of research on peroxisome proliferating chemicals have led to a reevaluation of the state of the science to characterize the mode(s) of action (i.e., PPAR-alpha-agonism) and human relevance of rodent tumors induced by peroxisome proliferating agents. To that end, ILSI Risk Science Institute (ILSI RSI) convened a workgroup in 2001 (ILSI document, in press) to evaluate new information on the association between PPAR-alpha agonism and the induction of tumors by peroxisome proliferating chemicals. The ILSI report provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between peroxisome proliferators and liver tumorigenesis, data on PPAR-alpha-null mice, data on the human PPAR-alpha, and epidemiological studies evaluating the impact of prolonged exposure to known PPAR-alpha agonists on human liver tumorigenesis. The ILSI report also provides an evaluation of the potential role of PPAR alpha agonism in the development of pancreatic and Leydig cell tumors. This report provided background information which was used by OPPTS to develop a proposed science policy regarding the data necessary to establish PPAR-alpha induction as the MOA for PPAR agonist-induced rodent liver tumors and the relevance of this MOA in humans including children. The Agency will request guidance from the panel on the scientific soundness of the proposed OPPTS science policy.

The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

During this meeting, the Subcommittee may also hear progress reports from some of its workgroups as well as updates and announcements on activities of general interest to attendees.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. 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-2003-0330. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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-2003-0330. 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-2003-0330. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0330.

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-2003-0330. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

The petitioner's summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408(d)(3). The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. The summary may have been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA's position and not the position of the petitioner. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

EPA has received a pesticide petition (OF6180) from PURAC America, Inc., 111 Barclay Blvd., Lincolnshire Corporate Center, Lincolnshire, IL 60069 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance exemption for n-propyl- S -lactate, also known as n-propyl- L -lactate, under 40 CFR 180.950, when used in accordance with good agricultural or manufacturing practice. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

1. Acute toxicity . No mortality in either male or female rats occurred during the 14-day observation period, setting the oral lethal dose (LD) 50 greater than 2,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) for n-propyl lactate. In the acute oral study, five rats per sex per group were used. The test substance was undiluted and given by gastric lavage at a dose of 2 milliliter/kilogram (mL/kg) body weight (bwt). Clinical observations, mortality, body weights, and gross pathological changes were recorded during a 14-day observation period. All animals gained weight. There were no gross pathological changes at the end of the study.

Lactate esters generally have an inhalation lethal concentration (LC) 50 above 5,000 milligrams/meters 3 (mg/m 3 ).

2. Genotoxicity . Ames testing of a similar lactate, ethyl- L -lactate did not show any activity.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity . No evidence of teratogenicity or maternal toxicity was observed in an inhalation study of a related lactate, 2-ethylhexyl- L -lactate or in a dermal study of ethyl- L -lactate.

4. Subchronic toxicity . Subacute inhalation studies have been conducted at concentrations up to 600 mg/m 3 or higher on four lactate esters (ethyl, n-butyl, isobutyl, and 2-ethylhexyl- L -lactate). Degenerative and regenerative changes in the nasal cavity were noted in all studies. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) in ethyl, n-butyl, and isobutyl- L -lactate vapor studies was 200 mg/m 3 . Lactates do not appear to cause systemic toxicity, except at very high concentration (1,800 mg/m 3 or higher). These systemic effects may be secondary to severe irritation seen at high doses.

5. Animal metabolism . The in vitro hydrolysis of lactate esters (methyl, ethyl, butyl, pentyl, isoamyl, isopropyl, isobutyl, 2-ethylhexyl) in rat olfactory epithelium homogenate has been evaluated. In general, of the eight lactates evaluated, the rat nasal epithelium showed increased capacity to hydrolyze the lactates and increased affinity with increasing molecular weight (increase in alcohol chain length). Based on the similarity of effects and kinetic parameters, it appears that lactic acid is most likely the cause of the lactate toxicity.

6. Metabolite toxicology . n-Propyl- L -lactate is rapidly hydrolyzed in the body and environment to lactic acid and n-propanol (both are listed as exempt from requirements for a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001). Lactic acid is a metabolic break down product of all lactates. It is a normal metabolite in humans and is found in or added to foods (21 CFR 172.515). Endogenous production of L (+) lactate in a resting human is 100-124 grams per day. Lactic acid oral LD 50 in rats is 3,730 mg/kg. It is not active in mutagenic tests. It will produce skin and eye irritation at high concentrations. The n-propanol has an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1001 with no limit on use as a solvent for all pesticides applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

A copy of the proposed administrative settlement may be obtained in person or by mail from John Prince, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway—19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Telephone: (212) 637-4380.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0968.

Title: Slamming Complaint Form.

Form Number: FCC 501.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit entites; and Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 3,600.

Estimated Time Per Response: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 900 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Use: FCC Form 501, Slamming Complaint Form, is designed to assist consumers in filing slamming complaints with the Commission. The form is devised to ensure complete and efficient submission of necessary information to process slamming complaints. The form remains available to consumers electronically and in hard copy. The Commission will use this information to provide redress to consumers and to act against companies engaged in this illegal practice as soon as possible.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0551.

Title: Sections 76.1002 and 76.1004, Specific Unfair Practices Prohibited.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-25 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 260 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $50,000.

Needs and Uses: The Commission staff will use this information to determine on a case-by-case basis whether particular exclusive contracts for cable television programming comply with the statutory public interest standard of section 19 of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act and section 628 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Section 301(j) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act amends the restrictions of section 628 to include common carriers and their affiliates that provide video programming.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0607.

Title: Section 76.922, Rates for Basic Service Tiers.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 25.

Estimated Time Per Response: 12 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 300 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Use: The Commission uses the information in this collection to ensure that qualified small systems have additional incentives to add channels and that small systems are able to recover costs for headend upgrades when doing so.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0414.

Title: Terrain Shielding Policy.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 750.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 750 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $1,012,500.

Needs and Uses: The terrain shielding policy requires respondents to submit either a detailed terrain study, or to submit letters of assent from all potentially affected parties and graphic depiction of the terrain when intervening terrain prevents a low power television applicant from interfering with other low power television or full-power television stations. FCC staff use the data to determine if terrain shielding can provide adequate interference protection and if a waiver of 47 CFR 74.705 and 74.707 of the rules is warranted.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0565.

Title: Commission Review of Franchising Authority Decisions on Rates for the Basic Service Tier and Associated Equipment, Section 76.944.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entity; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 32.

Estimated Time per Response: 20-30 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 546 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $72,000.

Needs and Uses: The information collected is reviewed by the FCC to ensure that franchising authority decisions regarding cable rates are consistent with the provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Commission's rules regarding cable rate regulation. Commission review of appeals is necessary to ensure uniformity of interpretation of Federal guidelines.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0719.

Title: Quarterly Report of IntraLATA Carriers Listing Payphone Automatic Number Identifications (ANIs).

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 400 respondents; 1,600 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirements, and quarterly reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 5,600 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: IntraLATA carriers must submit a quarterly list of payphone ANIs to the interexchange carriers. This will facilitate resolution of disputed ANIs in the par-call compensation context. The report allows IXCs to determine which dial-around calls are made from payphones. The data which must be maintained for at least 18 months after the close of a compensation period will facilitate verification of disputed ANIs.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0953.

Title: Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, ET Docket No. 99-255.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 1.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 4 hours; 2,500 responses/annum.

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

Total Annual Burden: 10,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission allocated spectrum and established rules for a “Wireless Medical Telemetry Service” that allows potentially life critical equipment to operate in an interference-protected basis. Medical telemetry equipment is used in hospitals and health care facilities to transmit patient measurement data such as pulse and respiration rate to a nearby receiver, permitting greater patient mobility and increase comfort.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0771.

Title: Procedure for Obtaining a Special Temporary Authorization in the Experimental Radio Service, Section 5.61.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other for profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 500.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The FCC may issue a special temporary authority (STA) under Part 5 of the Commission's rules in cases where a need is shown for operation of an authorized station for a limited time only, in a manner other than that specified in the existing authorization, but does not conflict with FCC rules. A request for STA may be filed as an informal application.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0410.

OMB Approval Date: 08/25/2003.

Expiration Date: 08/31/2006.

Title: Forecast of Investment Usage Report and Actual Usage of Investment Report.

Form No.: FCC Reports 495A and FCC 495B.

Estimated Annual Burden: 166 responses; 6,640 total annual hours; 40 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: The Forecast of Investment Usage and Actural Usage of Investment Reports are needed to detect and correct forcast errors that could lead to significant misallocation of network plant between regulated and nonregulated activities. FCC's purpose is to protect the regulated ratepayer from subsidizing the nonregulated activities of rate regulated telephone companies. Sixty local exchange carriers file the annual reports based on study arears.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1044.

OMB Approval Date: 09/05/2003.

Expiration Date: 02/29/2004.

Title: Review of the Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers CCDckt # 01-338, 96-98, 98-147, Report and Order and Order on Remand and Further NPRM.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 2,369 responses; 74,120 total annual hours; approximately 32 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: In the Report and Order on Remand and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, issued in CC Dockets 01-338, 96-98, 98-147, the Commission adopts new rules to govern the availability of unbundled network elements to competitive local exchange carriers from incumbent local exchange carriers. The Commission amends its standard for determining which network elements must be provided on an unbundled basis and determines which network elements meet this standard. The Commission establishes eligibility criteria for certain combinations of unbundled network elements. The Commission allows state regulatory commissions to initiate proceedings to make additional determinations consistent with specific Commission guidance.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0168.

OMB Approval Date: 09/16/2003.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2006.

Title: Reports of Proposed Changes in Depreciation Rates—Section 43.43.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 10 responses; 60,000 total annual hours; 6,000 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: Section 43.43 of the Commission's Rules requires certain carriers to file specified information before making any change in the depreciation rates applicable to their operating plants.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0726.

OMB Approval Date: 09/26/2003.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2006.

Title: Quarterly Report of Interexchange Carriers Listing the Number of Dial-Around Calls for Which Compensation is Being Paid to Payphone Owners.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 1,044 responses; 522 total annual hours; 0.5 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: Interechange carriers responsible for paying per-call compensation to payphone providers must submit a quarterly list of dial-around calls to those payphone providers. The payphone providers need the list to calculate the compensation to be paid by the interexchange carriers.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0233.

OMB Approval Date: 09/26/2003.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2006.

Title: Part 36—Separations.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 5,433 responses; 57,459 total annual hours; Approximately 11 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: In order to allow determination of the study areas that are entitled to an expense adjustment, and the wire centers that are entitled to high-cost universal service support, each incumbent local exchange carrier must provide certain data to the National Exchange Carrier Association annually and/or quarterly. Local telephone companies who want to participate in the federal universal service support program must make certain informational showings to demonstrate eligibility.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0725.

OMB Approval Date: 09/26/2003.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2006.

Title: Quarterly Filing of Nondiscrimination Reports (on Quality of Service, Installation and Maintenance) by Bell Operating Companies.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 16 responses; 800 total annual hours; 50 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) must submit non-discrimination report with regard to payphones. This will prevent BOCs from discriminating in favor of their own payphones.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0817.

OMB Approval Date: 09/26/2003.

Expiration Date: 09/30/2006.

Title: Computer III Further Remand Proceedings: BOC Provision of Enhanced Services (ONA Requirements), CC Docket No. 95-20.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 10 responses; 270 total annual hours; 27 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: BOCs are required to post their CEI plans and amendments on their publicly accessible Internet sites. The requirement extends CEI plans for new or modified telemessaging or alarm monitoring services and for new or amended payphone services. If the BOC receives a good faith request for a plan from someone who does not have internet access, the BOC must notify that person where a paper copy of the plan is available for public inspection. The CEI plans will be used to ensure that BOCs comply with Commission policies and regulations safeguarding against potential anticompetive behavior by the BOCs in the provision of information sevices.