Agenda topics for the meeting include approval of the October 6, 2003 minutes, quarterly review of projects approved, consideration of a modification to the Sugar Hill project, and election of new officers. The meeting will be held at Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California on Monday, November 3, 2003 from 6 to 8 p.m. Time will be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration with respect to the implementation of the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq. ).

The agenda will include financial status, general program plans, and grain end-use functionality research.

Public participation will be limited to written statements, unless permission is received from the Committee Chairman to orally address the Committee. The meeting will be open to the public.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information or related accommodations should contact Terri Henry, at the telephone number listed above.

On July 10, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the antidumping duty investigations of imports of polyethylene retail carrier bags from the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From The People's Republic of China, Malaysia, and Thailand, 68 FR 42002 (July 16, 2003). In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the notice of initiation stated that the Department would issue its preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of initiation, or November 27, 2003. See id.

On October 16, 2003, the petitioners, the Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bag Committee and its individual members, PCL Packaging, Inc., Sonoco Products Company, Superbag Corp., Vanguard Plastics, Inc., and Inteplast Group, Ltd., made a request for a 50-day postponement of the preliminary determinations, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(e). Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, if the petitioners make a timely request for an extension of the period within which the preliminary determination must be made under subsection 733(b)(1), the Department may postpone making its preliminary determination by no more than 50 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is normally due. Petitioner's request for postponement was timely, and the Department finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadlines for issuing the preliminary determinations.

January 16, 2004, is 50 days from November 27, 2003, and therefore, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the preliminary determinations in these investigations until January 16, 2004.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f).

John T. Keegan (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., (CZMA) and the Department of Commerce's implementing regulations, 15 CFR part 930, subpart H (revised, effective January 8, 2001). The appeal is taken from an objection by the Puerto Rico Planning Board (PRPB) to the Appellant's consistency certification for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit to install 50 helix-screw anchor moorings at Guanica Bay, Guanica, Puerto Rico. The Appellant requested that the Secretary override the PRPB's consistency objections based on the ground that the proposed activity is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA.

The decision of the Secretary is based on information and documents contained in the administrative record. The Keegan appeal administrative decision record includes materials submitted by the parties, the public and interested Federal agencies. It is expected that no further information, briefs or comments will be considered in deciding the appeal.

The CZMA requires that a notice be published in the Federal Register indicating the date on which the decision record has been closed. A final decision on the Keegan appeal is to be issued no later than 90 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(a). The deadline may be extended by publishing (within the 90-day period) a subsequent notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within the time frame. In this event, a final decision is to be issued no later than 45 days after the date of publication of the subsequent notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b).

For additional information about the Keegan appeal contact Suzanne Bass, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or at 301-713-2967, extension 213.

On July 10, 2001, Barnes Nursery, Inc. (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal with the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) pursuant to section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., (CZMA) and the Department of Commerce's implementing regulations, 15 CFR part 930, subpart H (revised, effective January 8, 2001). The appeal is taken from an objection by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (State) to the Appellant's consistency certification for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after-the-fact permit to maintain an excavated channel and berm system intended to store water for agricultural purposes. This project is located in Erie County, Ohio adjacent to East Sandusky Bay.

The decision of the Secretary is based on information and documents contained in the administrative record. The Barnes Nursery appeal administrative decision record includes materials submitted by the parties, the public and interested Federal agencies. It is expected that no further information, briefs or comments will be considered in deciding the appeal.

The CZMA requires that a notice be published in the Federal Register indicating the date on which the decision record has been closed. A final decision on the Barnes Nursery appeal is to be issued no later than 90 days after the date of the publication of this notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(a). The deadline may be extended by publishing (within the 90-day period) a subsequent notice explaining why a decision cannot be issued within the time frame. In this event, a final decision is to be issued no later than 45 days after the date of publication of the subsequent notice. 16 U.S.C. 1465(b).

Additional information about the Barnes Nursery appeal and the CZMA process is available from the Department of Commerce CZMA appeals Web site http:/www.ogc.doc.gov/czma.htm.

The MPAFAC, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, has been established by the Department of Commerce to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior on implementation of section 4 of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. The meeting will be open to public participation, with a 1.5-hour time period set aside from 9 a.m.-10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, for the Committee to receive verbal comments from the public. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Copies of written statements should be submitted to the Designated Federal Official by Friday, November 14, 2003.

Matters to be Considered: On Monday, November 17, the Committee will elect and install a Chair and Vice-Chair. This will be followed by a discussion and adoption of procedural rules by which the Committee will operate. The Committee will receive several presentations from NOAA officials both to help place their mission in perspective vis-a-vis the two Departments and to clarify their charge and relationship to the National MPA Center. The Committee will then be briefed by representatives from both Departments on the status of selected Federal Marine Protected Area programs. The Committee will spend the remainder of the day exploring the formation of suitable subcommittees and working groups for addressing facets of its mission.

On Tuesday, November 18, the Chair will oversee the process for the establishment of proposed subcommittees. Once formed, members will break into these smaller groups over the course of the day to discuss their respective goals, tasks, individual assignments, and the nature of the reports and other products that the full committee will deliberate on and issue, based on the input developed by the subcommittees. At several junctures on Tuesday, the subcommittees will report back on progress during plenary sessions. The public is welcomed to observe these breakout sessions, although space may be limited in some cases.

On Wednesday morning, the Committee will reconvene to review and conclude discussions based on the previous day's work before they receive verbal comments or questions from the public. The Committee will conclude the meeting with a discussion of the timing and location of the next meeting, as well as a consideration of potential agenda items.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Comprehensive Program Annual Performance Report.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public:

Not-for-profit institutions.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 140.

 Burden Hours: 2,800.

Abstract: The Comprehensive Program is a discretionary grant program that makes competitive awards to support reform and innovations through projects that improve educational practice at the postsecondary level. Grantees annually submit a performance report to demonstrate that substantial progress is being made toward meeting the objectives of their projects. Reporting requirements are currently based on broad criteria from the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). This request is to use a reporting format that elicits needed information on program-specific outcomes within the annual report without posing additional burden to the grantee.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2319. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Tentative Agenda:

If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, November 17, 2003.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make the oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided equal time to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to deLisa Bratcher, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC 29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-8607.

The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038.

On January 22, 1996, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued Presidential Permit PP-89 authorizing BHE to construct, operate, maintain, and connect a 345-kV electric transmission line that extends approximately 83-miles from the U.S.-Canada border at Baileyville, Maine, to Orrington, Maine. At the Canadian border, the proposed transmission line was to connect to similar facilities to be built by New Brunswick Electric Power Commission (NB Power), a Crown corporation of Canada's Province of New Brunswick. The authorized facilities were not constructed.

On September 30, 2003, BHE applied to the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of DOE to amend Presidential Permit PP-89. Since the issuance of PP-89, a natural gas transmission line has been constructed by Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. in the same general vicinity as the BHE project in a corridor approved by Maine's Department of Environmental Protection. Now the Board of Environmental Protection, Maine's primary environmental review entity, has indicated to BHE its preference for BHE to construct the proposed electric transmission line in a corridor more closely consolidated with that of the natural gas line.

The international transmission line now proposed by BHE would be a single circuit 345-kV AC transmission line consisting of two overhead shield wires and three phases with two conductors per phase. The transmission line is proposed to have a thermal capacity of at least 1,000 megawatts (MW). From the U.S.-Canada border near Baileyville, Maine, the proposed transmission line would continue approximately 80 miles to an existing substation in Orrington, Maine. In Canada, the BHE facilities would interconnect with similar facilities to be owned by New Brunswick Power Corporation and continue approximately 60 miles to Point Lepreau, New Brunswick. Canada's National Energy Board authorized construction of these facilities in May 2003.

Since the restructuring of the electric power industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities constructed pursuant to Presidential permits to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the FPA and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 888, as amended (Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Services by Public Utilities). In furtherance of this policy, DOE intends to condition any Presidential permit issued in this proceeding on compliance with these open access principles.

Procedural Matters: Any person desiring to become a party to this proceeding or to be heard by filing comments or protests to this application should file a petition to intervene, comment or protest at the address provided above in accordance with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the FERC's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen copies of each petition and protest should be filed with the DOE on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Mr. Robert Bennett, Bangor Hydro Electric Co., 33 State Street, P.O. Box 920, Bangor, ME 04402-0920; and Mr. Jim Connors, Esq., Emera, Inc., 1894 Barrington Street, Barrington Tower, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3J2A8.

Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action ( i.e. , granting the Presidential permit with any conditions and limitations, or denying it) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. DOE also must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense before taking final action on a Presidential permit application.

The NEPA compliance process is a cooperative, non-adversarial process involving members of the public, state governments and the Federal government. The process affords all persons interested in or potentially affected by the environmental consequences of a proposed action an opportunity to present their views, which will be considered in the preparation of the Environmental documentation for the proposed action. Intervening and becoming a party to this proceeding will not create any special status for the petitioner with regard to the NEPA process. Notice of upcoming NEPA activities and information on how the public can participate in those activities will appear in the Federal Register .

Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded from the Fossil Energy home page at http://www.fe.doe.gov . Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity Regulation,” and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.

The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object to as appropriate, operating permits proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of this review period to object to State operating permits if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the State, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

On September 27, 2002, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to the Consolidated Edison Hudson Avenue Station. The petition raises issues regarding the permit application, the permit issuance process, and the permit itself. NYPIRG asserts that: (1) The permit was issued in violation of the requirements of the New Source Review program; (2) the permit is deficient because it fails to incorporate the requirements from pre-existing permits issued to the facility; (3) the permit distorts the annual compliance certification requirement of Clean Air Act section 114(a)(3) and 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5); (4) the permit does not require prompt reporting of all deviations from permit requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B); (5) the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 70.6(a)(1) because it illegally sanctions the systematic violation of applicable requirements during startup/shutdown, malfunction, maintenance and upset conditions; (6) the permit is not supported by an adequate statement of basis; (7) the permit does not assure compliance with all applicable requirements as mandated by 40 CFR 70.1(b) and 70.6(a)(1) because many individual permit conditions lack adequate periodic monitoring and are not practically enforceable; (8) the permit lacks federally enforceable conditions that govern the procedures for permit renewal in accordance with 40 CFR 70.5(a)(1)(iii); (9) the permit is based upon an inadequate permit application; (10) the final permit improperly limits the dates during which the permit conditions apply; (11) the permit does not include an adequate compliance schedule for an opacity violation; and (12) the permit should include language indicating the availability of any credible evidence to demonstrate non-compliance.

On September 30, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition on the Con Edison Hudson Avenue Street Station. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Adequately address Petitioner's comments on non-attainment NSR; (2) work with EPA to identify items that may be excluded from annual certification requirements; (3) supplement the PM monitoring requirements for the boilers; (4) include the SIP version of the excuse provision on the federally enforceable side of the permit; (5) revise the statement of basis to include a detailed explanation regarding the basis of granting a permit shield for 6 NYCRR Part 231 and (6) require record keeping to assure compliance with the facility's episode action plan. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

On December 17, 2001, the EPA received a petition from NYPIRG, requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating permit to the Consolidated Edison Ravenswood Steam Plant, on the grounds listed above except for the New Source Review, permit condition effective date, adequacy of compliance schedule and credible evidence issues. On September 30, 2003, the Administrator issued an order partially granting and partially denying the petition. The order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion that the NYSDEC must reopen the permit to: (1) Remove the “excuse provision” that cites 6 NYCRR section 201-1.4 from the federal side of the permit; (2) supplement the PM monitoring requirements for the boilers; (3) establish a relationship between any of the permit holders or operators and the system of fossil-fuel fired facilities that satisfies the criteria of 6 NYCRR section 227-2.5; (4) list, in the permit, those units that are defined as “NO X Budget Units''; (5) prescribe an analytical method for monitoring the sulfur-in-fuel limit; (6) specify the applicable compliance method that is used in the monitoring of sulfur dioxide emissions; and (7) identify in the permit the correct SIP version that constitutes the legal basis for the sulfur-in-fuel limit. The order also explains the reasons for denying NYPIRG's remaining claims.

Proposed agenda includes FY 2003 Gulf of Mexico Program Accomplishments, Executive Order Status and Update, Briefings on Emerging Initiatives: PEW Commission Report, Ocean Commission Report, U.S. Mexico Gulf Programs Integration, White Water to Blue Water, Gulf Hypoxia, FY 2004 Program Workplan Overview. The meeting is open to the public.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. RCRA-1999-0031. 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 OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center at 1301 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The phone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744. Copies cost $0.15/page.

You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ , and you can make comments on this notice at the federal e-rulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov .

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 or to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Docket, although they will be part of the rulemaking record. 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.A.

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, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

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

a. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EPA Dockets.” Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID Number RCRA-1999-0031. 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.

b. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov , Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-1999-0031. 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.

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

Send your comments to: OSWER Docket, EPA Docket Center, Mailcode: 5305T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-1999-0031.

Deliver your comments to: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-1999-0031. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified above.

Fax your comments to: (202) 566-0272, Attention Docket ID Number RCRA-1999-0031.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA-1999-0031. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

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

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

The RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative is the Office of Solid Waste's effort to reduce recordkeeping and reporting burden, while maintaining the protections the Agency has in place to safeguard human health and the environment. This notice seeks additional comment on ideas to reduce burden imposed by the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR, Chapter I (Environmental Protection Agency), Subchapter I [“Eye”] (“Solid Wastes”). For more information on this Initiative, as well as the definition of burden, how burden is estimated and the baseline burden estimates for the RCRA hazardous waste program, see the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2518).

The existing hazardous waste regulations require the submittal of 334 notifications, reports, certifications, demonstrations, and plans from generators and TSDFs to demonstrate compliance with the RCRA regulations. We also ask for this information as part of applications for extensions, permits, variances, and exemptions. In addition, the regulations require generators and facility owners and operators to keep certain records on-site.

When we promulgated the hazardous waste regulations, we decided to collect as much information as we thought was necessary about facility operations. Without prior experience as a guide, our philosophy was that it was better to collect information in all cases, knowing that we could eliminate information requirements later if they turned out to not be useful.

We are using what we have learned during our 25-year operating history in RCRA to reevaluate this all-encompassing information collection approach, and we are moving towards collecting only the information that has actually proven useful to the RCRA hazardous waste program. This is consistent with the President's Management Agenda, which directs federal agencies to show that their programs actually accomplish their goals. Requiring facilities to collect and submit information that is seldom or never used is not only wasteful, but it diverts available environmental protection resources away from the RCRA goals of protecting human health and the environment to generating unnecessary paperwork.

The RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative has weighed the RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements versus the burden they impose to answer the question “Which recordkeeping and reporting requirements can be eliminated or modified without compromising protection of human health and the environment.” We obtained input from program offices at EPA Headquarters and Regions, the States, the regulated community, and public interest groups in this process. To answer this question, we asked the following specific questions: who uses the hazardous waste information?; why do they need it?; is the information useful as it is currently collected?; and how can the quality and timeliness of the information be improved?

Our ideas were announced for comment in a June 18, 1999, Federal Register “Notice of Data Availability” (64 FR 32859). In the “Notice” and background documents ( see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/index.htm#burden ), we included every burden reduction idea we considered. Based on comments we received on the “Notice,” we eliminated ideas when a practical use for the information was demonstrated, or information was presented showing how eliminating/modifying a requirement would negatively impact protection of human health and the environment. Based on these comments, we added ideas which appeared in our January 17, 2002, “Proposed Rulemaking” (67 FR 2518). Today's notice seeks comment on some additional ideas that were suggested by commenters or are outgrowths of the Proposed Rule, based on our evaluation of those comments.

In the Proposed Rule, we requested comment on changing the tank self-inspection frequencies from daily to weekly for large quantity generators. We received comments suggesting that we expand this change to include tanks located at small quantity generator sites ( see § 265.201(c)) and ancillary equipment at small and large quantity generator facilities ( see § 264.193(f) and § 265.193(f)). Changing these inspection frequencies would be consistent with our intent, as discussed in the 1999 “Notice of Data Availability,” the Proposed Rule, and background documents to establish weekly tank inspections for all tanks and tank systems. The estimated burden hour savings from extending to weekly the inspection frequency for tanks located at small quantity generator sites ranges from 200,000-600,000 burden hours (depending on the percentage of small quantity generators assumed to have tanks). We consider this to be substantial savings. We request comment on the merits of this change.

In addition to allowing weekly inspection frequency for tanks, we also proposed to allow, on a case-by-case basis, decreased inspection frequencies for tanks, containers, and containment buildings (from the frequency currently required by regulation). In all cases, inspections would have to occur at least monthly and would be established on a site-specific basis by authorized States or by EPA in States that do not have a delegated program. In proposing this change, we suggested that decreased inspection frequencies should be based on factors such as: (1) A demonstrated commitment by facility management to sound environmental practices; (2) demonstrations of good management practices over the years—that is, having a record of sustained compliance with environmental laws and requirements; (3) a demonstrated commitment to continued environmental improvement; (4) a demonstrated commitment to public outreach and performance reporting; (5) the installation of automatic monitoring devices at the facility; and (6) the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste being managed in the unit.

Based on comments received on the proposal, the Agency is reconsidering whether to make such a change available to all generators because of the burden it might impose on authorized States to evaluate compliance with the criteria. However, at a minimum, we believe that providing relief is appropriate for companies that are demonstrated “good performers.” Therefore, the Agency is soliciting comment on whether to limit this provision—the ability to file a case-by-case application for reduced self-inspection frequencies—to member companies of the National Performance Track Program. The National Environmental Performance Track Program recognizes and encourages top environmental performance among private and public facilities in the United States. Performance Track facilities go beyond compliance with regulatory requirements to achieve environmental excellence. Currently, the program has approximately 300 members. See the following Web site for information about the National Performance Track Program: http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack. Today, we also are clarifying that this provision was meant to apply not just to the tanks, but to the complete tank systems. This includes piping, pumps, valves and other associated equipment.

We also received a comment suggesting that we extend reduced inspection frequencies, granted on a case-by-case basis, to areas subject to spills (see § 264.15(b)(4)). While the Agency is considering this comment as a general matter, we also solicit comment on whether to grant relief only to companies that are National Performance Track members. We think the risk from this change is minimal at facilities that have met the requirements to be accepted into the National Performance Track Program. Again, the Agency believes it is important to recognize the difference in the need for oversight of companies that are top environmental performers and, therefore, believes that such a change may be appropriate.

EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have both promulgated regulations to ensure the safety and health of workers at hazardous waste facilities. While RCRA Subtitle C includes requirements to provide protection to workers, worker safety and health are not its primary goal. This is the goal of OSHA, the Federal agency responsible for enforcing the safety and health of workers at facilities producing, using, storing, transporting, and disposing of hazardous materials.

In a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO) published in October 2000, OSHA and EPA worker training requirements in emergency response procedures were found to be duplicative. GAO concluded that this overlap in training requirements creates an unnecessary burden by confusing the regulated community, diminishes the efficiency of the facility (which could jeopardize worker safety), and wastes funds.

Hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) workers are required to receive OSHA training, including training for emergency response, under 29 CFR 1910.120(p). OSHA's regulations have specific training requirements for RCRA-permitted facilities to teach hazardous waste workers how to respond to emergencies.

Based primarily on the GAO findings, EPA proposed to eliminate the RCRA emergency response training requirements in favor of the OSHA requirements. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion about what we proposed. We did not propose to eliminate the entire RCRA personnel training requirements, only the emergency response training requirements located at § 264.16(a)(3) and § 265.16(a)(3).

While many of the commenters supported the proposal, we received a number of comments expressing concern that two of the RCRA emergency response training requirements are not covered in OSHA's requirements, which could lead to gaps in workplace safety and health. After consultation with OSHA, we determined that the two requirements identified in comments (key parameters for automatic waste feed cut-off systems and response to ground-water contamination incidents) would be captured under the OSHA performance standard that employees must be trained in the safe use of engineering controls and equipment on the site, and the OSHA requirement that a site safety and health plan must contain a spill containment program. Moreover, the RCRA requirements are duplicated elsewhere in the RCRA regulations, where we establish requirements for safe facility operations. For example, § 266.102(e)(7)(ii) establishes automatic waste feed cutoff requirements for combustors, § 264.194(b)(2) establishes controls for tanks, and § 264.193 requires groundwater release training. Thus, we do not find any gaps between the two programs on the subject of emergency response training.

Deferring to the standards of other organizations whose expertise is greater than ours has precedent in the RCRA regulations. An example is § 264.198(b), which establishes special requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes. We require facilities storing or treating these wastes to comply with the standards of the National Fire Protection Association, a non-profit organization that develops consensus codes and standards to protect the public against fire dangers.

However, a number of commenters suggested that the Agency provide additional flexibility to this change by allowing the facility owner/operator to determine whether to follow the RCRA or OSHA requirements (as opposed to the proposed rule's approach of requiring facilities to follow the OSHA regulations), especially for those facilities which are not otherwise required to comply with OSHA training requirements. This seems a reasonable accommodation to facilities, that, for any of a number of reasons, have elected to comply with the RCRA regulation and would be burdened by the need to demonstrate compliance under the OSHA rule. Therefore, we request comment on this approach.

Currently, the RCRA regulations require an independent, qualified, registered professional engineer (or registered geologists for some requirements) to certify the effectiveness of the design and operation of certain hazardous waste treatment units. We received a comment on our “Notice of Data Availability” dated June 18, 1999 (64 FR 32859) from the Certified Hazardous Materials Managers' organization asking that their members also be allowed to make certifications. Based on our review of the qualifications of Certified Hazardous Materials Managers, it appeared to the Agency that these certified professionals were qualified to provide the certifications, increasing marketplace competition and potentially reducing the cost of those certifications. As a result, the Agency proposed to add Certified Hazardous Materials Managers as professionals qualified to make these certifications. We did not receive similar requests from other professional organizations.

In response to this proposal, the Agency received about 1,900 comments, mostly requesting that we expand the list of individuals who can do such certifications to include other kinds of professionals, such as expanding the list of certifications to registered geologists. These commenters believe that the Agency was being arbitrary in allowing only two disciplines to certify operations.

On the other hand, professional engineers were strongly opposed to the proposal. They suggested that Certified Hazardous Materials Managers are not qualified to certify the design, construction, and structural integrity of hazardous waste management units.

States likewise suggested that the certifications we proposed to modify involve the design, installation, and assessment of structures, and that their laws allow only licensed engineers to make these kinds of certifications. The States also indicated that their licensing boards can investigate complaints of negligence or incompetence, and may impose fines and other disciplinary actions such as cease-and-desist orders or license revocation. This personal liability of the professional engineer is one of the reasons why the States believe that RCRA certifications should only be done by state-licensed professional engineers.

Other commenters suggested that, rather than deciding which professions are qualified to make certifications, we should instead establish an environmental professional performance standard based on membership in a recognized professional organization. This would be consistent with our principle of allowing the regulated community to meet our standards at the lowest possible cost. The challenge we faced in developing a performance standard was determining which professional organizations are legitimate. Commenters helped by offering the suggestion that we recognize only the organizations which meet the criteria for assessing certification programs for environmental professionals established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ASTM is a nonprofit organization that provides a forum for the development and publication of voluntary, consensus standards for materials, products, systems, and services. The advantage of an ASTM standard is that it is developed by individuals with a diversity of backgrounds, expertise, and knowledge. Through a consensus approach, the standards that are developed reflect the needs of all the stakeholders.

ASTM E1929-98, Standard Practice for the Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Engineers: Accreditation Criteria assesses the credibility of certification programs for environmental professionals. Under these standards, the certifying body must have a program to evaluate individual competence for certification that is objective and based on the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to function in the specialty area. Applicants must document their level of education, supply reference materials, sign and abide by a code of ethics established by the certifying body, and pass a comprehensive examination. The ASTM standard also requires that environmental certification programs be accredited by an independent entity. This ASTM standard is available for review at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center.

Therefore, we are considering allowing only professionals certified by organizations meeting the ASTM standard to conduct a limited number of the certifications. Under this standard, anyone who certifies the operation of facilities must (a) be licensed to practice in the state where the facility is located or recognized by a certification program that is compliant with ASTM E1929-98 Standard Practice for the Assessment of Certification Programs for Environmental Professionals: Accreditation Criteria, and (b) have the knowledge and experience to undertake the tasks required for the certification. Based on comments from and extensive discussions with the States, we may limit the flexibility to use persons meeting the criteria of the new performance standard to three certifications:

264.573(a)(4)(ii),(g); 265.443(a)(4)(ii),(g) Drip pads—evaluate drip pads.

264.574(a); 265.444(a) Drip pads—inspections.

266.111(e)(2) BIF Direct transfer equipment—assessment of equipment.

At the same time, EPA is persuaded by commenters—particularly the States—who suggested that the remaining RCRA certifications are inherently “engineering” activities and should only be conducted by a qualified professional engineer. We solicit comment on this revised approach.

Some commenters further suggested that we streamline the existing professional engineer requirement by changing it from “independent, qualified, registered professional engineer” to “qualified professional engineer.” They believe that this retains the most important requirements—that the engineer be qualified to perform the task, and that she or he be a professional (following a code of ethics and the potential of losing his/her license for negligence) engineer. The professional engineers who commented, as well as the professional engineer advocacy organizations, emphasized the importance of the “professional” part of the engineering requirement, rather than the “independent” part. Making this change in the RCRA regulations would allow certifications to be done by a professional engineer employed by the facility. Commenters believe that this would save facilities money without compromising environmental safety. This would also be consistent with the approach we have taken in some newer requirements for certifications. See the 265.1101(c)(2) containment building design certification, and the 266.103(b)(2)(ii)(D) evaluation of data for boilers and industrial furnaces, which allow for certification by “qualified, registered professional engineers.”

As a point of reference to check the reasonableness of this change, we examined the certification requirements of another federal regulatory agency responsible for ensuring the safety of the public, the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) recently proposed revisions and improvements to its National Bridge Inspection Standards (68 FR 53063). These standards ensure the safety of the traveling public by establishing proper safety inspection and evaluation requirements for highway bridges. The standards apply to publicly-owned bridges, and are strongly advised for privately-owned bridges. FHA points out in their preamble discussion that it is extremely important that privately owned highway bridges be inspected to a nationally-recognized standard, for at a minimum, private bridge owners that do not inspect their highway bridges to the standards can open themselves to liability for deaths or injuries because of possible highway bridge failure. The standards currently require the person responsible for inspecting bridges to be a professional engineer. Interestingly, FHA's proposed rule's preamble discussion on the professional engineer requirement covers the necessity of these professional engineers having adequate experience to do the job, which is emphasized in today's notice—and FHA does not require, nor does it discuss in its proposal for improving the standards, the need for the professional engineer be “independent.”

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Safety and Health Regulations for Construction; Specific Requirements for Excavation (see 29 CFR 1926.651) provide another example of a federal regulatory agency requiring certification by professional engineers, but not requiring that the engineers be “independent.” Under these regulations, OSHA requires structural ramps that are used to access or exit excavations to be designed by a “competent person” qualified in structural design. OSHA also requires professional engineers to ensure the stability of structures adjacent to excavations.

In addition, our understanding of what it means to be “registered” is that it means one who is licensed by a State. Since only States license professional engineers and geologists, we believe that “registered” and “professional” mean the same thing in the context of “registered professional engineer or geologist.” Thus, “registered” appears to be a redundant requirement. We request comment on whether to make this conforming change to provide consistency to our rules, which sometimes include the term “registered” and in other cases do not.

In summary, we have identified the following certifications as needing a qualified professional engineer:

264/265.115 Certification of closure.

264/265.120 Certification of post-closure care.

264/265.191(a), (b)(5)(ii) Assessment of tank system's integrity.

264/265.192(a), (b) Assessment of new tank system and components (also may be done by a qualified installation inspector).

264/265.196(f) Tank systems—submit certification of completion of major repairs.

264.280(b) Land treatment units, certification of closure (also may be done by a qualified soil scientist).

264.571(a), (b), (c); 265.441(a), (b), (c) Drip pads—submit written plan, as-built drawings, and certification for upgrading, repairing and modifying the drip pad.

265.1101(c)(2) Containment building design certification.

266.103(b)(2)(ii)(D) BIFs—Evaluation of data.

270.16(a) Assessment of tank system structural integrity.

270.17(d) Assessment of surface impoundment structural integrity.

The Agency solicits comments on whether the ASTM standard is appropriate; whether the Agency made the right choices in determining which certifications must be conducted by qualified professional engineers, as opposed to persons that are accredited by programs meeting the ASTM standard; and whether the Agency should modify the requirement to allow “qualified professional engineers” to conduct the certification instead of “independent, qualified, registered professional engineers.”

When the Agency promulgated the operating record requirements in the hazardous waste regulations, we believed that records should routinely be kept for the life of the facility. Our rationale for this position was that if an issue or problem came up about an earlier practice at a facility, the records would be available.

After many years of experience in implementing the RCRA hazardous waste rules, we are better able to distinguish those records that must be kept for the life of the facility from those which can be discarded after some period of time without affecting protections of human health and the environment.

As discussed in the Proposed rule, information about which wastes are disposed of at a facility and where the disposed waste is located must be kept for the life of the facility. More routine information, such as whether certain notices were filed and records of inspections, can be discarded after three years. In the RCRA regulations, we have generally settled on three years as a reasonable time frame for keeping records. This is consistent with other Agency programs, such as the Toxics Substance Control Act and the Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Community Right to Know programs, that impose a three year record retention time in their regulations. Therefore, we proposed to modify the §§ 264.73 and 265.73 operating record requirements to require only a three-year limit for keeping certain information.

In response to this proposal, we received a comment that for §§ 264.73(b)(8) and 265.73(b)(8) closure and post-closure cost estimates, we should only require current estimates to be kept at the facility. In fact, the commenter argues that 264.142(d) and 264.144(d) only requires the facility to “keep .* * * at the facility during the operating life of the facility (t)he latest” closure and post-closure cost estimates. We agree with the commenter that there is an apparent inconsistency in the rules and thus request comment on the merits of this change.

We also received a request for clarification of the operating record requirements for incinerators. The commenter pointed out that for incinerators, voluminous data is produced and is required to be kept for the life of the facility, which is burdensome to maintain. Specifically, data that is required to be collected and maintained include continuous monitoring of combustion temperature, waste feed rate, the indicator of combustion gas velocity specified in the facility permit, and other operating parameters. At the commenter's facilities, monitoring is done at 75 points, some instantaneously (every 15 seconds), but all requiring maintenance of 15-second data, minute averages and rolling hourly averages. This is a large volume of data that is generated annually. We are requesting comment on requiring a three year retention for these records instead of for the life of the facility.

Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must implement a groundwater monitoring system for hazardous waste land disposal units to detect the presence of contaminants in groundwater. If contamination is detected, more extensive monitoring must be performed. If the level of contamination exceeds the groundwater protection standard, corrective action must be undertaken.

We proposed allowing owners/operators of facilities to report on the effectiveness of corrective action on an annual basis instead of the current semi-annual basis. In combination with other forms of oversight by regulatory agencies, we suggested that annual reporting will provide adequate information to ensure compliance.

In addition, we proposed modifying the § 264.99(g) requirement that facilities who are undertaking compliance monitoring also conduct an annual Appendix IX analysis of all monitoring wells. Specifically, we proposed allowing, on a case-by-case basis, sampling in a subset of the wells.

We received a comment asking that we clarify an inconsistency in our groundwater regulations. Specifically, we were asked to revise the § 264.98(d) detection monitoring requirements, which say that a facility must collect at least four samples from each well at least semi-annually. Elsewhere in our groundwater regulations—§ 264.97(g)(2) (the general groundwater monitoring requirements) we allow facilities to propose (with the Regional Administrator's approval) alternate sampling procedures. The commenter would like us to extend this flexibility to the detection monitoring requirements. This appears to be a reasonable request.

Another commenter suggested that we provide flexibility in another part of both the groundwater detection and compliance monitoring requirements. Currently, facilities that find appendix IX compounds in the groundwater may resample within a month to check again for the compounds. If found again, the constituents will form the basis for compliance monitoring (and for detection monitoring, any new constituents that are found are added to the monitoring list). The commenter asked that we add language saying that the resampling may occur within a different time frame, upon approval by the State or EPA. This also appears to be a reasonable request. This change would increase the flexibility facilities have in complying with our regulations, without impacting protections for human health and the environment.

Finally, we received a comment asking us to change § 264.100(g) to maintain consistency with our change to 264.113(e)(5)—requiring an annual instead of semi-annual corrective action report. We inadvertently omitted this change despite it being consistent with our preamble discussion. We solicit comment on the merits of this change.

We currently require conditionally exempt munitions to be transported under shipping controls specified in § 266.203(c). This section (266.203(c)) requires all shipments to be accompanied by 5 specific forms (the regulations currently lists the name of each form, as well as the accompanying form identification number). The problem, according to a commenter, is that every time the name of one of these forms, or the form identification number changes, the Department of Defense must publish a Federal Register notice announcing the change. It was not our intent for this type of minor, administrative action to require public notification. We believe that reasonable streamlining can be achieved by eliminating the requirement for a Federal Register notice and replacing it with a requirement for written notification to the Director of EPA's Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement. We request comment on this potential change.

Several commenters pointed out that implementing many of the changes in the proposed rule will require a Class 2 Permit modification for facilities with permits ( see the following Web site for information about Permit modifications: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/training/perm.pdf). We believe the changes represented in this notice will provide no significant threat to human health or the environment. Therefore, our intention is to allow these changes, if finalized, to be made as quickly as possible as opposed to making a change on paper, but not being able to implement it quickly. Because of the magnitude of the savings represented by these changes, delaying implementation would be costly for no apparent gain in environmental protection. Due to an oversight on our part, we did not address this issue in the proposed rule. Therefore, we are requesting comment today on allowing permitted facilities to use the Class 1 permit modification procedure, with prior Agency approval, to implement the changes arising from this rulemaking. However, we also request comment on whether the Class 1 permit modifications should be without prior Agency approval. Where States have an authorized RCRA program, the “Agency approval” refers to approval by the State.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's notice on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's notice on small entities, we are certifying that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on small entities subject to the rule. Today's notice is specifically intended to be de-regulatory and to reduce, not increase, the paperwork and related burdens of the RCRA hazardous waste program. For businesses in general, including all small businesses, the changes would reduce the labor time and other costs of preparing, keeping records of, and submitting reports to the agency. The notice also reduces the frequency by which businesses must conduct specified recordkeeping and reporting activities. It also eliminates recordkeeping and reporting requirements, thereby streamlining facilities' compliance activities. Finally, the rule increases flexibility in how waste handlers may comply with the regulations. We therefore conclude that today's notice relieves regulatory burden for small entities. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the notice on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

In the Federal Register of October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58974 at 59067), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0520. The approval expires on October 31, 2006. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (§ 314.162) (21 CFR 314.162)).

Under § 314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

PIPRACIL (piperacillin sodium) 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials are the subject of approved NDA 50-545 held by Lederle (part of Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals). PIPRACIL is a broad-spectrum penicillin indicated for the treatment of serious infections and for prophylactic use in surgery. The holder of the application for PIPRACIL (piperacillin sodium) 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials has informed FDA that the drug products have been withdrawn from sale.

The agency has determined that Wyeth-Ayerst's PIPRACIL 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. FDA has independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse event reports and has found no information that would indicate these products were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

For the reasons outlined, FDA determines that Wyeth-Ayerst's PIPRACIL 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list PIPRACIL (piperacillin sodium) 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to PIPRACIL (piperacillin sodium) 2-gram, 3-gram, and 4-gram vials may be approved by the agency.

The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Restrictions on Assistance to Noncitizens.

OMB Approval Number: 2501-0014.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: Respondents provide written declaration of citizenship, eligible immigration status, alien registration documents and verification consent forms to housing authorities and multifamily property owners to ensure that citizens and legal residents are the recipients of public benefits.

Respondents: Individuals or Households, State, Local or Tribal Government, Business or other for-profit.

Frequency of Submission: On occasion.

Reporting Burden: Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents is 3,030,000, frequency of response is on occasion, the total annual responses are 20,794,000 and the annual burden hours requested is 366,000

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 366,000.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

The information collection is needed to establish whether a petitioning group has the characteristics necessary to be acknowledged as having a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship with the United States. Federal acknowledgment makes the group eligible for benefits from the Federal government.

The Federal acknowledgment regulations at 25 CFR Part 83 contain seven criteria (§ 83.7) which groups seeking Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes must demonstrate that they meet. Information collected from petitioning groups under these regulations provide anthropological, genealogical and historical data used by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs to establish whether a petitioning group has the characteristics necessary to be acknowledged as having a sovereign-to-sovereign relationship with the United States. Respondents are not required to retain copies of information submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but will probably maintain copies for their own use. No periodic reports are required.

Title: Collection of Information for Federal Acknowledgment Under 25 CFR part 83.

OMB Number: 1076-0104.

Expiration Date: September 30, 2003.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Entities: Groups petitioning for Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes.

Response: Respondents are seeking to obtain the status of a tribal entity in order to be eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by virtue of their status as Indian tribes.

Estimated Number of Petitioners: 10.

Estimated Time per Petition: 2,237.7 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 22,377.

Estimated Annual Salary Costs: $895,080 (2,237.7 hours × $40.00 per hour × 10).

You are invited to comment on:

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

(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to request that we consider withholding your name, street address, and other contact information (such as Internet address, fax, or phone number) from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses.

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

OMB has up to 60 days to make a decision on the submission for renewal, but may make the decision after 30 days. Therefore, to receive the best consideration of your comments, you should submit them closer to 30 days than 60 days.

Through the Federal Assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program, the Service disburses funds to States in the form of grants to restore and manage the Nation's fish and wildlife resources. The States use the funds to conduct research, surveys, and management; purchase and restore habitat; operate fish hatcheries; build boat access sites; and provide education, outreach, and communications. Generally our State partners are the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.

The Program is authorized by the Federal Assistance in Sport Fish Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq. , and the Federal Assistance in Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq. The Program's regulations can be found in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 80, “Administrative Requirements, Federal Assistance in Fish and Federal Assistance in Wildlife Restoration Acts”; title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, part 12, “Administrative and Cost Principles for Assistance Program”; and other applicable regulations. Various Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars and guidance in the form of Service policy also apply to administration of the program.

Funds for the Program are derived from excise and import taxes on fishing equipment, firearms, archery equipment, and certain motorboat fuels paid into the Sport Fish Restoration Account or the Federal Assistance to Wildlife Restoration Fund. The manufacturer or U.S. Customs (on imports) collects these taxes and pays them to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which transfers the money to the Service for distribution to the States.

Periodically the Service conducts audits of our State partners, testing for compliance with applicable Acts, regulations, accounting principles, and Service policy. In March 2000, the Service Director established the Federal Assistance Audit Policy Implementation Team (FAAPIT) by directing Service staff representing each Service Region and the Washington Headquarters Office to collaboratively develop policies for conducting audits of grantees of the Federal Assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program. The FAAPIT immediately engaged the States through the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' (IAFWA) Trust Fund Committee. The Federal Assistance Coordinator for the State of Wyoming participated on the FAAPIT as a representative of the States throughout the policy development process. The policies were designed as six separate chapters to be contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (417 FW 1-6). Partners, including States and other Federal Assistance grantees, participated by submitting written suggestions for incorporation in early drafts of these audit chapters. The partners submitted these written suggestions through their Federal Assistance Coordinators and their respective Fish and Game Agency Directors. The purpose of the proposed chapters set forth below in this document is to clarify the processes and guidelines for conducting an audit, from beginning through closeout of the audit process and resolution of any findings or other issues.

We published proposed chapters on conducting State audits under the Federal Assistance program in the December 14, 2001, Federal Register (66 FR 64845). We solicited comments until February 12, 2002. During the public comment period, we received numerous comments. Eighteen State agencies and the IAFWA responded to the Federal Register publication by providing written comments. The Service responded to each comment and incorporated changes in the draft chapters where feasible. In fall 2002 a Service Director-appointed/invited Task Force of State and Service staff made recommendations concerning the issues addressed by the revised 417 FW 1-6 document, and these comments were incorporated once again. The following Chapters (417 FW 1-6) reflect the input of the FAAPIT and partners over a 3-year period. Since the changes made were so extensive, we are now publishing revised proposed chapters for public comment.

We invite comments on all chapters. Comments are welcome regarding completeness of the content of material in chapters; clarity and understandability of language; presence of any burden placed on any Division of the Service, the Department of the Interior, or a State partner; or any other aspect of these documents. Comments must be written, but e-mailed comments are acceptable. The administrative record for these chapters are available for viewing, by appointment only, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., in the Division of Federal Assistance, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.

The draft chapters are as follows:

1.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter establishes policy and responsibilities for grantee audits, defines terms associated with audits, and provides an overview of the audit process. Other chapters in Part 417 establish policy and procedures for audit planning, conducting and reporting, resolution, and appeals.

1.2 To what program does this Part apply? This Part applies to audits of grantees who receive grants through the Federal Assistance Program.

1.3 What authorities govern the conduct of grantee audits?

A. Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-408, 16 U.S.C. 669 et seq. , 16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.

B. 43 CFR 12, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.

C. 50 CFR 80, Administrative Requirements, Federal Assistance in Sport Fish and Federal Assistance in Wildlife Restoration Acts.

D. 360 Departmental Manual (Departmental Audits).

E. 361 Departmental Manual (Audit Followup).

F. 415 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Departmental Audits).

G. Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book).

H. OMB Circular A-50, Audit Followup.

I. OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments.

J. OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

K. OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with States and Local Governments.

1.4 What is the Service's policy regarding grantee audits? We will:

A. Audit each grantee once in each 5-year period as specified in the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000. The audit period will cover revenues and expenditures associated with protected license fees and grant funds during the two most recently completed State fiscal years (SFYs). This 2-year period is a sample of the 5-year period specified in the Improvement Act to achieve audits that are efficient and cost effective. Factors affecting the selection of the two most recently completed SFYs may be, but are not limited to, completion of the Single Audit, completion and submission of final Financial Status Reports (SF-269s), changes to the accounting system, or the introduction and use of new accounting software. The auditor should confer with the Regional Federal Assistance Office and the grantee to determine the feasibility of auditing the two most recent SFYs. The Regional Federal Assistance Office will formally approve the two SFYs to be audited.

This 2-year period applies to the audit period itself and does not eliminate Service responsibilities for general oversight of the Federal Aid program outside of that timeframe. The auditor may use previous audits or other information from outside the audit period as reference to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the audit.

All reports will be limited to addressing the 2-year audit period unless there is some extraordinary finding. To be considered extraordinary, a finding must meet the threshold of: (a) Fraud: (b) direct and material illegal acts; or (c) noncompliance that could result in exclusion from further participation. With the exception of a fraud investigation, expanding the audit period to investigate extraordinary findings requires the express written approval of the Director. Justification for requesting an expanded audit period must address the elements of criteria, condition, and effect (measure of consequences) of the finding. The audit period may be expanded to include all unaudited Federal funds and license fee revenues.

B. Provide adequate oversight and financial resources to ensure timely audit completion.

C. Cooperate and coordinate fully with grantees, auditors, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and Office of Financial Management (PFM).

1.5 What are the objectives of the Federal Assistance Program grantee audit? The Federal Assistance Audit Program supplements Single Audit Act audits performed according to the requirements of OMB Circular A-133 ( see 417 FW 6). The objectives of Federal Assistance grantee audits are to:

A. Promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in administration of programs and operations.

B. Aid in deterring and detecting of fraud and abuse in programs and operations.

C. Assess financial integrity, accountability, and financial controls of the Federal Assistance Program in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

D. Monitor compliance with applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations.

1.6 Who is responsible for administering the Federal Assistance Audit Program?

A. The Director will:

(1) Oversee the Federal Assistance Audit Program.

(2) Make the final decision on internal Service disagreements associated with resolving audit findings and preparing Corrective Action Plans (CAPs).

(3) Make the final decision on all grantee appeals to the Service.

(4) Respond to the Department of the Interior, Office of Hearings and Appeals.

B. Regional Directors will:

(1) Ensure that Federal Assistance Program staff receive the training necessary to oversee audits.

(2) Provide information to the auditor on Region-specific issues proposed for audit.

(3) Provide guidance and interpret laws, rules, regulations, and policies for the auditor during an audit.

(4) Promptly notify the grantee in writing of significant changes in audit scope, such as a change in the period being audited. The notification will include the reason for the change.

(5) Work with the grantee and auditor throughout the audit to resolve issues as they arise and to identify those issues with potential national implications.

(6) Determine to sustain or reject the auditor's findings and recommendations in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

(7) Negotiate with grantees to develop corrective actions to resolve audit findings. Approve, distribute, and monitor implementation of the CAP.

(8) Brief the Director when there is a disagreement between the Regional Director and the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration on the CAP.

(9) Request closeout of the audit when the grantee has resolved all findings.

(10) Retain the final audit report, CAP, resolutions, and appeals through the completion of the succeeding audit of the grantee.

(11) Notify the grantees of the 5-year schedule of audits.

(12) Address written complaints from grantees regarding the conduct or scope of an audit.

C. The Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration will:

(1) Ensure consistent interpretation and application of rules, regulations, and laws concerning the Federal Assistance Audit Program.

(2) Establish the national audit schedule pursuant to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of 2000.

(3) Coordinate Washington Office review of the CAP prior to signature by the Regional Director.

(4) Brief the Director when there is a disagreement with the Regional Director on the CAP.

(5) Evaluate the Federal Assistance Audit Program for efficiency, timeliness, and effectiveness prior to initiating each national audit cycle. The Assistant Director consults with States and Regional Directors to produce a written report for the Director at least once every 5 years. The report identifies issues and makes recommendations for improving the Audit Program.

D. The Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), will:

(1) Advise the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration on scheduling of grantee audits.

(2) Coordinate audits and provide for an independent audit of grantees. Serve as a point of contact for Service staff and the auditor.

(3) Require that audits are conducted in accordance with generally accepted Government Auditing Standards and Federal policies, regulations, and laws.

(4) Identify national audit training needs and make training available. Ensure that appropriate Washington Office Federal Assistance Program staff receives the training necessary to oversee audits. Provide the auditor with orientation in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration program administrative processes, policies, and procedures.

(5) Establish the objectives of the audit of the Federal Assistance Program grantees.

(6) Develop and maintain the Audit Guide.

(7) Ensure the auditor adheres to the Audit Guide.

(8) Summarize and disseminate common findings from ongoing audits and their resolutions, without breaching the confidentiality of the audit process. Information will be provided on a regularly scheduled basis.

(9) Provide technical assistance on audit issues to the Regional Office staff and the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration prior to and during the development of the CAP.

(10) Coordinate with the Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, and the OIG to determine appropriate means of responding to audit-related Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and for distributing final audit reports and final CAPs.

E. The Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, will:

(1) Oversee activities of the Service Audit Liaison Officer, who, in turn, serves as liaison to PFM and OIG regarding Federal Assistance grantee audit followup as described in 417 FW 4.

(2) Advise Service officials on audit liaison matters.

(3) Track the implementation of audit recommendations and report to the Directorate and PFM on grantee audit followup.

1.7 Who maintains audit resolution files? The Regional Director is responsible for maintaining audit resolution files through the completion of the succeeding audit of the grantee. The office or Region that administers the grants being audited will maintain the following documents in the audit resolution file:

A. Audit resolution correspondence, incoming and outgoing.

B. OIG final audit report.

C. Approved CAP for audit findings.

D. Documentation provided by the grantee and used by the Regional Director to verify that the grantee resolved each finding or implemented the auditor's recommendation.

E. Documentation that the audit has been officially closed out.

1.8 What are the definitions for terms used in this Part?

A. Appeal. A deliberative process that the grantee initiates when he/she does not agree with the Service's determinations, corrective actions, or the resolutions contained in the CAP.

B. Audit. Examination of Federal Assistance Program grantees conducted by the Department of the Interior, OIG, other Federal agencies, or independent public accountants for compliance with applicable Acts, regulations, accounting principles, and Service policy.

(1) Audit Finding. Questioned costs, compliance issues, and other matters identified in the audit report.

(2) Audit Recommendation. Actions proposed by the auditor to address audit findings.

C. Audit Guide. A document prepared by the auditor in consultation with the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office). The Chief will consult with the Regional Director(s) and grantee(s) as necessary. This guide provides the information, background, and general guidelines necessary to conduct audits. It will be available to all parties.

D. Audit Reports

(1) Draft Audit Report. The report that is prepared by the auditor after the audit exit conference and provided to the Service and the grantee for official comments.

(2) Final Audit Report. The auditor's report issued after the official comment period has expired. It includes the auditor's findings and recommendations, comments received on the draft audit report, and the auditor's response.

E. Auditor. A public accountant or a Federal, State, or local government audit organization that meets the general standards specified in Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards.

F. Corrective Action. Specific action(s) to resolve an audit finding in a manner consistent with the Service determination.

G. Corrective Action Plan. A plan prepared by the Service in consultation with the grantee for addressing all audit findings and implementing sustained recommendations contained in audit reports. At a minimum, it contains four components: Auditor's Findings and Recommendations, Service Determination, Corrective Action, and Resolution.

H. Engagement Letter. The official notification of a pending audit from the auditor to the grantee, including a request for information.

I. Entrance Conference. The meeting involving the auditor, the Service, the grantee, and others, if needed, that officially begins the audit fieldwork.

J. Exit Conference. The optional meeting at the conclusion of the fieldwork, involving the auditor, the Service, the grantee, and others, to review the preliminary results of the audit.

K. Federal Assistance Program. A Program that administers the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior under the Federal Assistance in Sport Fish Restoration Act, Federal Assistance in Wildlife Restoration Act, Clean Vessel Act, Coastal Wetlands Act, the Partnerships for Wildlife Act, and other Acts that establish grant programs. The Service's Division of Federal Assistance fulfills these responsibilities.

L. Fieldwork. Work that the auditor performs between the entrance and exit conference.

M. Final Action. The completion of all actions, including documentation, necessary to implement a specific audit recommendation and resolve an audit finding.

N. Grantee. The entity to which the Service awards a grant and who is accountable for use of the Federal funds provided.

O. Office of Financial Management (PFM). The Department of the Interior organization under the Assistant Secretary—Policy, Management, and Budget, that tracks audit recommendations to final action.

P. Office of Hearings and Appeals. The Department of the Interior organization responsible for disposition of grantee appeals to the Secretary of the Interior.

Q. Office of Inspector General (OIG). The Department of the Interior organization responsible for conducting, supervising, and coordinating audits, evaluations, investigations, and other activities relating to programs and operations of the Department.

R. Planning. A dynamic process involving the auditor, the Service, and grantees, that continues throughout the audit and which includes identifying the scope of the audit, the audit schedule, and milestones; who will conduct the audit; points of contact; logistical requirements; issues of potential concern; and the detailed steps for conducting the audit.

S. Resolution. A process to address and resolve each finding and recommendation in the audit report.

T. Scope. The depth and coverage of work conducted to accomplish the audit objectives. The scope of the audit includes the financial and program elements, time period, and locations to be covered by the audit. Scope is set by the auditor, who should exercise due professional care, sound judgment, and consideration of the nature and character of the engagement.

U. Service Audit Liaison Officer. The Washington Office representative who serves as the point of contact for followup activities pertaining to grantee audits.

V. Service Determination. The Service decision to sustain (accept) or not sustain (reject) the auditor's finding and recommendation.

W. Single Audit Report. An audit of a grantee completed in accordance with the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and OMB Circular A-133. These audits are separate from Federal Assistance Program specific audits (grantee audits).

X. We/Us. As used throughout this Part, the terms “we” and “us” refer to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

1.9 What phases are included in a Federal Assistance Program grantee audit?

A. Planning (417 FW 2). The auditor, in consultation with the Service and the grantee, identifies programmatic and financial elements to be audited, establishes the period to be audited, identifies issues of potential concern, and ensures that the audit meets Government standards. The planning phase helps to ensure a nationally consistent, effective, and timely audit process. Audit planning establishes the audit schedule, identifies who will conduct the audit, identifies point(s) of contact, sets milestones, and describes logistical requirements.

B. Conducting and Reporting (417 FW 3). The audit conducting and reporting phase helps to ensure independent examination of grantees consistent with Government auditing standards.

C. Audit Resolution (417 FW 4). The audit resolution phase ensures that we track and resolve all findings and recommendations in a timely and efficient manner.

D. Appeals (417 FW 5). The appeals process allows a grantee to appeal Service determinations, corrective actions, or resolutions.

E. Single Audit Act Audits (417 FW 6). Policy for resolving findings from audits conducted under the Single Audit Act.

2.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter describes audit planning. See 417 FW 1 for authorities, responsibilities, and definitions. Other chapters in this Part establish policy and procedures for audit conducting and reporting, resolution, and appeals.

2.2 What is audit planning and why do it? During the audit planning phase, the auditor, in conjunction with the Service and the grantee, identifies the scope of the audit, the audit schedule and milestones, the personnel who will conduct the audit, points of contact, logistical requirements, issues of potential concern, and the detailed steps for conducting the audit. The scope of the audit includes the financial and program elements, time period, and locations to be covered by the audit. Audit planning helps to ensure that we have a nationally consistent, effective, and timely audit process.

2.3 What are the key coordination steps in audit planning?

A. Engagement Letter. The auditor is responsible for notifying a grantee of a pending audit. The auditor sends an engagement letter to the grantee, with a copy to the Regional Director, approximately 90 calendar days, or as negotiated with the grantee, prior to the audit entrance conference. This letter informs the grantee of the audit objectives, the audit period, the key program elements being audited, the information and documents the grantee must make available, and the logistical needs for conducting the fieldwork.

B. Grantee's initial reply to the Auditor's engagement letter. The grantee will respond to the auditor's engagement letter within 45 calendar days after receipt, and provide available information. The grantee acknowledges the auditor's engagement letter by providing a written response, including as much requested data as is practical at that time. The grantee notifies the auditor of any information that is not available and estimates the date when the information will be available or explains why it cannot be provided. Auditors should review data prior to arriving on site in order to ensure a more timely and efficient onsite audit with minimal disruption of the grantee's normal operations.

C. Pre-Audit Coordination. The auditor schedules a pre-audit coordination meeting with the Regional Director and regional Federal Assistance staff. The purposes of the meeting are for the auditor to become familiar with grants that were active during the audit period and for the Service to discuss specific concerns. The regional Federal Assistance staff may solicit grantee input prior to this meeting.

D. Coordination with State Auditor. The auditor contacts the audit agency or group that performed the statewide audit or agency-specific audit to obtain access to audit work papers. The auditor reviews prior audits of the grantee's program to aid in identifying issues to be evaluated, obtain a general understanding of the grantee's accounting and internal control systems, and avoid duplication of effort.

E. Auditor review of past audit findings. Using Government Auditing Standards, the auditor is required to review corrective actions from prior audits to determine if the grantee has implemented them or if additional actions are needed.

2.4 What could the scope of an audit include? The scope of an audit may include one or more of the following components:

A. A financial compliance component to determine if:

(1) A grantee properly conducts financial operations.

(2) Financial reports are submitted timely in accordance with established due dates and conform with generally accepted accounting principles.

(3) Operations comply with applicable laws and regulations.

(4) Expenditures claimed by the grantee were eligible, approved, allowable, and allocable for costs necessary to accomplish the objectives in the approved grant.

B. A component to determine whether or not the grantee accomplished the work or objectives approved in the grant.

C. An economy and efficiency component to determine whether or not the grantee efficiently and economically managed resources; e.g. , personnel, property, space.

2.5 Who determines the scope of an audit? The auditor determines the scope of the audit. The auditor consults with the grantee and the Service, and supplements and builds upon other audits of the grantee, to set the scope of the audit and identify the depth and coverage of the audit work. Reports issued by the OIG will address only the initial 2-year period unless there is some extraordinary finding. This 2-year period applies to the audit period itself and does not eliminate Service responsibilities for general oversight of the Federal Assistance program outside of that timeframe. The auditor may use previous audits or other information from outside the audit period as reference to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the audit.

2.6 Will the audit be limited to a 2-year period? All reports will be limited to addressing the 2-year audit period unless there is some extraordinary finding. To be considered extraordinary, a finding must meet the threshold of: (a) Fraud: (b) direct and material illegal acts; or (c) noncompliance that could result in exclusion from further participation. With the exception of a fraud investigation, expanding the audit period to investigate extraordinary findings requires the express written approval of the Director. Justification for requesting an expanded audit period must address the elements of criteria, condition, and effect (measure of consequences) of the finding. The audit period may be expanded to include all unaudited Federal funds and license fee revenues.

2.7 Will the grantee be notified of an expanded audit? Yes. The Regional Director promptly notifies the grantee in writing of a change in the period being audited. The notification will include the reason for the change.

2.8 Can a grantee appeal the scope of an audit? No. An audit is an independent examination of the grantee's Federal Assistance Program. However, the grantee may contact the Regional Director if the grantee has concern about the programs or activities being audited that have no relation to the Federal Assistance program.

3.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter provides procedures for conducting and reporting on audits of Federal Assistance Program grantees. See 417 FW 1 for authorities, responsibilities, and definitions. Other chapters in this Part establish policy and procedures for audit planning, resolution, and appeals.

3.2 What is the objective of the conducting and reporting phase? The objective of the conducting and reporting phase is to ensure that independent examination of grantees is consistent with Government auditing standards. This examination results in a final audit report issued by the OIG.

3.3 What steps does the conducting and reporting phase involve? The conducting and reporting phase involves the following steps:

A. Audit Entrance Conference. This meeting marks the official beginning of the fieldwork.

B. Fieldwork. Fieldwork usually takes 3 to 4 months to complete, including site visits. The auditor, the grantee, and the Regional Director communicate regularly to resolve potential audit findings and recommendations before the auditor prepares the draft audit report.

C. Compilations of Findings and Recommendations. Prior to the exit conference, the auditor will provide the grantee and the Service with a compilation of the findings and recommendations that were developed during the audit and that will be used as the basis for preparing the draft audit report.

D. Audit Exit Conference. After providing the compilation of findings and recommendations for review, the auditor schedules an audit exit conference with the Regional Director and the grantee. This conference provides an opportunity for the grantee and Service representatives to ask for or provide further clarification as well as to address any other concerns. If significant changes are made to the findings and recommendations on the basis of discussions at the exit conference or as a result of additional audit work after the exit conference, the auditor will provide the revised findings and recommendations to the grantee and the Service, with a request for comments, prior to preparing the draft audit report. The completion of the audit exit conference marks the completion of the fieldwork.

E. Draft Audit Report. After the exit conference, the auditor will provide a draft audit report to the Service and the grantee, with a request for written comments within 30 days. The grantee must provide comments to the Regional Director for forwarding to the auditor. The grantee can request additional review time, with justification, in writing to the Regional Director.

F. Final Audit Report. The final audit report is issued by OIG to the Director, and includes both the grantee's response and the auditor's reply.

3.4 What is an audit entrance conference? The auditor schedules this conference in consultation with the grantee and the Regional Director to mark the official beginning of the fieldwork. Participants include the auditor and representatives from the grantee and the Region. The auditor will explain the audit objectives and process, address logistical needs, establish a tentative schedule, and answer questions.

3.5 Who provides technical guidance to the auditor on interpretation and application of Federal Assistance Program rules and regulations? The Regional Director provides routine guidance and interprets laws, rules, regulations, and policies for the auditor during the conduct of the audit. The Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration ensures consistent interpretation and application of rules, regulations, and laws nationwide.

3.6 Will the auditor issue status reports? Yes. During the fieldwork, the auditor provides monthly status reports, or more frequently as may be specified during the entrance conference, to the Regional Director and the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), and to the grantee, unless the grantee advises otherwise. The status report contains a brief description of preliminary findings and how the audit is progressing.

3.7 Is the Service required to share monthly status reports? No. The auditor's monthly status reports are proprietary, and we will share these reports with the grantee only.

3.8 Will the auditor consult with the Service on potential findings while the audit is in progress? Yes. The auditor must report all potential findings to the grantee, the Regional Director, and the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration as soon as possible. However, in the case of illegal activity or suspected fraud, the auditor must immediately report such findings to the OIG—Division of Investigations without notice to the Service or grantee.

3.9 How does the Service address major issues identified during the audit? If the Regional Director or the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), has a concern about potential findings by the auditor, he/she contacts the Assistant Director, the auditor, and the grantee to deal with the issue(s) as soon as possible. If the Regional Director or the Chief believes that an issue is of national concern, he/she notifies the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. The Assistant Director determines the appropriate action for national application and issue resolution and issues written guidance to the Regional Directors.

3.10 Can audit findings be resolved while the field audit is still in progress? Yes. When practical and feasible, we work with grantees to resolve audit findings while the auditor is still on site so that he/she can verify and document the resolution in audit work papers and report the resolution in the final audit report. The auditor must document all reportable conditions, including those resolved during the audit, to meet Government Auditing Standards. Upon written request to the auditor, the Service and the grantee will be provided copies of the auditor's working papers that are needed to fully understand and resolve the audit findings and recommendations.

3.11 Will the Service and the grantee have an opportunity to review findings and recommendations prior to the exit conference? Yes. Copies of findings and recommendations will be provided to the Service and grantee for comment as they are developed throughout the audit fieldwork phase. The findings and recommendations are subject to revision based on any comments received from the Service or the grantee. The findings and recommendations provide the basis for the draft audit report.

3.12 Is an audit exit conference required and, if so, when does it occur? No, is it not required. An audit exit conference will be conducted at the option of the State. The auditor schedules the audit exit conference with the Service and the grantee, to occur on a mutually agreeable date. This conference is an opportunity for the grantee and the Service to request or provide further clarification on the potential findings and to address any other concerns relating to the conduct of the audit. Participants include the auditor and representatives of the Service and the grantee.

3.13 Can audit findings change as a result of the exit conference? Yes. The auditor takes information received during the exit conference under advisement. The auditor may modify the findings or recommendations before preparing the draft audit report.

3.14 Will the grantee and the Service have an opportunity to review and respond to audit findings in the draft audit report? Yes.

A. After receipt of the draft audit report, the grantee has 30 calendar days to:

(1) Concur with the audit findings and recommendations;

(2) Offer clarifying language for incorporation into the report; or

(3) Disagree with audit findings or recommendations, and provide additional information, if appropriate, to support the grantee's position on specific audit findings.

B. The grantee may ask the Regional Director for additional review time. This written request must include supporting justification. The Regional Director responds in writing to the grantee's request and instructs the auditor and the grantee accordingly.

C. The auditor will summarize the grantee's response in the final report and include the complete text of the grantee's response as an attachment.

3.15 Will the auditor respond to the grantee's written comments on draft audit report findings and recommendations? Yes. The auditor responds to the grantee's comments in the final audit report.

3.16 Who issues the final audit report, and to whom is it issued? The OIG issues the final audit report to the Service Director, with a copy to the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance and the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sports Fish Restoration. The OIG also sends copies of the report to the appropriate Regional Director and the Service Audit Liaison Officer. The Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), distributes informational copies to all other Regional Directors.

3.17 Who provides the final audit report to the grantee? The Regional Director immediately transmits a copy of the final audit report to the grantee.

3.18 Who can distribute the final audit report to the public? The OIG originates the final audit report and is responsible for distribution per 43 CFR 2.15. The final audit report is available for distribution to the public by the OIG at the time it is issued.

3.19 Will final audit reports appear on the Internet? As the “office of record”, the OIG makes the decision to post final audit reports on the Internet in accordance with Departmental regulations (43 CFR 2.15). They will post final audit reports after appropriate review and as time allows. Requests for copies of final audit reports not found on the OIG's Internet site should be directed to the FOIA Officer, Office of the Inspector General.

3.20 Can a grantee register a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the audit? Yes. A grantee may register a written complaint with the Regional Director at any point during the audit.

4.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter establishes policy and procedures for tracking and resolving findings and implementing recommendations from audits of Federal Assistance Program grantees. See 417 FW 1 for authorities, responsibilities, and definitions. Other chapters in this Part establish policy and procedures for audit planning, conducting and reporting, and appeals.

4.2 When does audit resolution begin? The formal audit resolution process begins on the date the OIG issues the final audit report per 361 DM. However, the Regional Director will work with the grantee while the audit is in progress to resolve issues that the auditor identifies. Exhibit 1 provides the maximum timeframes for each phase of the audit resolution process.

4.3 Who prepares the CAP? The Regional Director and the grantee negotiate the terms of the CAP through written and oral discussions of the auditor's findings and recommendations, the grantee's comments, the auditor's response, and the Service's determination. The Regional Chief, Division of Federal Assistance, in coordination with the grantee and the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), prepares the CAP for the Regional Director's signature.

4.4 How much time does the Service have to prepare a CAP? The OIG must receive the CAP not later than 90 calendar days from the date the OIG issued the final audit report.

A. The Regional Director has 45 calendar days to prepare the CAP and submit it to the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration, attention: Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office).

B. The Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration has 30 calendar days to review the CAP, concur, and return to the Regional Director.

C. The Regional Director has 15 calendar days to approve the CAP and forward it to the OIG.

D. If the Regional Director and the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration do not concur with the CAP, the matter is referred to the Director and timeframes are as indicated in Exhibit 1.

4.5 Can the Service request additional time to prepare the CAP? If the Assistant Director and Regional Director cannot resolve their differences, the Director will make the final decision. The Assistant Director may request a 30-calendar-day extension from the OIG if needed.

4.6 What are the content and format for a CAP?

A. A cover page that clearly identifies the grantee audited, the years audited, and the report number. Obtain this information from the title of the OIG's final audit report.

B. The CAP addresses all audit findings and recommendations that the OIG identifies in the final audit report. The CAP contains, at a minimum:

(1) Auditor's Findings and Recommendations. The OIG identifies findings and recommendations that we must address in the CAP.

(2) Service Determination. The Service sustains (accepts) or does not sustain (rejects) each finding and recommendation. Sustained recommendations from the final audit report must result in planned corrective actions. If the Regional Director does not sustain an audit finding, he or she explains the basis, including legal citations, for that determination. The CAP addresses both sustained and nonsustained findings.

(3) Corrective Action. This component identifies specific corrective action(s) to resolve the finding consistent with the Service Determination. It specifies necessary actions, target dates, and the person responsible for carrying out each action. It also specifies how the grantee should implement the corrective actions to resolve the issues.

(4) Resolution. This component describes documentation that we require of the grantee to verify implementation of the corrective action(s).

4.7 Who must review and concur with the CAP? The Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration will review the draft CAP and decide whether to concur or not to concur within 30 calendar days from the date the Region forwards the CAP to the Washington Office.

4.8 What happens if the Assistant Director does not concur with the Region's draft CAP? The Assistant Director will work with the Regional Director to resolve any disagreements with the CAP. If they cannot resolve their differences, the Director will make the final decision. The Assistant Director may request a 30-calendar-day extension from the OIG if needed.

4.9 When is the CAP reviewed at the Department level? The Department reviews the CAP when it is not approved by the Regional Director within 90-120 calendar days. PFM reviews all CAP resolutions placed in tracking. If PFM does not concur with all CAP resolutions, PFM will notify the Service. The CAP may be returned to the Regional Director for revision in consultation with the grantee. PFM tracks resolution of all audit recommendations.

4.10 Are all audit recommendations tracked? Yes. The Regional Director tracks all audit recommendations listed in the CAP and reports to the Assistant Director annually on progress.

A. When OIG receives the CAP within 90-120 calendar days, PFM tracks only the audit recommendations that are not resolved or implemented.

B. When OIG does not receive the CAP within 90-120 calendar days, PFM tracks all audit recommendations.

4.11 Who forwards the CAP to the OIG? Within 15 calendar days of the Washington Office concurrence, the Regional Director approves and immediately forwards the CAP to:

A. OIG, and

B. The Grantee, for implementation. The Regional Director will provide a copy to the Assistant Director—Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. The date the Regional Director approves the CAP starts the 21-day appeal window described in 417 FW 5.

4.12 What happens if the OIG does not concur with one or more of the resolutions in the CAP? The OIG forwards the CAP to PFM. PFM will instruct the Regional Director to correct the CAP.

4.13 How much time does the grantee have to implement the CAP? The corrective action for each finding has a specific deadline as negotiated during development of the CAP. A grantee may request additional time from the Regional Director. The request must be in writing and justify the time requested. The Regional Director consults with the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), as needed, and responds in writing to the grantee within 10 working days of receipt of the grantee's request. The Regional Director notifies the Chief, Federal Assistance (Washington Office) of whether the Regional Director concurs or not, and the Chief of Federal Assistance notifies the Audit Liaison Officer of the change.

4.14 Who monitors implementation of the CAP? The Regional Director monitors, tracks, and documents implementation of the CAP and keeps the Director, through the Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, informed of implementation progress.

4.15 Who can distribute the CAP to the public? The Regional Director originates the CAP and makes it available to the public upon request, but only after the CAP has been sent to the OIG and the grantee has received a copy. A grantee may release a copy of the CAP at his or her discretion.

4.16 Will the CAP be published on the Internet? The Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office) will coordinate with the Chief, Division of Policy and Directives Management, and the OIG to determine if posting a specifically requested document on the Internet is appropriate. If the Service receives three or more requests from the public for a specific CAP, Department of the Interior guidance is that the Service make that CAP available on the Internet per the Freedom of Information Act.

4.17 How can a final CAP be modified? Only the Director or the Secretary may modify the final CAP as the result of an appeal completed in accordance with 417 FW 5 or 50 CFR 80.7, except that deadlines for implementation of corrective actions may be changed upon written approval by the Regional Director in accordance with paragraph 4.13 and after consultation with the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), as needed. If conditions change for a grantee that affect the grantee's ability to implement the CAP, as agreed to, the grantee may petition the Regional Director to modify the CAP. Upon receipt of this petition, the Region submits the CAP amendment to the AD-MBSP through the Washington Office for concurrence. The AD-MBSP forwards the amended CAP to PDM, who then forwards the amended CAP to PFM.

4.18 Can a grantee appeal a Service determination or corrective action in the final CAP? Yes. A grantee may appeal a Service determination, corrective action, or resolution contained in the final CAP by the appeals process described in 417 FW 5.

4.19 Are status reports required during implementation of the CAP? If PFM requires us to submit status reports on specific corrective actions, we will request status reports from the grantee.

4.20 Are there penalties if a grantee does not resolve audit findings in the Corrective Action Plan? Yes, remedies for noncompliance are found at 43 CFR 12.83. Additionally, the enforcement remedies in this section do not preclude the grantee from being placed in a high-risk status as discussed at 43 CFR 12.52, or being subject to debarment or suspension, discussed at 43 CFR 12.75.

4.21 How is an audit closed? When resolution is being tracked by PFM, the Regional Director sends a memorandum to the Director documenting that final action is complete (all corrective actions have been implemented) and requesting that the audit be closed. The Regional Director routes this memorandum, with implementation documentation, through the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), for review and concurrence. The Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), then forwards a copy of the memorandum to the Chief, PDM, for review and concurrence. When all concerns are satisfied, the Service Audit Liaison Officer forwards a copy to the Audit Followup Program Liaison in PFM. If PFM concurs that all action(s) has been implemented, PFM notifies the Service Audit Liaison Officer that the audit is resolved. The Service Audit Liaison Officer notifies the Chief, Division of Federal Assistance (Washington Office), who releases the original memo to the Director. If the Director concurs, he signs it and returns it to the Regional Director officially closing the audit. The Regional Director notifies the grantee that the audit findings are resolved and closed. When resolution is not being tracked by PFM, the Regional Director will receive a memorandum from the OIG that indicates the CAP is resolved. The Regional Director will notify the grantee the audit is closed.

This collection of information is authorized under Public Law 103-177, the “American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act,” as amended. Tribes, tribal organizations, individual Indians, and those entering into permits with tribes or individual Indians submit information required by the regulation. This information is used by the BIA to determine:

(a) Whether or not a permit for grazing may be approved or granted,

(b) The value of each permit,

(c) The appropriate compensation to landowners, and

(d) Provisions for violations of permit and trespass.

A request for comments on this information collection request appeared in the Federal Register May 27, 2003 (68 FR 28836). No comments were received. Further research has guided a change in the total annual burden hours and the total annual cost to respondents as shown on the 60 days notice. These changes are a result of additional information received from the field offices. The number of annual responses was changed from 4,200 to 6,670, the total annual burden to respondents was changed from 500 hours to 861 hours, and the total annual cost to respondents was changed from $2,500.00 to $4,305.00. An administrative fee of up to 3% of the annual grazing rental is collected to reimburse the BIA for administration of the grazing permit program. In recent years, administrative fees have generated approximately $175,000.00 per year.

Request for Comments: The Bureau of Indian Affairs requests you to send your comments on this collection to the locations listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your comments should address:

(a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c) The ways we could enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d) The ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents, such as through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Please note that an agency may not sponsor or request, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it has a valid OMB Control Number.

It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section, room 3061, during the hours of 8 a.m.-4 p.m., EST Monday through Friday except for legal holidays. If you wish to have your name and/or address withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your request according to the requirements of the law. All comments from organizations or representatives will be available for review. We may withhold comments from review for other reasons.

OMB has up to 60 days to make a decision on the submission for renewal, but may make the decision after 30 days. Therefore, to receive the best consideration of your comments, you should submit them closer to 30 days than 60 days.

OMB Approval Number: 1076-0157.

Title: Grazing Permits 25 CFR 166.

Brief Description of collection: Information is collected through a grazing permit application. Respondent supplies all information needed to prepare a grazing permit, including: name, address, range unit requested, number of livestock, season of use, livestock owner's brand, kind of livestock, mortgage holder information, ownership of livestock, and requested term of permit. Response is mandatory for respondents to supply the above information in order to obtain a grazing permit.

Type of review: Renewal.

Respondents: Possible respondents include: individual tribal members, individual non-Indians, individual tribal member-owned business, non-Indian owned businesses, tribal governments and landowners. Response is mandatory for respondents who wish to obtain a grazing permit.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 minutes (1/3 hour).

Frequency of Response: Annually and as needed.

Total Annual Responses: 6,670.

Total Annual Hourly Burden to Respondents: 861 hours.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 provides an opportunity for interested parties to comment on proposed information collection requests. This collection covers 25 CFR 151 as presently approved. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Real Estate Services is proceeding with this public comment period as the first step in obtaining a normal information collection clearance from OMB. The request contains (1) type of review, (2) title, (3) summary of the collection, (4) respondents, (5) frequency of collection, (6) reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and (7) reason for response.

Type of review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: 25 CFR 151, Acquisition of Title to Land in Trust.

Summary: The Secretary of the Interior has statutory authority to acquire lands in trust status for individual Indians and federally recognized Indian tribes. The Secretary requests information in order to identify the party(ies) involved and a description of the land in question. Respondents are Native American tribes or individuals who request acquisition of real property into trust status. The Secretary also requests additional information necessary to satisfy those pertinent factors listed in 15 CFR 151.10 or 151.11. The information is used to determine whether or not the Secretary will approve an applicant's request. No specific form is used, but respondents supply information and data, in accordance with 25 CFR 151, so that the Secretary may make an evaluation and determination in accordance with established Federal factors, rules and policies.

Frequency of Collection: One Time.

Description of Respondents: Native American Tribes and Individuals desiring acquisition of lands in trust status.

Total Respondents: 9,200.

Total Annual Responses: 9,200.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 36,800 hours.

Reason for response: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs solicits comments in order to:

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

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

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

(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond.

We will not sponsor or conduct a request for information, and you need not respond to such a request unless there is a valid OMB Control Number.

Please note that comments are open to public review; if you wish to have your name and address withheld from the reviewing public, you must state so prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your request to the limit of the appropriate laws. All comments from businesses or their representatives will be available for public review. We may decide to withhold information for other reasons.

This notice is published to comply with the requirement of 25 CFR part 151.12(b) that notice be given to the public of the Secretary's decision to acquire land in trust at least 30 days prior to signatory acceptance of the land into trust. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period in 25 CFR part 151.12(b) is to afford interested parties the opportunity to seek judicial review of final administrative decisions to take land in trust for Indian tribes and individual Indians before transfer of title to the property occurs. On October 8, 2003, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs decided to accept approximately 2.0 acres of land into trust for the Skokomish Tribe of Washington under the authority of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. 465. The 2.0 acre parcel is located within the exterior boundaries of the Skokomish Indian Tribe in Mason County, Washington. The parcel is an existing parking lot which supports the Tribe's gaming facility. No change in use is anticipated following conveyance of the parcel to the United States in trust for the Tribe.

The real property consists of a 2.0 acre tract known as “Parcel 2 of the Jackpot Property” situated in Mason County, Washington. The legal description of the property is as follows:

MMS prepares SEAs and FONSIs for proposals that relate to exploration for and the development/production of oil and gas resources on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. These SEAs examine the potential environmental effects of activities described in the proposals and present MMS conclusions regarding the significance of those effects. Environmental Assessments are used as a basis for determining whether or not approval of the proposals constitutes major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment in the sense of NEPA Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared in those instances where MMS finds that approval will not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The FONSI briefly presents the basis for that finding and includes a summary or copy of the SEA.

This notice constitutes the public notice of availability of environmental documents required under the NEPA Regulations.

This listing includes all proposals for which the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region prepared a FONSI in the period subsequent to publication of the preceding notice.

Persons interested in reviewing environmental documents for the proposals listed above or obtaining information about SEAs and FONSIs prepared for activities on the Gulf of Mexico OCS are encouraged to contact MMS at the address or telephone listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collections are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (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 the use of information technology. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections:

1. Title: NHPRC Subvention Grant Guidelines and Application.

OMB number: 3095-0021.

Agency form number: N/A.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Universities and non-profit presses.

Estimated number of respondents: 10.

Estimated time per response: 7 hours.

Frequency of response: On occasion. On the average, a press submits two-and-a-half subvention applications per year.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 70 hours.

Abstract: The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1206. The application is submitted by university and other non-profit presses applying to the NHPRC grant program for subvention of part of the costs of manufacturing and distributing volumes published by NHPRC-supported editorial projects.

2. Title: NHPRC Annual Sales Reports for Subvention Grants.

OMB number: 3095-0022.

Agency form number: None.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Non-profit presses that have received an NHPRC subvention grant.

Estimated number of respondents: 10.

Estimated time per response: 3 hours.

Frequency of response: One time only. On the average, a press has two on-going subvention grants and therefore submits two sales reports per year.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 30 hours.

Abstract: The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1206. The sales information provided by non-profit presses is used by Commission staff to gauge interest among scholars and the general public in documentary editions supported by Commission grants.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43380). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.

In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (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 the use of information technology. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Records Storage Facility Survey.

OMB number: New.

Agency form number: None.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Owners/operators of commercial records storage facilities that are small businesses.

Estimated number of respondents: 263.

Estimated time per response: 15 minutes.

Frequency of response: One-time.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 66 hours.

Abstract: The information collection is a survey of the characteristics of records storage facilities operated by small businesses. Respondents will be a random sample of owners/operators of such facilities. The survey information will be used by the NARA policy and technical staff to evaluate the construction materials, fire protection measures, and storage practices common in small business records centers against the existing standards in the NARA regulation on records center facility standards (36 CFR part 1228, subpart K). The information will be used in a regulatory flexibility analysis of possible alternatives to the existing standards and assessment of the ability of small business to comply with those alternatives.

Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.

Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (N1-440-03-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Paper and electronic records relating to Y2K efforts, including such matters as policy and planning, project administration, system testing and verification, and contractor activities. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Paper copies of these files were previously approved for disposal. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

2. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-03-2, 17 items, 14 temporary items). Reports, statistics, planning records, property accountability records, personal property records, telephone directories, correspondence management records, issuances, reading files, broadcast e-mail messages, reference files, and other records, accumulated primarily by the Office of Finance and Administration. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Records proposed for permanent retention include recordkeeping copies of records created to comply with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, records of advisory, interagency, and international committees sponsored by the agency, and directives.

3. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-03-3, 10 items, 8 temporary items). Records relating to internal investigations and inspections, including reports, memorandums, correspondence, and statistical data. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of final, signed directives and statistical data and other records relating to trends in transportation security.

4. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (N1-65-03-4, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Work papers and final reports documenting routine inspections of FBI programs and field offices. Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing are included.

5. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (N1-436-03-4, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Master files, outputs, and documentation associated with the Relief of Disabilities System, an electronic system used to monitor and track the status of applications for the restoration of Federal firearms and explosives privileges. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

6. Department of the Treasury, U. S. Mint (N1-104-03-11, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Master files, outputs, and documentation associated with the Die Information System, an electronic system which tracks the life of dies used to strike coins and other numismatic products.

7. Department of the Treasury, U.S. Mint (N1-104-03-12, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and system documentation associated with the Pallet Tracking System, an electronic system which tracks coin shipment pallets.

8. National Archives and Records Administration, Electronic and Special Media Records Services Division (N2-381-03-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Office of Economic Opportunity data file tabulations of 1960 Census data by sex, race, and marital status. Records were accessioned into the National Archives, but cannot be accessed due to technical problems.

9. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (N1-51-03-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item). The eGov Central Web site used by the E-Gov Initiative project team and partners to communicate and collaborate on-line.

10. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation (N1-220-03-04, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that are associated with files relating to housing repair programs, 1982-1987. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for permanent retention.

11. Small Business Administration, Office of Government Contracting and Business Development (N1-309-03-11, 7 items, 7 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, documentation, and backups associated with the Size Case Log Reporting System, an electronic system which tracks all requests for size determinations of small businesses. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.

The PBGC is requesting a three-year extension of the paperwork approval relating to model forms contained in the PBGC booklet, Divorce Orders & PBGC. The collection of information has been approved through November 30, 2003, by OMB under control number 1212-0054. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

A defined benefit pension plan that does not have enough money to pay benefits may be terminated if the employer responsible for the plan faces severe financial difficulty, such as bankruptcy, and is unable to maintain the plan. In such an event, the PBGC becomes trustee of the plan and pays benefits, subject to legal limits, to plan participants and beneficiaries.

The benefits of a pension plan participant generally may not be assigned or alienated. Title I of ERISA provides an exception for domestic relations orders that relate to child support, alimony payments, or marital property rights of an alternate payee (a spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a plan participant). The exception applies only if the domestic relations order meets specific legal requirements that make it a qualified domestic relations order.

When the PBGC is trustee of a plan, it reviews submitted domestic relations orders to determine whether the order is qualified before paying benefits to an alternate payee. The requirements for submitting a QDRO are established by statute. The models and the guidance assist parties by making it easier to comply with ERISA's QDRO requirements in plans trusteed by the PBGC; they do not create any additional requirements and result in a reduction of the statutory burden.

The PBGC estimates that it will receive 664 QDROs each year from prospective alternate payees; that the average burden of preparing a QDRO with the assistance of the guidance and model QDROs in PBGC's booklet will be 1/4 hour of the alternate payee's time and $734 in professional fees if the alternate payee hires an attorney or other professional to prepare the QDRO, or 10 hours of the alternate payee's time if the alternate payee prepares the QDRO without hiring an attorney or other professional; and that the total annual burden will be 234 hours and $482,400.

The PBGC is revising the QDRO booklet by providing an insert noting that the PBGC now offers more choices of annuity benefit forms. The insert will briefly describe the new benefit options and their availability to alternate payees and will refer parties to the PBGC's Web site, http://www.pbgc.gov , or the PBGC's regulations (29 CFR 4022) for more information on these annuity benefit forms.