The proposed action is to harvest an estimated 15 million board feet (31,000 ccf) on approximately 1150 acres with about six miles of new road construction. The range of alternatives being developed to respond to the significant issues, besides no-action, will likely be 8-33 million board feet (16,000-67,000 ccf) of timber on an estimated 500-1300 acres in one or more timber sales. The purpose and need of the timber sale is to: Contribute to the production of a sustained yield of timber and mix of other resource activities from the Tongass National Forest, consistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines; seek to provide a timber supply sufficient to meet the annual and planning cycle market demand for Tongass National Forest Timber; provide a diversity of opportunities for resource uses that contribute to the economies of Southeast Alaska; and support a wide range of natural resource employment opportunities within Southeast Alaska's communities.

The proposed timber harvest is located within Tongass Forest Plan Value Comparison Units 456, 457, 458 and 459 on Zarembo Island, Alaska, Wrangell Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest. This proposed project is fully compliant with the Roadless Area Conservation rule (Roadless Rule, January 12, 2001) as all harvest and roads are proposed in previously developed areas. The sale is currently listed on the Tongass 10-year action plan to be sold in 2006. The repercussions of delaying the project planning process regarding road building and timber harvest, even for a relatively short period, can have a significant effect on the amount of timber available for sale on the Tongass over the next few years. The Baht Timber Sale Project is consistent with the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan.

Public participation will be an integral component of the study process and will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The first is during the scoping process. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from Tribal Governments, Federal, State, and local agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed activities. The scoping process will include: (1) Identification of potential issues; (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth; and, (3) elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a previous environmental review. Written scoping comments are being solicited through a scoping package that will be sent to the project mailing list. For the Forest Service to best use the scoping input, comments should be received by December 12, 2003. Tentative issues identified for analysis in the EIS include the potential effects of the project on and the relationship of the project to: old-growth ecosystem management and the maintenance of habitat for viable populations of wildlife species, timber sale economics, road construction/access management and water quality.

Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS is projected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in early spring of 2004. The Final EIS is anticipated by January 2005.

The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553, (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft environmental impact statement stage may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2nd 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 4900 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final environmental impact statement.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the drafts environmental impact statements or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discuses in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Qualify Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR part 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days.

Pemits: Permits required for implementation include the following:

Responsible Official: The Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Federal Building, Ketchikan, Alaska 99901, is the responsible official. The responsible official will consider the comments, response, disclosure of environmental consequences, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making the decision and stating the rationale in the Record of Decision.

The meeting agenda will focus on reviewing project proposals for fiscal year 2004 and recommending funding for projects during the business meeting. The public forum begins at 1 p.m.

Title: “Evaluation of User Satisfaction with NAL Internet Sites.”

OMB Number: Not yet assigned.

Expiration Date: N/A.

Type of Request: Approval for new data collection.

Abstract: This is a request, made by the National Agricultural Library (NAL) Office of the Director (OD), Office of the Associate Director of Information Services, that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a three year generic clearance for the NAL to conduct user satisfaction research around its Internet sites. This effort is made according to Executive Order 12862 (Attachment A, ppl-2), which directs federal agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.

The National Agricultural Library Internet sites are a vast collection of Web pages created and maintained by component organizations of the NAL, and is visited by 3.4 million people per month on average. All seven of the NAL Information Centers and a dozen special interest collections have established a Web presence with a home page and links to sub-pages that provide information to their respective audiences.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per response.

Respondents: The agricultural community, USDA personnel and their cooperators, and including public and private users or providers of agricultural information.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1200 per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1003 hours.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the 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 respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology. Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The information collected on BIS-999, from defense contractors and suppliers, is required for the enforcement and administration of the Defense Production Act and the Selective Service Act to provide Special Priorities Assistance under the Defense Priorities and Allocation System (DPAS) regulation (15 CFR part 700).

Written or electronic submission.

OMB Number: 0694-0057.

Form Number: BIS-999.

Type of Review: Regular submission for extension of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes per response.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 600.

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

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

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

On February 9, 1994, the Department published the antidumping duty order on stainless steel flanges from India (59 FR 5994). On February 3, 2003, the Department published the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” for this order covering the period February 1, 2002 through January 31, 2003 (68 FR 5272). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on February 28, 2003, Chandan, Isibars, Shree Ganesh, and Viraj requested a review. On March 18, 2003, we initiated this antidumping duty administrative review, and on March 25, 2003, we published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation (68 FR 14394).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d), the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party withdraws its request for review within 90 days of the publication of our Notice of Initiation. On April 23, 2003, Shree Ganesh withdrew its request for review. As Shree Ganesh withdrew its request for review within 90 days of our Notice of Initiation, and as no other party requested a review of Shree Ganesh, we hereby rescind the review with respect to Shree Ganesh.

The products under review are certain forged stainless steel flanges, both finished and not finished, generally manufactured to specification ASTM A-182, and made in alloys such as 304, 304L, 316, and 316L. The scope includes five general types of flanges. They are weld-neck, used for butt-weld line connection; threaded, used for threaded line connections; slip-on and lap joint, used with stub-ends/butt-weld line connections; socket weld, used to fit pipe into a machined recession; and blind, used to seal off a line. The sizes of the flanges within the scope range generally from one to six inches; however, all sizes of the above-described merchandise are included in the scope. Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are cast stainless steel flanges. Cast stainless steel flanges generally are manufactured to specification ASTM A-351. The flanges subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 7307.21.1000 and 7307.21.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under review is dispositive of whether or not the merchandise is covered by the review.

The POR is February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003.

To determine whether sales of flanges from India were made in the United States at less than fair value, we compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the normal value (NV), as described in the “Export Price and Constructed Export Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(1)(A)(I) of the Tariff Act, we calculated EPs and CEPs and compared these prices to weighted-average normal values or CVs, as appropriate.

In accordance with section 772 of the Tariff Act, we calculated either an EP or a CEP, depending on the nature of each sale. Section 772(a) of the Tariff Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold before the date of importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States, or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States. Section 772(b) of the Tariff Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of the merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under sections 772(c) and (d) of the Tariff Act.

We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. We used the date of invoice as the date of sale. We based EP on the packed C&F, CIF duty paid, FOB, or ex-dock duty paid prices to the first unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We added to U.S. price amounts for duty drawback, when reported, pursuant to section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act. We also made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, including: foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, bank export document handling charges, ocean freight, and marine insurance.

In addition, for Viraj's CEP sales, in accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Tariff Act, we deducted from the starting price those selling expenses that were incurred in selling the subject merchandise in the United States, including direct selling expenses ( i.e. , credit), and imputed inventory carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Tariff Act, we deducted an amount for profit allocated to the expenses deducted under sections 772(d)(1) and (2) of the Tariff Act.

In order to determine whether there is sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV ( i.e. , the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR is equal to or greater than five percent of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales of subject merchandise during the POR), for each respondent we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Since we found no reason to determine that quantity was not the appropriate basis for these comparisons, we did not use value as the measure. See 19 CFR 351.404(b)(2).

As in prior reviews, we based our comparisons of the volume of U.S. sales to the volume of home market sales on reported stainless steel flange weight, rather than on number of pieces; since flange sizes, prices and costs vary greatly across models, comparisons of aggregate data based on the number of pieces could be misleading.

We determined that for Viraj, the home market was viable because Viraj's home market sales were greater than 5 percent of its U.S. sales based on aggregate volume by weight. Because Isibars reported no home market or third country sales, we based NV on CV, pursuant to section 351.404(a) of the Department's regulations. For Chandan, pursuant to section 351.404(e), we used the United Kingdom as the comparison market, because it was Chandan's largest export market, Chandan's volume there exceeded five percent of its U.S. volume of subject merchandise in the POR, and there is no evidence on the record indicating the United Kingdom would be inappropriate to serve as the basis for NV.

Since no information on the record indicates any comparison market sales to affiliates, we did not use an arm's-length test for comparison market sales.

In the most recently completed review, Viraj made sales which failed the cost test. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Tariff Act, in this review we had a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that Viraj made sales in the home market below the cost of production (COP). See Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 68 FR 42005 (July 16, 2003); for the cost test results in particular, which were unchanged in the final results, see Certain Forged Stainless Steel Flanges from India, Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 11361 (March 10, 2003). Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, in this review we initiated an investigation to determine whether Viraj's sales of flanges were made at prices below COP during the POR.

We based product definitions for both model-matching and costs on grade, flange type, size, pressure rating, and finish. Where necessary, we converted costs from a per-piece basis to a per-kilogram basis. See the company-specific analysis memoranda, dated October 31, 2003 and available in the Central Records Unit.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Tariff Act, we calculated COP for Viraj based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A) and packing. We relied on the home market sales and COP information provided by Viraj. After calculating COP, we tested whether home market sales of stainless steel flanges were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared model-specific COPs to the reported home market prices less movement charges, discounts, and rebates.

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's home market sales for a model are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because we determine that the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's home market sales of a given model are at prices less than COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because they are (1) made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Tariff Act, and (2) based on comparisons of prices to weighted-average COPs for the POR, were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Tariff Act.

The results of our cost test for Viraj indicated that for certain comparison market models, less than 20 percent of the sales of the model were at prices below COP. We therefore retained all sales of these comparison market models in our analysis and used them as the basis for determining NV. Our cost test also indicated that within an extended period of time (one year, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act), for certain comparison market models, more than 20 percent of the comparison market sales were sold at prices below COP. In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Tariff Act, we therefore excluded these below-cost sales from our analysis and used the remaining above-cost sales as the basis for determining NV.

We compared Viraj's U.S. sales with contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the home market, and Chandan's U.S. sales to its contemporaneous sales of the foreign like product in the United Kingdom. We considered stainless steel flanges identical based on matching grade, type, size, pressure rating and finish. We used a 20 percent difference-in-merchandise (DIFMER) cost deviation limit as the maximum difference in cost allowable for similar merchandise, the DIFMER being defined as the absolute value of the difference between the U.S. and comparison market variable costs of manufacturing, divided by the total cost of manufacturing of the U.S. product.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP transaction. To determine whether comparison market sales are at a different level of trade than U.S. sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. Chandan reported no difference in selling activities in the U.S. and comparison market, and made no claim for an LOT adjustment. We noted no significant differences in functions provided in either of Chandan's markets. Based upon the record evidence, we have determined that there is no difference in LOT between Chandan's U.S. market and third market sales, and therefore we made no LOT adjustment, per 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2).

Viraj also claimed no LOT adjustment, and we noted no differences in selling services provided, in either its EP or CEP sales, between the U.S. and home markets. Therefore, based upon the record evidence, we have determined that there is no difference in level of trade between Viraj's U.S. market and home market sales, and no LOT adjustment is appropriate, per 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2).

For Chandan and Viraj, in the United Kingdom and India markets, respectively, we based comparison market prices on the packed, ex-factory or delivered prices to the unaffiliated purchasers. We made adjustments for differences in packing and for movement expenses in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Tariff Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in cost attributable to differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act, and for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparison to EP we made COS adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling expenses and adding U.S. direct selling expenses.

In accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Tariff Act, we based NV on CV if we were unable to find a contemporaneous comparison market match for the U.S. sale. We calculated CV based on the cost of materials and fabrication employed in producing the subject merchandise, SG&A, and profit. In accordance with 773(e)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act, we based SG&A expenses and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the foreign country. For selling expenses, we used the weighted-average comparison market selling expenses. Where appropriate, we made COS adjustments to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We also made adjustments, where applicable, for comparison market indirect selling expenses to offset commissions in EP comparisons.

As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the weighted-average dumping margins for the period February 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003, to be as follows:

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication. See CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 37 days after the date of publication, or the first business day thereafter, unless the Department alters the date per 19 CFR 351.310(d). Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit argument in these proceedings are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument and (3) a table of authorities. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of our analysis of the issues raised in any such written comments or at a hearing, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate assessment rates for the merchandise based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales made during the POR to the total quantity (in kilograms) of the sales used to calculate those duties. This rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries of merchandise of that manufacturer/exporter made during the POR. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to CBP upon completion of the review.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of flanges from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates established in the final results of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final results of this review, or the LTFV investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this review or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate will be 162.14 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation (59 FR 5994) (February 9, 1994).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On July 21, 2003, NMFS received an application from LDEO for the taking, by harassment, of several species of marine mammals incidental to conducting a seismic survey program. As presently scheduled, two seismic surveys will be conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. The Trans-Atlantic Geotransect (TAG) cruise will be centered at 26°N and 45°W in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean during late October 2003, for a total of six days of seismic surveying. The Atlantic Deep Western Boundary Current (ADWBC) cruise will occur between 39° and 42°N and between 45° and 52.5°W, during July and August of 2004 for a total of approximately 20 days of surveying. These operations will take place in international waters.

The seismic survey work conducted during the TAG cruise is part of a multi-disciplinary experiment, taking place in the TAG Active Mound area over a period of nine months. The TAG active mound (26°N on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), which is one of the largest hydrothermal deposits found to date on the seafloor, is a large, focused mineral deposit on a slow-spreading ridge. The purpose of the TAG cruise is to delineate the nature, position, and size of any heat sources (low-velocity zones) that might drive convection at the TAG active mound, and more generally, to provide an understanding of crustal architecture in the TAG region. More specifically, the TAG experiment will address key issues at the TAG site: (1) the nature of the heat source driving circulation, (2) the relationship between faulting on the eastern flank and fluid flow at the mound, (3) the possible existence of a low-velocity zone beneath the rise axis, and (4) the hydraulic connectivity of the shallow TAG mound.

The ADWBC cruise will determine the configuration, age, and paleoceanographic significance of the sedimentary sequences on J Anomaly Ridge and Southeast Newfoundland Ridge, which may show evidence for strong boundary currents dating to the early Paleocene. Proposed tracklines for the seismic survey were chosen with four primary objectives in mind: (1) to map the main reflection sequences across the full extent of the ridges and onto the edges of adjacent abyssal plains, (2) to obtain continuity in tracing sequences by profiling around major interruptions (seamounts) and optimizing track crossings, (3) to provide abundant crossing lines in areas where existing seismic and bathymetric data suggest that there are outcrops of pre-Neogene strata, and (4) to take advantage of good-quality seismic data, where they exist ( e.g. , Conrad 2510 MCS), in order to make loop correlations between tracks.

The TAG seismic survey will involve a single vessel which will conduct the seismic work, the R/V Maurice Ewing , operated by LDEO under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), owner of the vessel. The Maurice Ewing will deploy an array of 20 airguns as an energy source, and will deploy and retrieve Ocean Bottom Hydrophones (OBHs). A hydrophone streamer will not be towed during the TAG cruise. The energy to the airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. As the airgun array is towed along the survey lines, the OBHs and Ocean Bottom Seismometers (OBSs) will receive the reflected signals and transfer the data to the onboard processing system. All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be conducted by LDEO scientists with onboard assistance by the scientists who proposed the study. The TAG program will consist of 185 km (100 n.mi.) of survey lines. There will be a total of three seismic lines, two along- and one across-axis of the TAG. Water depths in the area will vary from 1500 to 4500 m (4921-14,764 ft).

The ADWBC cruise will involve the oceanographic research vessel R/V Knorr , a U.S. Navy-owned ship operated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and will use a portable LDEO seismic system to conduct the seismic survey. The vessel will deploy 2 General Injector (GI)-guns as an energy source plus a towed streamer containing hydrophones to receive the returning acoustic signals. The hydrophone array will consist of a 600-m (1969 ft) solid state streamer with a 200-m (656 ft) tow leader. The energy to the airgun array is compressed air supplied by compressors on board the source vessel. As the 2 GI-guns are towed along the survey line, the hydrophone array will receive the returning signals and transfer the data to the onboard processing system. All planned geophysical activities will be conducted by the scientists who have proposed the study, while LDEO will provide the portable high-resolution seismic system that will support the seismic surveys for the proposed study. The ADWBC program will consist of 4334 km (2340 n.mi.) of seismic profiles that will be shot over a period of 20 days. The most detailed grids of seismic lines are proposed for the southern end of J Anomaly Ridge and for moats around seamounts on the crest of the Southeast Newfoundland Ridge - both are areas where there appear to be extensive pre-Neogene outcrops. Water depths in the area will vary from 4000 - 5000 m (13,124-16,405 ft).

The procedures to be used for the two seismic studies will be similar to those used during previous seismic surveys by LDEO, e.g. , in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (Carbotte et al. , 1998, 2000). The proposed seismic surveys will use conventional seismic methodology with a towed airgun array as the energy source, and either a towed hydrophone streamer or OBH and OBS receivers placed on the bottom to receive the reflected signals. For the TAG survey, eighteen OBHs will be deployed (and recovered) by the Maurice Ewing - eight along each of the long axis lines and two on the across axis line. After the seismic lines are shot, the data will be downloaded and the OBSs will be retrieved during an, as of yet, unscheduled cruise in the summer of 2004 (during which no seismic sound sources will be used). Along three selected seismic lines, 13 OBS receivers will be placed in the proposed study area by the R/V Alvin from 7-24 June 2003, before the arrival of the Maurice Ewing . In addition, a multi-beam bathymetric sonar will be operated from the source vessel continuously throughout both cruises, and a lower-energy sub-bottom profiler will also be operated during most of both surveys. During the ADWBC study, coring of numerous sedimentary outcrops known to exist on the ridges will also take place. During both cruises, there will be additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard.

The R/V Maurice Ewing will be used as the source vessel during the TAG cruise, and the R/V Knorr will be used as the source vessel during the ADWBC cruise. Both vessels will tow airgun arrays along predetermined lines, and will also serve as platforms from which vessel-based marine mammal observers will watch for marine mammals before and during airgun operations.

During TAG-study airgun operations, the vessel will travel at 7.4-9.3 km/hr (4-5 knots), and seismic pulses will be emitted at intervals of 60-90 seconds (OBS lines during the TAG cruise). The 60-90 sec. spacing along OBS lines is to minimize reverberation from previous shot noise during OBS data acquisition, and the exact spacing will depend on water depth. The airgun array to be used will consist of 20 2000-psi Bolt airguns, towed at a depth of 7.5 m (24.5 ft). The 20-gun array will include airguns ranging in chamber volume from 80 to 850 in 3 , with a total volume of 8,575 in 3 . These airguns will be spaced in an approximate rectangle with dimensions of 35 m (115 ft) (across track) by 9 m (30 ft) (along track).

The ADWBC seismic survey will be high-resolution, consisting of two 105 in 3 GI airguns with a total volume of approximately 210 in 3 , spaced 7.8 m (26 ft) apart, and towed 37 m (121 ft) behind the vessel at a depth of 2-3 m (7-10 ft). Towing airguns at this shallow depth is accomplished by suspending the guns from floats, and the resulting short-period free surface “ghosting” keeps the spectral content broad with usable signals up to 300-350 Hz. These airguns produce an unusually clean impulse with sufficient energy to penetrate many hundreds of meters of sediment. Airgun firing, timing, and synchronizing is handled by a LDEO-built controller, which is integrated with a SUN workstation-based DGPS navigation, data logging, and fire control system. The air is produced by a standalone Price Co. 2000 psi compressor, and the seismic signals are detected by a solid state ITI hydrophone “Stealtharray”, with 48 12.5-m (41 ft) long channels, and a total length of 600 m (1969 ft).

The dominant frequency components for both airgun arrays is 0 - 188 Hz. The 2-airgun array will have a peak sound source output level of 237 dB re 1 μPa or 243 dB peak-to-peak (P-P). The 20-airgun array will have a peak sound source output level of 255 dB re 1 μPa or 262 dB P-P. Because the actual source is a distributed sound source (2 or 20 airguns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level. Also, because of the downward directional nature of the sound from these airgun arrays, the effective source level for sound propagating in near-horizontal directions will be substantially lower.

Along with the airgun operations, several additional acoustical data acquisition systems will be operated during most or all of the cruises. The ocean floor will be mapped with an Atlas Hydrosweep DS-2 multi-beam 15.5-kHz bathymetric sonar, and/or a 3.5-kHz sub-bottom profiler. These mid-frequency sound sources are commonly operated from research vessels simultaneous with airgun arrays as well as in the absence of airgun activity.

The Atlas Hydrosweep sonar will be used during cruises by the R/V Maurice Ewing , is mounted in the hull of the vessel, and operates in three modes depending on the water depth. The first is a shallow-water mode when water depth is <400 m (1312.3 ft); source output is 210 dB re 1 μPa-m rms and a single 1-millisec (ms) pulse or “ping” per second is transmitted, with a beamwidth of 2.67 degrees fore-aft and 90 degrees in athwartship. The beamwidth is measured to the 3 dB point, as is usually quoted for sonars. The other two modes are deep-water modes: The Omni mode is identical to the shallow-water mode except that the source output is 220 dB rms (normally used only during start up). The Rotational Directional Transmission (RDT) mode is normally used during deep-water operation and has a 237 dB rms source output. In the RDT mode, each “ping” consists of five successive transmissions, each ensonifying a beam that extends 2.67 degrees fore-aft and approximately 30 degrees in the cross-track direction. The five successive transmissions (segments) sweep from port to starboard with minor overlap, spanning an overall cross-track angular extent of about 140 degrees, with tiny (<1 millisec) gaps between the pulses for successive 30-degree segments. The total duration of the “ping”, including all 5 successive segments, varies with water depth but is 1 ms in water depths <500 m (1640.4 ft) and 10 ms in the deepest water. For each segment, ping duration is 1/5th of these values or 2/5th for a receiver in the overlap area ensonified by two beam segments. The “ping” interval during RDT operations depends on water depth and varies from once per second in <500 m (1640.5 ft) water depth to once per 15 seconds in the deepest water.

For the ADWBC cruise, the SeaBeam 2100/12 multibeam 12 kHz bathymetric sonar system will be used, with a source output of 237 dB re 1 μPa-m. Operation of this system is similar to that of the Atlas Hydrosweep (described above). The SeaBeam 2100/12 system has a swath width of about 3 times the water depth, so it will provide data over swaths 10-15 km (5-8 n.mi.) wide during most of the survey.

The sub-bottom profiler is normally operated to provide information about the sedimentary features and bottom topography that is simultaneously being mapped by the Hydrosweep. The energy from the sub-bottom profiler is directed downward by a 3.5-kHz transducer mounted in the hull of the vessel. The output varies with water depth from 50 watts in shallow water to 800 watts in deep water. Pulse interval is 1 sec. but a common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-sec. intervals followed by a 5-sec. pause. The beamwidth is approximately 30° and is directed downward. Maximum source output is 204 dB re 1 μPa, 800 watts, while nominal source output is 200 dB re 1 μPa, 500 watts. Pulse duration will be 4, 2, or 1 ms, and the bandwith of pulses will be 1.0 kHz, 0.5 kHz, or 0.25 kHz, respectively.

For the ADWBC cruise, the multibeam bathymetry and sub-bottom profiling will be used to define windows where erosion or non-deposition has exposed deeper sequences suitable for piston coring. Coring transects across these windows will provide biostratigraphic age determinations that can be used to constrain the age of reflections throughout the study area. There will be five days of piston coring following completion of the ADWBC seismic survey.

Additional information on the airgun arrays, bathymetric sonars, and sub-bottom profiler specifications is contained in the application, which is available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).

A notice of receipt of LDEO's application for seismic work in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean and proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on September 17, 2003 (68 FR 54421). That notice described in detail the proposed activity and the marine mammal species that may be affected by it. That information is not repeated here. During the 30-day public comment period, comments were received from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission).

Comment 1: The Commission believes that NMFS' preliminary determinations are reasonable, provided NMFS is satisfied that the proposed mitigation and monitoring activities are adequate to detect marine mammals in the vicinity of the proposed operations and to ensure that marine mammals are not being taken in unanticipated ways or numbers. In this regard, NMFS' Federal Register notice and the application state that “[v]essel-based observers will monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel during all daylight airgun operations and during any nighttime startups of the airguns...” The probability of detecting marine mammals about to enter or already inside the presumed safety limits is probably close to zero at night. Observers will generally not be on duty, and bridge personnel will have limited time to search for marine mammals. The current Federal Register notice states that “[a]n image-intensifier night-vision device (NVD) will be available for use at night,” but previous Federal Register notices have stated that “past experience has shown that NVDs are of limited value for this purpose.” There is no discussion of why nighttime operations are considered necessary, why experienced marine mammal observers will not be on duty during nighttime hours, or how effective the observation efforts are expected to be. The efficacy of visual monitoring is not clear and may be inadequate during some of the times that airguns would be in use. The Commission notes that NMFS has previously estimated in a Federal Register notice dated March 19, 2001, that visual observation efforts were expected to detect about 5 percent of animals inside safety limits (66 FR 15380). Although the efficacy of visual observations will be determined by many factors ( e.g. , species in the area, daylight, sea surface conditions, observer position), it is feasible that many, if not most, marine mammals go undetected based on visual observations alone. If information is available regarding the efficacy of visual monitoring from the vessel to be used, then that information should be provided to justify NMFS' confidence that the proposed monitoring program will be adequate. If no information is available to assess efficacy, then NMFS should seek alternative means of ensuring that adequate monitoring methods are used, or conduct research to evaluate their adequacy. In addition, the Commission notes that it is unclear whether vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring will be conducted as an adjunct to visual monitoring during the daytime and particularly at night to detect, locate, and identify marine mammals and, if not, why not.

Response: Nighttime operations are necessary due to cost considerations. The daily cost to the federal government to operate vessels such as the Ewing and the Knorr is approximately $33,000 to $35,000/day (Ljunngren, pers. comm. May 28, 2003), or approximately $910,000 for a total of 26 days of research during both Mid-Atlantic cruises. If the vessels were prohibited from operating during nighttime, it is possible that each trip would require an additional three to five days, or up to $105,000 to $175,000 more, depending on average daylight at the time of work.

Taking into consideration the additional costs of prohibiting nighttime operations and the likely impact of the activity (including mitigation and monitoring), NMFS has determined that the mitigation required by the IHA ensures that the activity will have the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks. In summary, marine mammals will have sufficient notice of a vessel approaching with operating seismic airguns (at least one hour in advance), thereby giving them an opportunity to avoid the approaching array; if ramp-up is required after an extended power-down, two marine mammal observers will be required to monitor the safety radii using night vision devices for 30 minutes before ramp-up begins and verify that no marine mammals are in or approaching the safety radii; ramp-up may not begin unless the entire safety radii are visible; and ramp-up may occur at night only if one airgun with a sound pressure level of at least 180 dB has been maintained during interruption of seismic activity. Therefore, it is likely that the 20-gun array will not be ramped-up from a shut-down at night. See Mitigation and Monitoring for more details.

It is also noted that at times, pinnipeds and even some small cetaceans will approach a vessel during transmissions (the vessel itself moving forward at about 3-5 knots) from the side of the vessel or the stern, meaning that the animal is voluntarily approaching a noise source that is increasing in strength as the animal gets closer. Experience indicates that pinnipeds will come from great distances to scrutinize seismic-reflection operations. Seals have been observed swimming within airgun bubbles only 10 m (33 ft) away from active arrays. Also, Canadian scientists, who were using a high-frequency seismic system that produced sound frequencies closer to pinniped hearing than those used by the Ewing , describe how seals frequently approached close to the seismic source, presumably out of curiosity. Therefore, NMFS has concluded that this mitigation requirement is reasonable because the bridge-watch will be concentrating on marine mammals approaching the vessel from the bow. Also, the night-vision ability of the trained bridge-watch staff will be better than observers elsewhere on the vessel where normal ship-board lighting is more likely. Finally, an observer is still required to be on standby, meaning he or she will be in the vicinity of the bridge and is not precluded from conducting observations during night-time.

The methodology for visual observations was changed since the 5 percent estimate (noted by the Commission above), resulting in a revised estimate of 9 percent efficacy (67 FR 46712, July 16, 2002). That figure includes both daytime and nighttime periods of observation. The rate increases to 18 percent based only on daytime monitoring. However, NMFS shipboard marine mammal assessment surveys estimate a higher rate of efficacy. It should be understood that these efficacy ratings were based on most difficult marine mammals to sight, such as harbor porpoise and Cuvier's beaked whales, and not those more easily sighted.

Passive means of monitoring was found to be 25 percent effective. However, shipboard passive acoustics do not allow scientists to determine a marine mammal's distance from the vessel through triangulation; the vessel operator could determine only that a marine mammal is some unknown distance from the vessel. In order to triangulate on the animal, a system similar to that used in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Sperm Whale Seismic Study (SWSS) in May, 2003 would be needed. The passive acoustical monitoring equipment that was used onboard the Ewing during the GOM SWSS is not the property of LDEO or the Ewing , and therefore is not available for the Mid-Atlantic cruises. LDEO is presently evaluating the scientific results of the passive sonar from the SWSS trip to determine whether it is practical to incorporate it into future seismic research cruises. NMFS expects a report on this analysis shortly.

Finally, NMFS notes that the monitoring methods employed on the Ewing are standard methods used onboard vessels for conducting marine mammal abundance surveys and under IHA's. NMFS would welcome the Commission's participation in its annual workshop in Seattle, WA to discuss similar monitoring methodology used in oil exploration and production, including vessel seismic operations, in Arctic waters or in another venue. NMFS is especially interested in exploring with the Commission the potential for alternative, practical, monitoring methodology for use in waters too far from shore-side facilities to make aircraft surveillance practical. Recently, LDEO submitted its required monitoring report for the IHAs issued for the Ewing's seismic work in the Gulf of Mexico (68 FR 32460, May 30, 2003) and Hess Deep (68 FR 41314, July 11, 2003). Copies of those documents are available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).

Comment 2: Several species of cetaceans for which LDEO is seeking incidental take authority stay submerged on most dives for more than 30 minutes. The Commission questions whether conducting monitoring “for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations” during the day and at night is sufficient to detect those species.

Response: NMFS believes that a 30-minute pre-ramp-up monitoring period is sufficient considering that the ramp-up period will increase SPLs at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5-minutes for a ramp-up duration of approximately 25 min for the 20-gun array and a total monitoring period of approximately 55 minutes. Also, while some whale species may dive for up to 45 minutes, it is unlikely that the ship's bridge watch would miss a large whale surfacing from its previous dive if it is within a mile or two of the vessel.

Comment 3: The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA and the applicant's request notes that there are several species of beaked whales in the proposed survey area, but the notice makes no reference to or requirement for any additional caution with respect to beaked whales or that post-survey monitoring be conducted to search for animals that may have been taken other than by harassment.

Response: While NMFS shares the Commission's concern regarding the possible relationship between low-frequency seismic survey transmissions and the beaked whale strandings in the Gulf of California, NMFS believes that additional factors probably also influence whether beaked whales will be affected in ways other than the expected reaction of vacating the immediate vicinity of the noise, similar to the reactions of other marine mammal species. For example, beaked whales in the Gulf of Mexico have been exposed to seismic noise for several decades, yet mass stranding events do not appear in the stranding record. Finally, post-survey monitoring is not being required under this IHA because it is neither practical given the location (mid-ocean) and vessel commitments, nor warranted given the unlikelihood (based on the 2000 Bahamas stranding event) that beaked whales will show distress at the ocean surface. However, NMFS welcomes recommendations regarding additional practical mitigation measures to protect beaked whales from anthropogenic sounds.

For the TAG seismic survey, LDEO will use a 20-gun array with a total volume of 8575 in 3 . Individual airguns will range in size from 80 to 850 in3. For the ADWBC cruise, LDEO will use 2 GI-guns with a total volume of 210 in 3 . The airguns comprising these arrays will be spread out horizontally, so that the energy from the arrays will be directed mostly downward.

The sound pressure fields were modeled by LDEO in relation to distance and direction from the 2 GI-guns and the 20-gun array, as shown in Figures 5 and 6 of the application (LDEO Mid-Atlantic, 2003). The radii around the arrays where the received level would be 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) (NMFS' threshold level for onset of Level A harassment applicable to cetaceans) were estimated as 54 m (177 ft) and 900 m (2953 ft), respectively, for the 2-GI and 20-gun array. The radii around the 2 GI-guns and the 20-gun array where the received level would be 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms), (NMFS' threshold level for onset of Level A harassment applicable to pinnipeds), were estimated as 17 m (56 ft) and 275 m (902 ft), respectively. A calibration study was conducted prior to these surveys to determine the actual radii corresponding to each sound level. These actual radii will be used to define the safety radii to be used for this study. Until then, or if those measurements appear defective, LDEO will use a precautionary 1.5 times the modeled 180- (cetaceans) and 190- (pinnipeds) dB radii as the safety radii.

Vessel-based observers will monitor marine mammals in the vicinity of the arrays. LDEO will power-down the airguns if marine mammals are observed approaching or within the safety radii. LDEO will employ a ramp-up procedure when commencing operations using the 20-gun array. Ramp-up will begin with the smallest gun in the array (80 in 3 ), and guns will be added in a sequence such that the source level of the array will increase at a rate no greater than 6 dB per 5-minute period over a total duration of about 25 minutes. Ramp-up will not occur for the 2-GI gun array because the total air discharge volume is small (210 in 3 ). Please refer to LDEO's application for more detailed information. The directional nature of the 20-airgun array to be used in this project is an important mitigating factor, resulting in lower sound levels at any given horizontal distance than would be expected at that distance if the source were omnidirectional with the stated nominal source level. Because the actual seismic source is a distributed sound source (2 or 20 guns) rather than a single point source, the highest sound levels measurable at any location in the water will be less than the nominal source level.

At least two vessel-based observers will be stationed aboard LDEO's seismic survey vessel during seismic operations in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. One or two marine mammal observers aboard the seismic vessel will search for and observe marine mammals whenever seismic operations are in progress during daylight hours, and if feasible, during periods without seismic activity. Vessel-based observers will monitor for marine mammals near and in the safety radii for at least 30 minutes prior to and during all daylight ramp-up and airgun operations, and during any nighttime startups of the airguns. Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, the designated safety radii. Observers will not be required to be on duty during ongoing seismic operations at night; bridge personnel will watch for marine mammals during this period and will call for the airguns to be powered down if marine mammals are observed in or about to enter the safety radii. At least one marine mammal observer will be on “standby” at night, in case bridge personnel see a marine mammal. An image-intensifier night-vision device (NVD) will be available for use at night. If the airguns are started up at night, two marine mammal observers will monitor for marine mammals near the source vessel for 30 minutes prior to start up using NVDs. The 30-minute observation period is only required prior to commencing seismic operations following an extended shut down period ( see Ramp-up Procedures below). After 30 minutes of observation, the ramp-up procedure will be followed.

The observers will watch for marine mammals from the highest practical vantage point on the vessel, which is either the flying bridge or the bridge. On the R/V Maurice Ewing , the observer's eye level will be approximately 11 m (36 ft) above sea level when stationed on the bridge, allowing for good visibility within a 210° arc. If observers are stationed on the flying bridge, the eye level will be 14.4 m (47.2 ft) above sea level. The proposed monitoring plan is summarized later in this document.

The following mitigation measures, as well as marine mammal monitoring, will be adopted during the proposed Mid-Atlantic seismic surveys, provided that doing so will not compromise operational safety requirements: (1) Speed or course alteration; (2) Power-down procedures; (3) Shut-down procedures; and (4) Ramp-up procedures.

If a marine mammal is detected outside the appropriate safety radius and, based on its position and the relative bearing, is likely to enter the safety radius, the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be changed in a manner that also minimizes the effect to the planned science objectives. The marine mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach or enter the safety radius. If the mammal appears likely to enter the safety radius, further mitigative actions will be taken, i.e. , either further course alterations or shutdown of the airguns.

Received sound levels have been modeled for the 2-GI and 20-gun arrays. Based on the modeling, estimates of the 190- and 180-dB re 1 μPa (rms) distances (safety radii) for these arrays have been provided previously in this document.

Airgun operations will be powered- or shut-down immediately when cetaceans or pinnipeds are seen within or about to enter the appropriate 180-dB (rms) or 190-dB (rms) radius, respectively. These 180- and 190-dB criteria are consistent with guidelines listed for cetaceans and pinnipeds by NMFS (2000) and other guidance by NMFS. If a marine mammal is detected outside the safety radius but is likely to enter the safety radius, and if the vessel's course and/or speed cannot be changed to avoid having the marine mammal enter the safety radius, the airguns will be powered-down before the mammal is within the safety radius. If a mammal is already within the safety radius when first detected, the airguns will be powered-down immediately. If a marine mammal is seen within the appropriate safety radius of the array while the guns are powered-down, airgun operations will be shut-down. For the power-down procedure for the 20-gun array, one 80 in3 airgun will be operated during the interruption of seismic survey. When the 2 GI-guns are in use, a shut-down rather than a power-down will likely be necessary. Airgun activity (after both power-down and shut-down procedures) will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the safety radius. The animal has cleared the safety radius if it is visually observed to have left the safety radius, or if it has not been seen within the zone for 15 min (small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked, and bottlenose whales).

A “ramp-up” procedure will be followed when the airgun arrays begin operating after a specified duration without airgun operations. Under normal operational conditions (vessel speed 4 knots, or 7.4 km/hr), a ramp-up would be required after a power-down or shut-down period lasting about 8 minutes or longer if the Ewing was towing the 20-gun array. At 4 knots, the source vessel would travel 900 m (2953 ft) during an 8-minute period. If the towing speed is reduced to 3 knots or less, as sometimes required when maneuvering in shallow water, a ramp-up would be required after a “no shooting” period lasting 10 minutes or longer. At towing speeds not exceeding 3 knots, the source vessel would travel no more than 900 m (3117 ft) in 10 minutes. Based on the same calculation, a ramp-up procedure would be required after a 6 minute period if the speed of the source vessel was 5 knots. During the ramp-up procedures, the safety radii for the full gun array will be maintained.

Ramp-up will not occur if the safety radius has not been visible for at least 30 min prior to the start of operations in either daylight or nighttime. If the safety radius has not been visible for that 30 minute period ( e.g. , during darkness or fog), ramp-up will not commence unless one airgun with a sound pressure level (SPL) of at least 180 dB has been maintained during the interruption of seismic activity. Therefore, it is likely that the 20-gun array will not be ramped up from a shut-down at night or in thick fog, since the safety radii for this array will not be visible during those conditions.

LDEO will conduct marine mammal monitoring of its Mid-Atlantic seismic programs in order to verify that the taking of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting the seismic survey will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks and to ensure that these harassment takings are at the lowest level practicable.

The observer(s) will systematically scan the area around the vessel with reticle binoculars ( e.g. , 7 X 50 Fujinon) and with the naked eye during the daytime. At night, NVDs will be available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 binocular image intensifier or equivalent). Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or equivalent) will be available to assist with distance estimation.

At least two observers will be based aboard the vessel, and at least one will be an experienced marine mammal observer. Observers will be appointed by LDEO with NMFS concurrence. Observers will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the proportion of the marine mammals present near the source vessel that are detected. LDEO bridge personnel will also assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements whenever possible (they will be given instruction on how to do so), especially during ongoing operations at night, when designated observers will not be on duty. If ramp-up procedures must be performed at night, two observers will be on duty 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations and during the subsequent ramp-up procedures. Ramp-up is not required for the 2 GI gun array, but observers must watch for 30 minutes prior to operation of the 2 GI-guns and the safety radii must be visible.

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

All mammal observations and airgun power- and shut-downs will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into a custom database using a laptop computer when observers are off-duty. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized validity data checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to statistical, graphical or other programs for further processing and archiving.

A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of each cruise in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. The end of the TAG cruise is predicted to occur on or about November 7, 2003. The end of the ADWBC cruise is predicted to occur during August 2004. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and the marine mammals that were detected. The report will be submitted to NMFS, providing full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring tasks. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities), and estimates of the amount and nature of potential take of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways. The draft report will be considered the final report unless comments and suggestions are provided by NMFS within 60 days of its receipt of the draft report.

As described previously ( see 68 FR 17909, April 14, 2003) and in the LDEO application, animals subjected to sound levels ≥160 dB may alter their behavior or distribution, and therefore might be considered to be taken by Level B harassment.

The estimates of takes by harassment are based on the number of marine mammals that may be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) by operations with the 20-airgun array and the 2 GI-guns, during the TAG and ADWBC cruises, respectively. Based on marine mammal density sightings and effort data collected during a survey of offshore waters northeast of the Azores by Lens (1991), LDEO used their estimates of marine mammal density to compute the best (and maximum) estimates of the number of marine mammals that may be exposed to received levels ≥160-dB re 1 μPa (rms) (NMFS' current criterion for onset of Level B harassment). The best estimates of densities were then multiplied by the linear extent of the proposed survey effort and by twice the 160-dB radius around the applicable airgun array. The proposed survey effort is 185 km (100 n.mi.) for the TAG cruise, and 4329 km (2340 n.mi.) for the ADWBC cruise. The 160-dB radius for the TAG cruise (20-gun array) is 9000 m (29,529 ft), whereas that for the ADWBC cruise (2 GI-guns) is 510 m (1673 ft). For large cetaceans, LDEO used 0.5x the densities seen during the Lens (1991) survey to calculate the numbers that might be exposed to seismic sounds, but even this reduced number is likely a high estimate, because the proposed survey areas are likely less productive, so feeding aggregations similar to those seen by Lens (1991) are not likely to be seen. In particular, the two areas where the proposed surveys will be conducted are farther offshore and likely in less productive waters than the area surveys northeast of the Azores (Lens 1991). Thus, densities are likely to be much lower in the two survey areas than in the Lens (1991) survey area.

Based on this method, tables 3 and 4 of LDEO's application give the best estimates, as well as maximum estimates, of densities for each species or species group of cetacean in the two seismic survey areas during the TAG and ADWBC cruises, respectively, that might be exposed to received levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms), and thus potentially taken by Level B harassment, during seismic surveys in the proposed study areas of the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. During the TAG cruise, 38 of the marine mammals exposed to sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be endangered species, primarily fin (18) and sperm whales (15). During the ADWBC cruise, 49 of the marine mammals exposed to sounds ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) would be endangered species, primarily fin (24) and sperm whales (20). During both research cruises, Delphinidae would account for 92 percent of the overall estimate for potential taking by harassment during each of the two seismic surveys ( i.e. , 709 of 772 (TAG) and 943 of 1028 (ADWBC)). While there is no agreement regarding any alternative to the 160-dB “take” criterion for dolphins exposed to airgun pulses, if only those dolphins exposed to ≥170 dB re 1 μPa (rms) were considered taken by Level B harassment, then the best estimate for common dolphins (the most abundant dolphin in the area) would be 91 rather than 316 during the TAG cruise, and 144 rather than 419 during the ADWBC cruise. These are based on the predicted 170-dB radius around the 20- and 2-airgun arrays (2600 and 175 m (8530 and 574 ft), respectively), and are considered to be more realistic estimates of the number of each species of delphinid that may be harassed, given their apparently higher tolerance of low frequency sound. Therefore, the total number of animals likely to be harassed is considerably lower than the estimated 772 (TAG cruise) animals or 1028 (ADWBC cruise) animals.

Strong avoidance reactions by several species of mysticetes to seismic vessels have been observed at ranges up to 6 to 8 km (3.2 to 4.3 nm) and occasionally as far as 20-30 km (10.8-16.2 nm) from the source vessel. Some bowhead whales in Arctic waters avoided waters within 30 km (16.2 nm) of the seismic operation. However, reactions at such long distances appear to be atypical of other species of mysticetes, and even for bowheads may only apply during migration.

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

Taking account of the mitigation measures that are planned, effects on cetaceans are generally expected to be limited to avoidance of the area around the seismic operation and short-term changes in behavior, falling within the MMPA definition of “Level B harassment.” Reactions by mysticetes are expected to involve small numbers of individual cetaceans because few mysticetes occur in the area where seismic surveys are proposed. For Bryde's whales, LDEO's best estimate is that 1 animal during each of the cruises, which translates to 3 percent of the North Atlantic population for this species in the area of the TAG survey, and 1.5 percent of the North Atlantic population for this species in the area of the ADWBC survey, has the potential to be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and potentially affected. LDEO's best estimate is that 18 (TAG) and 24 (ADWBC) fin whales, both of which are <0.1 percent of the estimated North Atlantic fin whale population (IWC 2003), will be exposed to sound levels ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) and potentially affected. Similarly, only 15 (TAG) and 20 (ADWBC) sperm whales, or approximately 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the estimated North Atlantic sperm whale population, would receive seismic sounds ≥160 dB. Therefore, based on the relatively low numbers of marine mammals that will be exposed at levels >160 dB and the expected impacts at these levels, NMFS has determined that this action will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Larger numbers of odontocetes may be affected by the seismic activities, but the populations sizes of most of the species are large and the numbers potentially affected are small relative to the population sizes. The best estimate of the total number of odontocetes that might be exposed to ≥160 dB re 1 μPa (rms) in the proposed survey areas in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean is 746 for the TAG cruise, and 991 for the ADWBC cruise. Of these, 709 (TAG cruise) and 943 (ADWBC cruise) are Delphinidae, and of these about 204 (TAG cruise) and 322 (ADWBC cruise) might be exposed to ≥170 dB. Approximately 316 and 419 common dolphins (the most abundant delphinid in the proposed survey areas) are expected to be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB in the TAG and ADWBC seismic survey areas, respectively. These figures represent considerably less than 0.2 and 0.3 percent of the North Atlantic population of common dolphins, respectively. Of these, 91 and 144, respectively, might be exposed to ≥170 dB. These figures are much less than 0.1 percent of the North Atlantic population and the 170-dB values (91 and 144) are believed to be a more accurate estimate of the number potentially affected. Smaller numbers of other species of dolphins will be exposed to seismic sounds ≥160 dB during the surveys, and the numbers for each species represent considerably less than 0.1 to 0.7 percent of each population. The numbers that might be exposed to ≥170 dB are even smaller and represent considerably less than 0.1 to 0.2 percent of each population; these latter percentages are believed to be a more accurate estimate of the numbers potentially affected. Based on the relatively low numbers of marine mammals that will be exposed at levels ≥160 dB and the expected impacts at these levels, NMFS has determined that this action will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Altogether, the mitigation measures explained in this document ( See Mitigation) will reduce short-term reactions to disturbance, and minimize any effects on hearing sensitivity.

Very few if any pinnipeds are expected to be encountered during the proposed seismic surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean. Most have a coastal distribution or are distributed along the pack-ice edge. Therefore, it is unlikely that pinnipeds will be encountered in either study area. However, if pinnipeds are encountered, they are more likely to be seen during the ADWBC cruise in the northern Mid-Atlantic than during the TAG cruise. A few gray seals, which are normally found in coastal areas might be seen during the ADWBC cruise. In addition, a few vagrant harbor seals, harp seals, or hooded seals might be encountered. None of the pinniped species is endangered or depleted.

Because no seismic surveys will take place in coastal and nearshore areas, the best estimate of the numbers of each of the more common (but still unlikely) species that might be taken by Level B harassment is no more than 2 and is most likely 0. For the other less-common species the best estimate is zero. If pinnipeds are encountered, the proposed seismic activities would have, at most, a short-term effect on their behavior and no long-term impacts on individual seals or their populations. Responses of pinnipeds to acoustic disturbance are variable, but usually quite limited. Effects are expected to be limited to short-term and localized behavioral changes falling within the MMPA definition of Level B harassment. Therefore, based on these effects and the relatively low numbers of pinniped species that may be exposed, NMFS has determined that this action will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks.

Based on the information contained in the LDEO application, the NSF EA, the September 17, 2003, proposed authorization notice (68 FR 54421) and this document, NMFS has determined that conducting two marine seismic surveys, one each by the Ewing and the Knorr , in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean by LDEO would result in the harassment of small numbers of marine mammals; would have no more than a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; and would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of stocks for subsistence uses. This activity will result, at worst, in a temporary modification in behavior by affected species of marine mammals. While behavioral modifications may be made by these species as a result of seismic survey activities, this behavioral change is expected to result n no more than a negligible impact on the affected species. Also, while the number of actual incidental harassment takes will depend on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey activity, the number of potential harassment takings is estimated to be small. In addition, no take by injury and/or death is anticipated, and the potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is low and will be avoided through the incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned in this document and required under the IHA. For these reasons therefore, NMFS has determined that the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA have been met and the authorization can be issued.

NMFS has concluded consultation under section 7 of the ESA on NMFS' issuance of an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting two oceanographic seismic surveys in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean by LDEO. The consultation concluded with a biological opinion that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of marine species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the equatorial Pacific Ocean; therefore, none will be affected. A copy of the Biological Opinion is available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).

On July 30, 2003, the NSF made a determination, based on information contained within its Environmental Assessment (EA), that implementation of the subject action is not a major Federal action having significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Executive Order 12114. NSF determined therefore, that an environmental impact statement would not be prepared. On September 17, 2003 (68 FR 54421), NMFS noted that the NSF had prepared an EA for the Mid-Atlantic surveys and made it available upon request. In accordance with NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, May 20, 1999), NMFS has reviewed the information contained in NSF's EA and determined that the NSF EA accurately and completely describes the proposed action alternative, reasonable additional alternatives, and the potential impacts on marine mammals, endangered species, and other marine life that could be impacted by the preferred alternative and the other alternatives. As a result, NMFS has determined that it is not necessary to issue either a new EA, supplemental EA or an environmental impact statement for the issuance of an IHA to LDEO for this activity. Therefore, based on this review and analysis, NMFS is adopting the NSF EA under 40 CFR 1506.3. A copy of the NSF EA for this activity is available upon request ( see ADDRESSES ).

NMFS has issued an IHA to take small numbers of marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to conducting two marine seismic surveys, one by the Ewing and one by the Knorr, in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean to LDEO for a 1-year period, provided the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements described in this document and the IHA are undertaken.

Agenda: Council Action updates: Non-target Species management, general issues, review Plan Team terms of reference, Economic Stock Assessment Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, Ecosystem chapter, GOA and BSAI Groundfish Stock Assessments and Proposed Specifications for 2004.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before these groups for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gail Bendixen, 907-271-2809, at least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.

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

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

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

These limits do not apply to goods entered under the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA. Section 3103 of the Trade Act of 2002 amended the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) to provide for duty and quota-free treatment for certain textile and apparel articles imported from designated Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA) beneficiary countries. See 67 FR 67283, published on November 5, 2002.

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

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

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

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

These specific limits and guaranteed access levels do not apply to goods that qualify for quota-free entry under the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

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

Requirements for participation in the Special Access Program are available in Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, published on April 3, 1998.

The import restraint limit and Guaranteed Access Level (GAL) for textile products in Categories 340/640, produced or manufactured in El Salvador and exported during the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).

In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to establish the limit and guaranteed access level for 2004.

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

This specific limit and guaranteed access level do not apply to goods that qualify for quota-free entry under the Trade and Development Act of 2000.

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

Requirements for participation in the Special Access Program are available in Federal Register notice 63 FR 16474, published on April 3, 1998.

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. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Title: America's Career Resource Network State Grant Annual Performance Report.

Frequency: Semi-Annually; Annually.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

  Responses: 59.

  Burden Hours: 708.

Abstract: Section 118(e) of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act requires the Department of Education to report annually to Congress concerning activities carried out by States with grant funds awarded under section 118. This collection solicits information from grantees necessary to fulfill this requirement, as well as to support the Department's monitoring and technical assistance activities.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2371. 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 vivian_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 Shelia Carey at her e-mail address Shelia.Carey@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.

Two of the affected programs are under the Rehabilitation Services Administration of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and five are under the Office of Postsecondary Education, including the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Comprehensive Program. You can find information related to each of these programs under the “List of Programs Affected” in this notice.

The following chart provides specific information about each of the programs or competitions covered by this notice:

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format ( e.g. , Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed in the individual application notices.

Electronic Access to This Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number OW-2003-0078, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OW Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice, and according to the following detailed instructions: (1) Submit your comments to EPA online using EDOCKET (our preferred method), by e-mail to: OW_docket@epa.gov, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailstop 4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102, or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are state and local governments, state and county colleges, and those organizations which provide training assistance through the Clean Water Act 104(g)(1) Program to municipal wastewater treatment plants.

Title: National Wastewater Operator Training and Technical Assistance Program. (OMB Control No. 2040-0238. EPA ICR No.: 1977.02, expiring 09/30/2004.

Abstract: The Wastewater Operator Training Program provides on-site technical assistance to municipal wastewater treatment plants. Information will be collected from the network of forty-six 104(g)(1) training centers set up throughout the United States. The information will be collected to identify the facilities assisted, the different types of assistance the program provides and the environmental outcomes and benefits of the assistance provided by the program. The information will be collected and submitted on either an annual or semi-annual basis. A Microsoft Access database and a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet have been developed for this purpose. This ICR will be used by EPA for the technical and financial management of the 104(g)(1) Program. It is strongly suggested that the 104(g)(1) Program training centers participate in the information collection although it is not mandatory. All information in the data system will be made public upon request. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations title 40, part 9 and in the Code of Federal Regulations title 48, chapter 15.

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

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

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

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

Burden Statement: The projected combined annual burden hours of this ICR to all respondents will be approximately 512 hours. The average annual burden hours to each 104(g)(1) training center grantee will be 7 hours, for a total of 322 hours per year, at an annual cost of $9717.96 (assuming an average hourly salary of $30.18). The average annual burden hours to the EPA's Regional Offices and Headquarters will be 16 hours each, for a total of 176 burden hours per year, at an annual cost of $6899.20 (assuming an average hourly salary of $39.20).

Data will be collected on an annual basis, in May of each year, for the Microsoft Access database collection, and data for the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet information collection will be done on a bi-annual basis, in May and November of each year. Although this information collection is not mandatory, it is expected that 100% of the 104(g) training centers will respond to this collection request. All forty-six (46) training centers and EPA have the necessary equipment, desk-top computers and software to collect and manage this information. There will be no additional start-up or maintenance costs associate with this project to perform this information collection request. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2003-0337. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0337. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0337. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM . You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you hand deliver or send by courier to the address identified in Unit I.C.2. or mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.3. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0337. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

3. By mail . Due to potential delays in EPA's receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments either electronically or by hand delivery or courier. We cannot guarantee that comments sent via mail will be received prior to the close of the comment period. If mailed, please send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2003-0337. For questions about delivery options, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Amendments to FIFRA, enacted November 28, 1975, include a requirement under section 25(d) that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide registrations pursuant to section 6(b)(2), as well as proposed and final forms of rulemaking pursuant to section 25(a), be submitted to a Scientific Advisory Panel prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d), the Scientific Advisory Panel is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The Panel shall also make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists.

In accordance with the statute, the SAP is a permanent panel composed of seven members, selected and appointed by the Deputy Administrator of EPA from nominees submitted by both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Agency is, at this time, selecting three new members to serve on the panel as a result of membership terms that will expire this year. The Agency requested nominations of experts to be selected from the fields of ecological risk assessment (especially probabilistic ecological risk assessment), human health risk assessment methodology and uncertainty analysis, and veterinary pathology. Nominees should be well published and current in their fields of expertise. The statute further stipulates that we publish the name, address, professional affiliation, and a brief biographical sketch of each nominee in the Federal Register and solicit public comments regarding the candidates nominated.

A Charter for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, dated October 25, 2002, was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App. I). The qualifications of members as provided by the Charter follow.

Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. No persons shall be ineligible to serve on the Panel by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). The Deputy Administrator appoints individuals to serve on the Panel for staggered terms of 4 years. Panel members are subject to the provisions of 40 CFR part 3, subpart F, Standards of Conduct for Special Government Employees, which include rules regarding conflicts of interest. Each nominee selected by the Deputy Administrator, before being formally appointed, is required to submit a confidential statement of employment and financial interests, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's sources of research support, if any.

In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the Deputy Administrator shall require all nominees to the Panel to furnish information concerning their professional qualifications, educational background, employment history, and scientific publications. The Agency is required to publish in the Federal Register the name, address, and professional affiliations of each nominee and to seek public comment on the nominees.

With respect to the requirements of section 25(d) of FIFRA that the Administrator promulgate regulations regarding conflicts of interest, the Charter provides that EPA's existing regulations applicable to special government employees, which include advisory committee members, will apply to the members of the Scientific Advisory Panel. These regulations appear in 40 CFR part 3, subpart F. In addition, the Charter provides for open meetings with opportunities for public participation.

In accordance with the provisions of section 25(d) of FIFRA, EPA in May 2003, requested NIH and NSF to nominate scientists to fill three vacancies occurring on the Panel. The Agency requested nomination of experts in the fields of ecological risk assessment (especially probabilistic ecological risk assessment), human health risk assessment methodology and uncertainty analysis, and veterinary pathology. NIH and NSF responded by letter, providing the Agency with a total of 29 nominees. Fifteen of the 29 nominees are interested and available to actively participate in SAP meetings.

The following are the names, addresses, professional affiliations, and selected biographical data of nominees being considered for membership on the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. The Agency seeks to fill three vacancies occurring this year.

1. Nominee . Burger, Joanna, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Biology, Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University; Professor in the School of Public Health in New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ.

i. Expertise . Ecotoxicology methods, design, data collection and analysis, ecological risk methods and assessment.

ii. Education . Ph.D., Ecology and Behavioral Ecology, University of Minnesota.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Burger has had over 30 years of experience in ecological studies of a wide range of animals in their natural environments, and nearly 25 years working in the fields of ecological risk and ecotoxicology. She has served as Director of the Graduate Program in Ecology at Rutgers University for 15 years, and has served as Director of the Chemical Analysis Laboratory for the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Center of Excellence at Rutgers University/University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ), Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. During this period, she has been actively involved in research on the effects of toxic chemicals on behavior and neurodevelopment, on biomonitoring of toxic chemicals and ecological endpoints, on the risks from chemical contaminants in fish and wildlife, and on developing methods for ecological risk assessment at different levels of ecological complexity. She has published over 350 refereed papers in these areas, and has written or edited over 15 books. Dr. Burger has served as a member of the National Research Council (NRC) Board of Environmental Science and Toxicology, Board on Biology, Commission of Life Sciences and other NRC committees. She also has served on several SCOPE committees, most recently as the Co-Chair of an international meeting on endocrine disruptors. Dr. Burger has served on EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) advisory councils as well as the New Jersey Endangered and NonGame Species Council. She teaches ecological risk and serves as an environmental advisor to numerous local, State, and Federal agencies.

2. Nominee . James, Margaret O., Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

i. Expertise . Xenobiotic metabolism, environmental pollutants.

ii. Education . B.Sc. (Honors), Chemistry, University College London, UK; Ph.D., Organic Chemistry, St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, University of London.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. James completed a 3-year post-doctoral fellowship in the pharmacology branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She was appointed as a research associate, and then a senior staff fellow at the NIEHS satellite laboratory at the Whitney Laboratory in St. Augustine, FL. She has been on the faculty of the Departments of Medicinal Chemistry and Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of Florida since 1980. Dr. James also serves as the director of the University of Florida Superfund Basic Research Program project grant. Dr. James is a founding member of the interdisciplinary toxicology graduate program at the University of Florida. She has authored or co-authored over 100 peer reviewed original research papers and several book chapters. Dr. James served on the Environmental Health Sciences review panel from 1991 to 1995, and on the Toxics Advisory Committee, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA from 1992 to 1994. She has served as Secretary of the International Society for the Study of Xenobiotics (2000 to 2003) and is a former member of the editorial board of Chemico-Biological Interactions. Dr. James currently serves on the editorial boards of Drug Metabolism and Disposition and Aquatic Toxicology. She is the guest editor of a special volume of Marine Environmental Research to be published in 2004. Dr. James' research interests are in biotransformation pathways involved in the formation or detoxification of chemically reactive metabolites of xenobiotics.

3. Nominee . Portier, Kenneth M., Ph.D., Associate Professor of Statistics and Agricultural Experiment Station Statistician, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

i. Expertise . Applied statistics, biostatistics, statistical computing, and the teaching of statistics.

ii. Education . B.S., Mathematics, Nicholls State University; M.S., Statistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Ph.D. in Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Portier has taught statistical methods on the graduate level, and has served as a statistical consultant to researchers in agriculture, natural resources, and the environment at the University of Florida since 1979. His participation in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Higher Education Programs (HEP) funded teaching grants has included development of web-based materials for teaching natural resources sampling, and developing a senior graduate course in forested watersheds. Dr. Portier is collaborating with other University of Florida researchers on grants from the NSF, USDA, NOAA, and the Department of Interior (DOI). Dr. Portier has been a regular member of EPA and National Toxicology Program science advisory panels reviewing ecological risks from agriculture-related chemicals and practices. He has co-authored papers in many of the premier journals in agriculture, natural resources, and environmental sciences.

4. Nominee . Regan, Helen M., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Ecology Program, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA.

i. Expertise . Ecological risk assessment, quantitative conservation ecology, population models and mathematical treatments of uncertainty in ecological risk assessment.

ii. Education . B.S. (with first-class honors), Applied Mathematics, Latrobe University, Victoria, Australia; Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, University of New England, New South Wales, Australia.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Regan's research activities include: Treatment of uncertainty in contaminant exposure models for wildlife; population-level ecological risk assessment of endangered and threatened species using stochastic population models; systematic decisionmaking for management and conservation planning; and assessment of uncertainty in endangered species classification protocols. She has held postdoctoral research fellow appointments with the University of Melbourne and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Dr. Regan has served as a consultant for the Cooperative Research Center for Catchment Hydrology (Australia) and for Forestry Tasmania (Australia). She has served as an invited panelist for the Industrial Risk Management Forum, Environmental Futures Forum (Victorian Environmental Protection Authority, Australia) and as a member of the review team for Improvements in Applications of Models in Ecological Risk Assessment (sponsored by the American Chemistry Council). She is a contributing author to Ecological Modeling in Risk Assessment: Chemical Effects on Populations, Ecosystems, and Landscapes (Pastorok, Bartell, Ferson and Ginzburg, eds.), Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 2001. She was a scientific reviewer for the US Fish and Wildlife Service Revised Proposal for Critical Habitat for Forty-Seven Plant Species on the Island of Hawaii and served on the scientific review panel for Forest Service Species Viability Assessment Processes at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara. In September 2003, she was an invited participant for the Pellston Workshop on Population-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (focus on chemical contaminants), sponsored by the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, held in Roskilde, Denmark.

5. Nominee . Scott, Geoffrey I., Ph.D., Acting Director, Charleston Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research (CCEHBR), National Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Charleston, SC.

i. Expertise . Aquatic and marine toxicology, ecological assessments of the impacts of agricultural runoff, oil spills, pesticides, bacterial contamination, and water chlorination.

ii. Education . B.S., Biology, Wofford College; M.S. and Ph.D., Marine Science, University of South Carolina.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Scott's research experience includes working as an Aquatic Toxicologist for the EPA, where he helped develop a suite of rapid assessment indices for assessing ecological damages from oil spills. He has served as a tenured Associate Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina (USC) where he received the 1989 Outstanding Young Researcher Award in Public Health. While at USC, most of Dr. Scott's research focused on the impacts of agricultural pesticide non-point source runoff on estuarine ecosystems. Dr. Scott served as Chief of the Marine Ecotoxicology Branch at NOAA CCEHBR from 1993 to 2001. He has collaborated with peers in his discipline to write both the conceptual framework for the Urbanization in the Southeast Estuarine Systems (USES) study, and the conceptual framework for the Land Use Coastal Environmental Study (LUCES). Dr. Scott was appointed by the NOAA Administrator to represent NOAA in a Federal agency task force on endocrine disruptors, culminating in the Raleigh Workshop, where he co-chaired the sessions on neuro-endocrine effects. Dr. Scott has served on numerous government and industry advisory panels, including the EPA advisory board on endocrine disrupting chemicals; EPA's Food Quality Protection Act Science Review Board; the EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program, Water Stakeholder Committee; the South Carolina Coastal Pesticide Advisory Committee; the United Nations Gulf of Guinea Large Marine Ecosystem Team; and the Research Delegation Exchange with the Black Sea Research Institute. Dr. Scott has served as a board member, Vice President, and President of the Carolina Chapter of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Dr. Scott is also an Associate Professor in the Medical University of South Carolina, the University of Charleston, and an Adjunct Associate Professor in the Institute of Human and Environmental Health, Texas Tech University.

1. Nominee . Anderson, Elizabeth L., Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, Sciences International, Inc., Alexandria, VA.

i. Expertise . Risk assessment and carcinogenicity.

ii. Education . B.S., Chemistry, College of William and Mary; M.S., Organic Chemistry, University of Virginia; Ph.D., Organic Chemistry, American University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Anderson regularly participates in and directs an interdisciplinary group of scientists and engineers specializing in risk assessment. She has over 20 years of experience working in the field of risk assessment and is currently the Editor-in-Chief of Risk Analysis: An International Journal . Previously, while employed by the EPA, Dr. Anderson founded the Agency's central risk assessment program, and directed it for 10 years. In this capacity, she served as the Executive Director of the EPA committee that initially adopted risk assessment as the basis for implementing the Agency's regulatory mandates. She also founded EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group and the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Dr. Anderson received the EPA Gold Medal for exceptional service. She has participated in numerous risk-related panels and committees including those for inter-agency risk assessment initiatives, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Anderson has worked extensively on international risk assessment issues to address human health and ecological consequences of exposure to environmental toxicants for organizations that include the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization. She was President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Clement International Corporation and on the Board of Directors of ICF-Kaiser International. Dr. Anderson is a co-founder and past-President of the Society for Risk Analysis. She has participated in numerous national and international commissions and organizations concerned with risk based issues, and has lectured and published widely in the field of risk assessment.

2. Nominee . Crawford-Brown, Douglas, Ph.D., Professor, Departments of Environmental Sciences and Engineering and in Public Policy Analysis; also on the Resource Faculty of the Department of Philosophy; Chairman, Environmental Sciences and Studies Undergraduate Program; and Director, Carolina Environmental Program, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

i. Expertise . Environmental modeling, exposure assessment, risk assessment, and the application of scientific models in the assessment and selection of environmental policies.

ii. Education . B.S., M.S., and Ph.D., Physics and Nuclear Science, Georgia Institute of Technology.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Crawford-Brown's teaching and research are in the areas of environmental modeling, exposure assessment, risk assessment, and the application of scientific models in the assessment and selection of environmental policies. His current research focuses on risk assessment in support of policy in water and air; on development of biomathematical models of human health risk following exposure to radionuclides, chemicals, and microbes; on dose reconstruction methodologies; and on the development of decision support systems to analyze risks from environmental contaminants. He has worked extensively in the field of exposure and dose assessment in support of epidemiological studies, with a primary focus on exposure to radionuclides and radiation. Dr. Crawford-Brown has written over 120 journal articles in his discipline, and has authored a series of books on environmental risk assessment: Theoretical and Mathematical Foundations of Human Health Risk Analysis (1997), Risk-Based Environmental Decisions: Methods and Culture (1999), and Mathematical Methods of Environmental Risk Modeling (2001). Dr. Crawford-Brown has served on a number of federal advisory committees for EPA, and currently serves as a Technical Advisor for the American Waterworks Association in the areas of risk and decisions. He has chaired, or has served as a member of a wide variety of national and international committees in areas related to risk and the environment, including those established by EPA, the World Trade Organization, the Department of Energy, NIH, the International Life Sciences Institute, and the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology.

3. Nominee . Frey, H. Christopher, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

i. Expertise . Quantification of variability and uncertainty, measurement, modeling and evaluation of energy and environmental control systems, and exposure and risk assessment.

ii. Education . B.S., Mechanical Engineering, University of Virginia; Master of Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University; Ph.D., Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie-Mellon University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Frey's research interests are primarily in: Development and demonstration of methods for quantification of variability and uncertainty; modeling and evaluation of energy and environmental control systems; measurement and modeling of real-world tailpipe emissions; and exposure and risk assessment. He has been a principal or co-principal investigator for 25 externally sponsored university research projects in these areas. Dr Frey has published 26 peer-reviewed journal papers, co-authored the book, Probabilistic Techniques in Exposure Assessment: A Handbook for Dealing with Variability and Uncertainty in Models and Inputs , authored three other book chapters and authored or co-authored numerous conference proceedings papers and technical reports. He has served as a reviewer for 14 journals, and as an external reviewer for 8 draft EPA reports, 2 USDA risk assessments, and a draft Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)/World Health Organization (WHO) exposure assessment guideline. He has served in numerous advisory capacities for EPA including on the EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel and on the Science Advisory Board. Dr. Frey has participated in the development of guidance documents and handbooks, including chairing a workshop in 1998 that recommended methods for developing input distributions in probabilistic analysis, and a 2001 workshop that recommended approaches for sensitivity analysis applied to food safety risk models. Dr. Frey participated in international expert panels for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, pertaining to guidelines for uncertainty analysis, and for FAO/WHO regarding guidelines for probabilistic exposure assessment. Dr. Frey is active in the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) and the Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA) and also is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Formerly, he was president of the Research Triangle Chapter of SRA, a member of the SRA Council, and Chair of the AWMA's EE-1 Exposure and Health Effects Technical Committee. He is a recipient of a 1992 AAAS/EPA Fellowship, the 1992 AAAS Barnard Scholarship, a National Science Foundation CAREER award, and the SRA's 1999 Chauncy Starr Award for exceptional contributions to the field of risk analysis.

4. Nominee . Gray, George M., Ph.D., Executive Director, Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.

i. Expertise . Risk assessment, interpretation of rodent bioassays, risk management, risk communication.

ii. Education . B.S., Biology, University of Michigan; M.S. and Ph.D., Toxicology, University of Rochester.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Gray's primary research interests are risk characterization and risk communication with a focus on food safety and agriculture and chemicals in the environment. He has published on both the scientific bases of human health risk assessment and its application to risk policy with a focus on risk/risk tradeoffs in risk management. Dr. Gray teaches toxicology and risk assessment to graduate students and to participants in the Continuing Professional Education Program at the Harvard School of Public Health. He serves on the Risk Assessment Task Force of the Society of Toxicology, and on government panels, including a Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Food Advisory Committee, and the NIEHS National Advisory Environmental Health Science Council.

5. Nominee . Zeise, Lauren, Ph.D., Chief, Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency, Oakland, CA.

i. Expertise . Cancer and reproductive risk assessment methodologies and applications.

ii. Education . M.S. and Ph.D., Harvard University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Zeise has served as Chief of the Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment Section since 1991, overseeing a variety of the State's cancer, reproductive, and ecological risk assessment activities. Dr. Zeise currently serves on the EPA Science Advisory Board Research Strategies Advisory Committee, on the National Institute of Medicine Board of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, and on the NRC Board on Environmental Sciences and Toxicology. She is a member, fellow, and councilor of the Society of Risk Analysis and is on the editorial board of that society's journal. The National Cancer Institute Smoking and Tobacco Smoke monograph, Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, was conceived and developed under her editorial direction. She is co-author and co-editor of the 1999 International Agency for Research on Cancer monograph Quantitative Estimation and Prediction of Cancer Risk. Dr. Zeise has served on the EPA Science Advisory Board Environmental Health Committee and Integrated Risk Project, and as a consultant to the Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee, Environmental Engineering Committee, FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and on other ad hoc committees of EPA. She also has served on committees of the National Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Toxicology Program, and the Office of Technology Assessment.

1. Nominee . Chambers, Janice E., Ph.D., Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences, and William L. Giles Distinguished Professor, College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University, MS.

i. Expertise . Pesticide toxicology, neurochemical and behavioral effects of pesticides, potential effects of pesticides on infants and children, mechanism of action and biotransformation of neurotoxicants and other xenobiotics, predictive modeling of the effects of mixtures.

ii. Education . B.S., Biology, University of San Francisco and Ph.D., Animal Physiology, Mississippi State University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Chambers directs several research projects that deal with the effects of pesticides in mammalian systems to determine the potential human health effects of pesticide exposures. Specifically, there are projects related to the neurochemical and behavioral effects of pesticides in developing organisms as well as the metabolism of pesticides in developing organisms to yield predictions about potential effects of pesticides in infants and children. Other Projects are involved in developing mathematical predictions of the effects of mixtures of pesticides on the nervous system so that predictive models can be generated to potentially describe the effects of future uncharacterized mixtures. Dr. Chambers has been the Principal Investigator for numerous federally funded competitive grants in the field of toxicology. Because of her expertise, she has been asked to serve on a number of advisory boards and prestigious committees. Dr. Chambers is board certified as a toxicologist by the American Board of Toxicology and the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. As Director of the Center for Environmental Health Sciences, she has developed an interdisciplinary research center specializing in pesticide toxicology and funded primarily by NIH. The center comprises the areas of neurotoxicology, biochemical toxicology, analytical chemistry, biostatistics, epidemiology, computational chemistry, computational simulation, biochemistry, and endocrinology.

2. Nominee . Dragan, Yvonne P., Ph.D., Program Director, Hepatotoxicology Center for Excellence, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR.

i. Expertise . Pharmacology, toxicology, carcinogenesis, mode of action, and human health risk assessment.

ii. Education . B.A., Biology, Smith College; Ph.D., Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Dragan received her Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology from the Medical College of Virginia in 1988. She performed postdoctoral work in the Department of Oncology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison at the McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research from 1988 until 1998. She was a member of the School of Public Health faculty at the Ohio State University from 1998 until 2001. Dr. Dragan is currently the Director of the Program in Hepatotoxicity at the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, AR. She has held her current position at NCTR since 2002 and is an adjunct Associate Professor in Pharmacology and Toxicology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

3. Nominee . Haschek-Hock, Wanda M., Ph.D., Director, Graduate Training Program in Toxicologic Pathology and Professor, Comparative Pathology, Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

i. Expertise . Pathology, veterinary diagnostic and toxicologic; mycotoxicology.

ii. Education . B.V.Sc., University of Sydney; Ph.D., Veterinary Pathology, Cornell University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Haschek-Hock has 30 years of experience in diagnostic and toxicologic pathology including teaching, research, and service. Her research has been in pathophysiology of chemicals and natural toxins found in the environment. Her current research focus is mycotoxins and food safety. Dr. Haschek-Hock has over 100 scientific peer-reviewed publications in the fields of pathology and toxicology, and is senior editor of the Handbook of Toxicologic Pathology (1991, 2002), and Fundamentals of Toxicologic Pathology (1998). She developed and directs the Graduate Training Program in Toxicologic Pathology and the biannual international Continuing Education Course in Industrial Toxicology and Pathology. She was Head of the Department of Veterinary Pathology at the University of Illinois for 6 years. She has served as President of the Society of Toxicology's Comparative and Veterinary Specialty Section; on the Board of Directors of the American Board of Toxicology; as Associate Editor for Toxicological Sciences; as an Editorial Board member for Fundamental and Applied Toxicology, Veterinary Pathology, and Toxicologic Pathology. Dr. Haschek-Hock also has served as Councilor of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists and as Councilor and, currently, Secretary Treasurer of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology. She recently served on the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee for the Center for Veterinary Medicine.

4. Nominee . Songer, J. Glenn, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Veterinary Science and Microbiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.

i. Expertise . Infectious disease epidemiology and diagnosis, pathogenesis of gram-positive bacterial infections, clostridial toxins, clostridial enteric disease.

ii. Education . B.S., Biology, Mid-America Nazarene College; M.A., Preventive Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch; Ph.D., Veterinary Microbiology, Iowa State University.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Songer's research has focused on two primary areas. The major emphasis at present is elucidation of the role of membrane active bacterial toxins in pathogenesis of animal disease. In addition, he has developed and applied in vitro methods, including rapid molecular approaches, to diagnosis of animal disease. Dr. Songer is a member of the American Society for Microbiology, the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, the Conference of Research Workers in Animal Disease, the U.S. Animal Health Association and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology. He has authored and co-authored numerous papers in his field during the past 20 years. He has served on numerous national and international panels on matters of interest in his field including committees and panels for USDA and NIH.

5. Nominee . Woods, Leslie Willis, D.V.M., Associate Professor, Clinical Diagnostic Pathology, California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA.

i. Expertise . Toxicology and infectious diseases in mammalian wildlife and avian species.

ii. Education . B.A., Chemistry, University of San Diego; D.V.M., University of California, Davis; Ph.D. in Comparative Pathology, University of California.

iii. Professional experience . Dr. Woods became a professor of clinical diagnostic pathology in 1997 and has a joint appointment at the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System and the Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology Department in the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California. Her research interests are in infectious diseases and toxicoses of wildlife and exotic and companion avian species, and infectious diseases of mammalian wildlife species. Dr. Woods discovered and described a new adenoviral hemorrhagic disease of deer that has been responsible for high mortality in the mule deer species in the western United States. Dr. Woods' other area of interest is toxicology. Her graduate research program included in vitro and in vivo studies using respiratory toxins. Dr. Woods has been a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Pathologists since 1993.

With respect to the proposed collection of information, Ex-Im Bank invites comments as to

Title and Form Number: 2003 Exporter & Banker Survey of Ex-Im Bank Competitiveness, EIB Form 00-02.

OMB Number: 3048-0004.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Annual Number of Respondents: 50.

Annual Burden Hours: 50.

Frequency of Reporting or Use: Annual Survey.

Parts of this meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

• Corporate/Non-corporate Approvals

• Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS)—Sensitivity to Risk

• Capital Markets Specialist Program

• Human Development Investment Group—Update

• Rotational Assignments as Training and Development

• Loan Syndications—Update

• Rural Home Lending—Request for Regulatory Exception

• YBS Proposed Rule—Reopening of Comment Period

• Allowance for Loan Losses—Update

FDA is requesting emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.13. The information is critical to the agency's mission of regulating food labeling and is needed prior to the expiration of the normal time periods for OMB clearance under the PRA regulations (5 CFR part 1320). Consumer education activities are needed to ensure the successful implementation of the regulation mandating disclosure of the trans fat amount on food label. Before these activities can be completed, it is necessary to resolve questions about possible accompanying disclosure requirements for trans fat nutrient content claims. Delays in resolving this issue will undercut the effectiveness of these activities and reduce the value of mandatory trans fat disclosure. For this reason, the use of normal clearance procedures would be likely to prevent or disrupt this collection of information.

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

FDA is requesting OMB approval of an experimental study of trans fat claims on food products to help FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition formulate decisions and policies affecting labeling requirements for trans fat claims on foods. In the Federal Register of July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41507), FDA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling; Consumer Research to Consider Nutrient Content and Health Claims and Possible Footnote or Disclosure Statements.” The document announced that the agency was seeking information about possible disclosure requirements to accompany nutrient content claims about trans fatty acids to help consumers make heart-healthy food choices. The proposed study is intended to evaluate the ability of several such disclosure requirements to enable consumer heart-healthy food choices in order to provide empirical support for possible policy decisions about the need for such disclosures and the appropriate form they should take.

FDA or its contractor will collect and use information gathered from shopping mall intercept and Internet panel samples to evaluate how consumers understand and respond to claims on products with differing fatty acid profiles and possible disclosure requirements with those claims. The distinctive features of Internet panel and shopping mall methodologies for the purpose of this study are that they allow for controlled visual presentation of study materials, experimental manipulation of study materials, and the random assignment of subjects to condition. Experimental manipulation of labels and random assignment to condition makes it possible to estimate the effects of the various possible disclosure statements label statements while controlling for individual differences. Random assignment ensures that mean differences between conditions can be tested using well known techniques such as analysis of variance or regression analysis to yield statistically valid estimates of effect size. By implementing the study in a large nationally representative consumer panel with 600,000 households or in a geographically diverse set of shopping malls, the generalizability of the findings to a large fraction of the general population is also ensured.

Participants will be adults, age 18 and older, who are recruited for a study about foods and food labels. Each participant will be randomly assigned to 1 of the 126 experimental conditions consisting of fully crossing 7 footnote disclosure conditions, 3 product types, 3 fatty acid profiles and 2 prior knowledge conditions.

Respondents will provide background information and respond to package labels that contain the variations of label statements to be tested. Key measures for the study are product perception questions about the labeled food product (expected health benefits, perceived nutrition ratings).

FDA will use the information from the study to evaluate regulatory policy options. The agency often lacks empirical data about how consumers understand and respond to statements they might see in product labeling. The information gathered from this study can be used by the agency to assess likely consumer responses to various disclosure requirements for nutrient content claims.

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

FDA is requesting emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.13. The information is critical to the agency's mission of regulating food labeling and is needed prior to the expiration of the normal time periods for OMB clearance under the PRA regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. Consumer education activities are necessary to ensure the successful implementation of the regulation mandating disclosure of the trans fat amount on food label. Before these activities can be completed, it is necessary to resolve questions about accompanying footnotes and cuing schemes. Delays in resolving this issue will undercut the effectiveness of these education activities and reduce the value of mandatory trans fat disclosure. For this reason, the use of normal clearance procedures would be likely to prevent or disrupt this collection of information.

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

FDA is requesting OMB approval of an experimental study of possible footnotes and cuing schemes to help consumers interpret quantitative trans fat disclosure on the NFP to help FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition formulate decisions and policies affecting labeling requirements for trans fat disclosure. In the Federal Register of July 11, 2003 (68 FR 41507), FDA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking entitled “Food Labeling: Trans Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling; Consumer Research to Consider Nutrient Content and Health Claims and Possible Footnote or Disclosure Statements,” stating that the agency is seeking information about whether it should consider statements about trans fat, either alone or in combination with saturated fat and cholesterol, as a footnote in the Nutrition Facts panel to enhance consumers' understanding about such cholesterol-raising lipids and how to use disclosed information on the label to make healthy food choices. The proposed study is intended to evaluate the ability of several possible footnotes and cuing schemes to enable consumer heart-healthy food choices in order to provide empirical support for possible policy decisions about the need for such requirements and the appropriate form they should take.

FDA or its contractor will collect and use information gathered from shopping mall intercept and Internet panel samples to evaluate how consumers understand and respond to possible footnotes and cuing schemes. The distinctive features of internet panel and shopping mall methodologies for the purpose of the study are that they allow for controlled visual presentation of study materials, experimental manipulation of study materials, and the random assignment of subjects to condition. Experimental manipulation of labels and random assignment to condition makes it possible to estimate the effects of the various possible footnotes and cuing schemes while controlling for individual differences between subjects. Random assignment ensures that mean differences between conditions can be tested using well-known techniques such as analysis of variance or regression analysis to yield statistically valid estimates of effect size. By implementing the study in a large nationally representative consumer panel with 600,000 households or in a geographically diverse set of shopping malls, the generalizability of the findings to a large fraction of the general population is ensured.

Participants will be adults, age 18 and older, who are recruited for a study about foods and food labels. Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of the 42 experimental conditions consisting of fully crossing seven possible footnotes/cuing schemes, 3 product types, and 2 prior knowledge conditions.

FDA will use the information from the study to evaluate regulatory and policy options. The agency often lacks empirical data about how consumers understand and respond to statements they might see in product labeling. The information gathered from this study can be used to estimate consumer comprehension and behavioral impact of various footnotes and cuing schemes intended to enable better understanding of quantitative trans fat information.

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

We estimate that 60 subjects per cell, 2,520 subjects in all, will provide adequate power to identify small to medium size effects (i.e., r =.15 to .30) for all main effects and first order interactions with power = (1 - beta) well in excess of .80 at the .05 significance level. Power for second and third order interactions will necessarily be smaller, but even for third order interactions, statistical power will be =.80 at the .10 significance level.

FDA is requesting emergency processing of this proposed collection of information under section 3507(j) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(j) and 5 CFR 1320.13). The information is critical to the agency's mission of regulating food labeling. Currently FDA is operating under interim procedures for reviewing qualified health claims on conventional foods and dietary supplements (“Guidance for Industry and FDA: Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements,” that published in the Federal Register of July 10, 2003 (68 FR 41387-41390)). This interim approach was necessitated by various developments since the passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), including successful legal challenges based on the First Amendment. The interim procedures provide guidance to industry regarding how the agency will respond to qualified health claims until the agency can promulgate notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities and are intended only as recommendations.

The interim procedures strain the agency's limited resources for reviewing qualified health claims. Qualified health claims greatly increase the number of potential health claims and as a result the agency anticipates a far greater number of health claim petitions. The agency included criteria for prioritizing petitions in order to maximize the public health benefit of its interim qualified health claim procedure, which will necessitate delays for some petitions. The interim guidance also creates uncertainty for industry, since qualified health claims are permitted through a letter of enforcement discretion, and are not authorized through a regulation. This is likely to inhibit some companies from submitting petitions during the interim period. FDA prefers that this interim period be as short as possible.

Consumer data are important to the development of new regulations for health claims. A central consideration in the development of a new regulatory framework for qualified health claims is the importance of ensuring that such claims can be made in a way that is not misleading to consumers. The agency recognizes that it is unknown whether consumers can distinguish between differing levels of scientific support and there are no consumer data currently available to assess the effectiveness of wording options proposed for conveying the different levels. The interim guidance relies on limited prior experience under a temporary policy of enforcement discretion, using ad hoc health claim disclaimers.

Given the uncertainties and constraints inherent with interim guidance and the absence of relevant consumer data to address questions raised by the new approaches to health claims under consideration, we are seeking emergency approval of the proposed study in order to provide needed consumer data in time to assist the agency in developing new regulations for qualified health claims.

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

FDA is requesting OMB approval of an experimental study of health claims and disclaimers on food labels to help the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition formulate decisions and policies affecting labeling requirements for qualified health claims. Several possible approaches to implementing this qualified health claim scheme that differ in terms of the specific language and form of disclaimers used to convey level of scientific certainty are evaluated in terms of the ability of the proposed approach to accurately convey the actual level of scientific uncertainty for the stated claim.

The recent report of the FDA Task Force (Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative Task Force Final Report, July 10, 2003) describes a four-level rating scheme for evaluating petitioned claims (consisting of unqualified claims that meet the standard of significant scientific agreement as defined by NLEA and three levels of qualified claims supported by decreasing levels of scientific evidence). The proposed consumer research is designed to test approaches to conveying levels of scientific uncertainty through the use of disclaimers that are linked to this four-level rating scheme for petitioned health claims.

The proposed study is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of several possible options for communicating the strength of scientific evidence for a given health claim across a range of health claims of varying scientific certainty. The evidence should provide empirical support for possible policy decisions about the need for disclaimers to minimize consumers' misunderstanding and misapplication of qualified health claims and the optimal language and the form such disclaimers should take. The impact of disclaimers is examined across a range of measures that capture what is conveyed about the state of scientific certainty for the claim as well as the impact of the qualified health claim on attributions about the food product that displays the claim.

FDA will conduct an experimental study using shopping mall intercept samples. The mall intercept methodology allows controlled presentation of visual materials, experimental manipulation of study materials, and the random assignment of participants to experimental conditions. The experimental manipulation of label conditions and random assignment to conditions allows for statistical estimates of the effects of different approaches to conveying level of scientific support and allows quantitative comparisons of the effectiveness of different forms and wording options for health claim disclaimers. Random assignment ensures that mean differences between conditions can be tested using established techniques such as analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis to yield statistically valid estimates of effect size.

The study design is based on the controlled presentation of realistic product labels that carry health claims for four nutrient/disease health claims. The four health claims that are tested vary in terms of the degree of scientific evidence underlying the health claim. Label conditions consist of different forms and specific wordings for disclaimers that accompany the nutrient/disease health claim as well as various control conditions that assess how consumers view the product and the scientific evidence in the absence of an explicit health claim on the product label.

Participants will be recruited using standard mall intercept methods, implemented in 6 geographically dispersed shopping malls. Participants are adults, aged 18 and older who do half or more of the grocery shopping for their household. Each site will have the same number of replicates of the experimental design that include all counterbalancing factors.

Four different schemes for communicating strength of science are tested: Point-Counterpoint (claim, followed by disclaimer), Embedded language (disclaimer first), Report Card (A-D letter ratings) and Graphic (graphic device to illustrate the rating scheme). Each scheme adopts the four-level strength of science ranking system described in the Interim Guidance.

The study includes four control conditions, representing important types of label statements and label users that constitute benchmarks for assessing the direction and magnitude of effects due to communications about the strength of scientific evidence for the health claims: (1) “Tombstone” control with no nutrient content or health claim, (2) nutrient content claim, but no health claim, (3) “full information control” in which the participant is provided with a summary of the scientific evidence for the claim prior to observing food labels and (4) expert controls, based on separate information gathered from nutrition experts knowledgeable about the diet-disease relationship.

The key measures for this study are the perceived strength of science for the claim that is conveyed by the label condition and product perception questions about the labeled food product (expected health benefits, perceived nutrition ratings) that identify the practical impact of the product label.

FDA will use the information from this study to guide the development of regulatory policy options related to qualified health claims. The agency acknowledges the lack of empirical data about how consumers understand and respond to statements they see in product labeling. The information gathered in this study can be used by the agency to assess likely consumer responses to various options for qualifying health claims based on varied levels of scientific evidence.

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

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 (the 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 “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) of the act (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.

Delcobese (amphetamine adipate, amphetamine sulfate, dextroamphetamine adipate, dextroamphetamine sulfate) tablets (1.25 milligrams (mg), 2.5 mg, 3.75 mg, 5 mg) were the subject of approved ANDA 83-563. Delcobese (amphetamine adipate, amphetamine sulfate, dextroamphetamine adipate, dextroamphetamine sulfate) capsules (1.25 mg, 2.5 mg, 3.75 mg, 5 mg) were the subject of approved ANDA 83-564. Both ANDAs were submitted by Delco Chemical Co., but ownership was later transferred to Lemmon Co. Delcobese tablets and capsules were labeled for the following indications: (1) Narcolepsy; (2) behavioral syndrome characterized by hyperactivity, distractability, and impulsiveness in children (currently commonly known as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or ADHD); and (3) exogenous obesity. Prior to Delcobese's discontinuation, FDA proposed to remove the exogenous obesity indication from the labeling of all drug products containing an amphetamine, including Delcobese products, and offered the application holders an opportunity for hearing (44 FR 41552, July 17, 1979). That notice is still pending. While it is pending, the exogenous obesity indication may not be approved for ANDAs relying on Delcobese tablets or capsules as their listed drug (21 CFR 314.127(a)(9)).

On February 22, 1985, Lemmon Co. notified FDA that Delcobese capsules had not been manufactured since March 1984. On June 4, 1990, FDA requested that Lemmon Co. withdraw ANDAs 83-563 and 83-564 because the marketing of both Delcobese capsules and tablets had been discontinued. On February 24, 1993, Lemmon Co. requested the withdrawal of ANDAs 83-563 and 83-564. Accordingly, FDA withdrew approval of the applications in a Federal Register notice (58 FR 27737, May 11, 1993). Delcobese was moved from the prescription drug product list to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.

In a citizen petition submitted under 21 CFR 10.30 dated September 20, 2002 (Docket No. 02P-0431), as amended by a letter dated October 23, 2002, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal requested that FDA determine whether Delcobese tablets and capsules were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

The agency has determined that Delcobese tablets and capsules were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioners identified no data or other information suggesting that Delcobese tablets and capsules were withdrawn from sale as a result of safety or effectiveness concerns. FDA has independently evaluated relevant data, including postmarketing adverse event reports, but has found no information that would indicate this product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Finally, an NDA for a similar amphetamine/dextroamphetamine salt combination was recently approved after the product was found to be safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD.

After considering the citizen petition and reviewing its records, FDA determines that, for the reasons outlined above, Delcobese tablets and capsules, approved under ANDAs 83-563 and 83-564, were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list Delcobese tablets and capsules 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. As a result, ANDAs that refer to Delcobese tablets and capsules may be approved by the agency for appropriate indications.

On August 4, 1997, the ruminant feed ban regulation in § 589.2000 (21 CFR 589.2000) became effective. This regulation prohibits the use of certain proteins derived from mammalian tissues in the feeding of ruminant animals. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and/or amplification within the United States of BSE, a fatal degenerative nerve disease of cattle.

BSE is the bovine form of a group of uniformly fatal neurological diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). BSE appears to be spread through the feeding to cattle of protein derived from TSE-infected animal tissues. Specifically, epidemiologic evidence gathered in the United Kingdom suggests an association between BSE and the feeding to cattle of protein derived from sheep infected with scrapie, another TSE. BSE represents a public health concern based on the possible connection between BSE and a form of human TSE, new variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (nv-CJD), that is believed to have resulted from people eating ruminant tissues infected with the BSE agent. BSE has had a devastating economic effect on the livestock industry in countries where it has been identified or suspected. BSE has not been diagnosed in the United States.

The regulation in § 589.2000 affects renderers, protein blenders, commercial animal feed manufacturers, distributors (including retailers), transporters of animal feed and feed ingredients, on-farm animal feed mixers, and ruminant feeders. Based on the acute need to prevent the entry and spread of BSE, FDA has set a goal of full compliance with the regulation. This CP is intended to assist in the conduct of inspections to enforce § 589.2000 and thereby minimize risk to human or animal health.

This CP is being issued as a level 1 guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGPs) regulation in § 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115). It is being implemented immediately without prior public comment, under § 10.115(g)(2), because of the agency's urgent need to provide guidance and instructions to both agency and state investigators in conducting inspections under § 589.2000 for preventing the introduction and amplication of BSE in the United States. Such guidance is presently not available. However, under GGPs, FDA requests comments on the guidance and will revise the document, if appropriate. Comments will be considered by the agency in the development of future policy.

The CP represents the FDA's current thinking on the subject. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and will not operate to bind FDA or the public. Alternative methods may be used as long as they satisfy the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

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

Copies of the CP may also be downloaded to a personal computer with access to the Internet. The CVM home page includes a link to the CP and may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cvm .

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

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Application Submission Requirements—Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0462.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The collection of this information is necessary to the Department to assist HUD in determining an applicant's eligibility, and their ability to develop housing for persons with disabilities within statutory and program criteria. A thorough evaluation of an applicant's submission is necessary to protect the government's financial interest.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-50071, HUD-92016-CA, HUD-92041, HUD-92042, HUD-92043, HUD-2530, HUD-2880, HUD-2990, HUD-2991, HUD-424B, SF-424, SF LLL.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of burden hours needed to prepare the information collection is 10,741; the number of respondents is 260 generating approximately 260 annual responses; the frequency of response is on occasion; and the estimated time needed to prepare the responses varies from 10 minutes to 13 hours.

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

The Department of Housing and Urban Development will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended).

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

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Notice of Funding Availability for the Community Development Work Study Program.

OMB Control Number: 2528-0175 (exp. 10/31/03).

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The information is being collected to select applicants for awards in this statutorily created competitive grant program and to monitor performance of grantees to ensure that they meet statutory and program goals and requirements.

Agency Form Numbers: HUD 424, HUD 424B, HUD 2880, HUD 2993, HUD 2994, HUD 30007, HUD 30013, HUD 30014, HUD 30015, HUD 96010-1.

Members of the Affected Public: Institutions of higher learning accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, Area-Wide Planning Organizations (APO), and states.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: Information pursuant to grant award will be submitted once a year. The following chart details the respondent burden on an annual and semi-annual basis:

Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

The Delaware & Lehigh National Heritage Corridor Commission was established by Public Law 100-692, November 18, 1988 and extended through Public Law 105-355, November 13, 1998.

The Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water wetland in California. It is an important wetland on the Pacific Flyway, providing food and habitat for migratory birds. This intricate mosaic of tidal wetlands, diked seasonal wetlands, sloughs, and upland grasslands comprises over 10 percent of the remaining wetlands in California and is an important part of the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. The Suisun Marsh provides habitats for many species of plants, fish, and wildlife, in addition to wintering and nesting habitat for waterfowl on the Pacific Flyway. The Suisun Marsh is located within the Bay-Delta estuary. As a result, its water quality affects, and is affected by, California's two largest water supply systems, the Federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, and other upstream diversions. These factors have made the Suisun Marsh one of the most highly regulated wildlife habitat areas in California and, as such, the Marsh occupies a prominent place in the Bay-Delta Program, a joint State-Federal planning group formed to develop and implement a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta.

California Bay-Delta Authority and member agency managers with primary responsibility for actions in Suisun Marsh formed a Charter Group to develop an implementation plan for Suisun Marsh that would protect and enhance Pacific Flyway and existing wildlife values, endangered species, and water quality. Because the Suisun Marsh includes private lands, the Suisun Resource Conservation District (SRCD) also serves on the Charter Group to represent the interests of private landowners. Other Charter Group members include DFG, FWS, Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Other Bay-Delta Program participating agencies include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The proposed Suisun Marsh Plan would be developed to balance the goals and objectives of the Bay-Delta Program, Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs within the Suisun Marsh in a manner that is responsive to the concerns of all stakeholders and is based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. The proposed Suisun Marsh Plan would provide for simultaneous protection and enhancement of: (1) Pacific Flyway and existing wildlife values in managed wetlands, (2) endangered species recovery, and (3) water quality.

The PEIS/EIR would address the design, implementation, and maintenance of specific actions needed to achieve the Suisun Marsh Plan. The Suisun Marsh is that portion of San Francisco Bay downstream from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and upstream from the Central San Francisco Bay. The Suisun Marsh falls into the Suisun Marshlands and Bay Ecological Management Unit of the Bay-Delta Program's Suisun Marsh and North San Francisco Bay Ecological Management Zone. The proposed Suisun Marsh Plan would serve as the Bay-Delta Program's regional implementation plan for the Suisun Marsh portion of the Suisun Marsh Ecological Management Zone. The Plan would address Bay-Delta Program implementation in the Suisun Marsh over the next 30 or more years with an emphasis on Bay-Delta Program Stage 1, formally defined as the first 7 years of Bay-Delta Program implementation.

The PEIS/EIR is expected to analyze the beneficial and adverse effects of implementing a Suisun Marsh Plan on environmental resources including: water quality, fisheries, wildlife, vegetation, special-status species, land use, land use development patterns, population, housing, economics, and public services (fire protection, vector control), cultural resources, air quality, noise, recreation, energy, visual impacts, and socioeconomic condition. Analysis in the PEIS/EIR would also determine if environmental justice issues are associated with the Suisun Marsh Plan. An initial review for the presence of Indian Trust Assets in Solano, Contra Costa, and San Joaquin Counties indicates that there are no trust lands or other assets in those counties held for federally recognized tribes. This review also indicates that there are no Public Domain Allotments (lands held in trust for individual Indians) near the vicinity of the Suisun Marsh Plan. The environmental effects of certain specific projects would also be analyzed at a site-specific level of detail in the PEIS/EIR, and would constitute the final CEQA or NEPA document for those projects. Specific projects proposed to be analyzed at the site-specific level include an amendment to the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement. The Plan would also present strategies to resolve permitting issues related to past and ongoing maintenance and management activities, and identify strategies to resolve other interagency conflicts related to the management of the Suisun Marsh. Specific alternatives to the proposed Suisun Marsh Plan have not been identified at this time and will be developed following scoping.

DFG is publishing a Notice of Preparation in accordance with CEQA.

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public meetings should contact Dan Buford at (916) 414-6600 or TDD (800) 735-2922 as soon as possible. Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative formats upon request.

It is Reclamation's practice to make comments in response to a Notice of Intent, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.

Planning and analysis for the Proposed Elko/Wells RMPs Fire Management Amendment and associated EA/FONSI follow regulations at 43 CFR part 1610 for the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1610), and at 40 CFR part 1500-1508 for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-90, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). Public scoping for preparation of the Amendment/EA was conducted in March 2000 (66 FR 20830-20831, April 25, 2001).

Amendment of the RMPs is needed due to recent above-normal wildfire seasons; concerns about critical habitat for wild horses; wildlife, and domestic livestock; implementation of the National Fire Plan; and increased interest from local publics, cooperators and interest groups. The major emphasis of the amendment is to provide a framework to:

a. Improve effectiveness of initial attack on fires that should be suppressed;

b. Increase options for vegetation management in advance of wildfires to reduce the scale, cost, and adverse impacts of large fires;

c. Minimize damage to other resources through coordinated planning in advance on suppression strategy and tactics based on each discipline involved; and

d. Lessen the impact of wildfire in habitat and public land-based sectors of the local economy (recreation, hunting, grazing);

Limited Suppression or Fire Use —This alternative significantly reduces the suppression response and associated costs necessary for wildfires. It assumes that most fires result in acceptable impacts on the landscape.

Full Suppression —This alternative would treat all wildfire as an undesirable event and assumes that effectiveness of initial attack is approximately 100 percent. Cost of this alternative would be highest of the considered alternatives.

Existing Management —This “no action” alternative has several elements of the first two, but places less emphasis on vegetation treatment, potential for fire use, or emerging issues for impacts on the landscape.

Proposed Action —BLM's “preferred” alternative includes a mix of management actions to increase preparedness for initial attack, treat fuels and use fire where appropriate to achieve resource benefits.

A draft Amendment/EA was provided to participants in the planning process for review and comment; this comment period ended November 15, 2002. The Proposed Amendment/EA/FONSI has been prepared based on input received.

Protest procedures in 43 CFR 1610.5-2 allow the public an opportunity to review BLM's proposed land use plan decision. Any participant in the planning process who has an interest that is or may be adversely affected may file a protest. The protester may raise only issues submitted for the record during the planning process. A letter of protest must be filed within 30 days of publication of this notice. The protest must be in writing and fulfill content requirements established in 43 CFR 1610.5-2(a)(2). The State Director must receive a protest letter as specified in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. No extension of time to file a protest is allowed. Any letters from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public inspection in their entirety upon request.

The Proposed Fire Management RMP Amendment, EA, and FONSI is available from the BLM Elko Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho St, Elko NV 89801, telephone 775-753-0200. This document is being mailed to all interested parties who have provided comments or requested they be included the mailing list for this planning effort.

Background. —This investigation is being instituted in response to a petition filed on October 31, 2003, by the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee For Legal Trade, Washington, DC, and its individual members, and the Cabinet Makers, Millmen, and Industrial Carpenters Local 721, Whittier, CA.

Participation in the investigation and public service list. —Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register . Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to this investigation upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list. —Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register . A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

Conference. —The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on November 21, 2003, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Fred H. Fischer (202-205-3179 or ffischer@usitc.gov ) not later than November 17, 2003, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

Written submissions. —As provided in §§ 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before November 26, 2003, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by § 201.8 of the Commission's rules, as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 2002).

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

Since these Privacy Act systems of record were last published in the Federal Register , the “United States Trustee Appendix 1—List of Record Retention Addresses” (UST-999) has been superseded by the USTP's Internet office locator ( www.usdoj.gov.ust ). Consequently, UST-999 is being deleted as outdated. The new routine use for contractors is being added to systems UST-001, UST-002, UST-003, and UST-004 in accordance with standard Department of Justice language. The need for this routine use stems from new bankruptcy court rules slated to take effect on December 1, 2003, after which debtors' social security numbers (SSNs) and other personal identifiers will be redacted in public filings pursuant to the Judicial Conference's new “privacy policy.” While the USTP has worked with the Judicial Conference to ensure that USTP offices will continue to receive debtors' SSNs and other personal identifiers, the offices need to share such information with USTP contractors, such as those performing debtor audits, in order to perform statutory bankruptcy oversight responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 581 et seq. and 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), the public is given a 30-day period in which to comment; and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibility of the Act, requires a 40-day period in which to conclude its review of the new routine use. Therefore, please submit any comments by December 10, 2003. The public, OMB, and Congress are invited to submit comments to: Mary Cahill, Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20530 (1400 National Place Building).

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), the Department has provided a report to OMB and Congress.

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 the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-03-17, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Files relating to Air Force legal assistance activities, including such records as representation letters, notary logs, notary appointment letters, and personal legal readiness briefings. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

2. Department of the Air Force, Agency-wide (N1-AFU-03-20, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to helicopter crewmember flight evaluations, including worksheets used to record evaluation results and to complete the Certificate of Aircrew Evaluation. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

3. Department of the Army, Agency wide (N1-AU-03-14, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Reports and other records relating to reviews of ammunition facilities at Army commands. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

4. Department of the Army, Agency-wide (N1-AU-03-24, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to educational and developmental intervention services provided to children of eligible service members. Included are referral and eligibility documentation, evaluations, transition plans, and related information. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

5. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N1-370-03-2, 12 items, 11 temporary items). Records of the National Weather Service's Office of Hydrologic Development. Included are such records as unpublished reports and data on which published reports are based and hydrologic information background materials. Also included are data, system documentation, inputs, outputs, and backups associated with the NOAA Hydrologic Data System and electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of published hydrologic reports on precipitation frequency and probable maximum precipitation studies.

6. Department of Defense, National Imagery and Mapping Agency (N1-537-03-18, 10 items, 8 temporary items). Records relating to continuity of operations planning and other continuity planning. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of files relating to joint planning and organizational planning. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

7. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (N1-560-03-15, 4 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that are associated with the internal and external correspondence of the agency's Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Chief of Staff. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for permanent retention.

8. Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (N1-563-04-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, an electronic system containing personal data used to track and monitor non-immigrant students, exchange visitors, and their dependents in the United States.

9. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (N1-53-03-12, 5 items, 5 temporary items). Paper and microfilm inputs for the Special Purpose Securities System, electronic reports generated from this system, and Federal Housing Administration reports. Records relate to such matters as early redemption requests, redemption of time deposits, fund receipt reports, future and prior issues and payments, security rollovers, notices of assessments, payment summaries, and interest accruals.

10. Department of the Treasury, Air Transportation Stabilization Board (N1-56-03-9, 11 items, 4 temporary items). Routine correspondence and staff working papers relating to loan guarantee programs to assist air carriers for losses incurred as a result of the terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of loan guarantee application files, decision memorandums and supporting documentation, loan agreements, decision letters, meeting minutes, press releases, and quarterly loan monitoring reports.

11. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (N1-15-02-6, 10 items, 10 temporary items). Paper and electronic records relating to the employment incentive scholarship program and the education debt reduction program. Records relate to participants in these programs as well as to non-selected applicants. Included are such files as applications, worksheets, payment summaries, and an electronic database used for tracking applications. Also included are electronic copies of records created using word processing and electronic mail.

12. Environmental Protection Agency, Agency-wide (N1-412-03-20, 3 items, 3 temporary item). Records relating to clearing persons and companies who require access to confidential business information. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic email and word processing.

13. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (N1-GRS-04-1, 9 items, 8 temporary items). Addition to the General Records Schedules for records of temporary commissions, boards, councils, and committees. Included are such records as files relating to day-to-day administrative activities, web site records (except for records identified by NARA as historically valuable), and committee management records. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of files documenting the establishment, membership, policies, organization, deliberations, findings, and recommendations of these bodies are proposed for permanent retention.

14. Small Business Administration, Office of Business Development (N1-309-03-10, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, documentation, and backups of the Small Disadvantaged Business Tracking System, an electronic system used to track the Small Disadvantaged Business certification process.

15. Social Security Administration, Office of Disability and Income Security Programs (N1-47-03-1, 26 items, 26 temporary items). Claim files and other records related to Title II (Retirement, Survivors and Disability Insurance) and Title XVI (Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind and Disabled) of the Social Security Act. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.

The applications received are as follows:

Applicant: Thomas A. Day, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874501, Tempe AZ 85287-4501.

Take and Enter Antarctic Specially Protected Area. The applicant proposes to collect up to 100 seeds and 300 plants of Deschampsia antarctic (Antarctic hairgrass), and up to 100 seed capsules and up to 300 plants of Colobanthus quitensis (Antarctic pearlwort), as well as soil samples. This material will be used to study the effects of climate change (warming, altered precipitation and enhanced UV-B) on Antarctic plants and productivity of Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems. Seeds are needed to propagate material at the applicant's home institution for examining plant responses to climate change factors. Plants and soils are needed to examine how plant productivity and soil characteristics ( e.g., carbon pools) change along natural microclimate gradients representing differences in temperature and moister regime. Plants and soils are also needed for transplant in the lab at Palmer Station where temperatures, precipitation, and UV-B radiation will be manipulated around the plants in order to study their responses. Transported plants and soils will subsequently be harvested and returned to the applicant's home institution for chemical analyses.

Biscoe Point (ASPA #139) and other islands in the vicinity of Palmer Station, Anvers Island.

December 1, 2003 to August 31, 2006.

I. Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office (VA) Byproduct Material License No. 15-15618-01, to terminate the license and release its facility located at 5500 East Kellogg in Wichita, Kansas, for unrestricted use.

The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this licensing action, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.

The purpose of the proposed action is to allow the release of the licensee's Wichita, Kansas facility for unrestricted use. This license was approved for in-vitro research utilizing labeled compounds, such as H-3, C-14, P-32, and others. On June 6, 2003, the VA requested that the NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The VA has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The staff has examined VA's request and the information that the licensee has provided in support of its request, including the surveys performed by VA to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402, “Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use,” to ensure that the NRC's decision is protective of the public health and safety and the environment. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and the environmental impacts associated with the unrestricted use of the VA's facilities are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-1496). The staff also finds that the proposed release for unrestricted use of the VA facility is in compliance with the 10 CFR 20.1402.

The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of VA's proposed license amendment to release the Wichita facility for unrestricted use. On the basis of the EA, the staff has concluded that the environmental impacts from the proposed action would not be significant. Accordingly, the staff has determined that a FONSI is appropriate, and has determined that the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's “Rules of Practice,” VA's request, the EA summarized above, and the documents related to this proposed action are available electronically for public inspection and copying from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. These documents include VA's letter dated June 6, 2003, with enclosures (Accession No. ML032960318); and the EA summarized above (Accession No. ML033020066).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering approval of a revision to the Phase 2 Decommissioning Plan (DP) for the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation (Kaiser) Facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Decommissioning of the Kaiser facility is being conducted in two Phases. In Phase 1, Kaiser remediated the land adjacent to the Kaiser property. In Phase 2, Kaiser will remediate its facility. On May 25, 2001, Kaiser submitted the Phase 2 DP. The Phase 2 DP was noticed in the Federal Register on October 30, 2001(66 FR54792). NRC approved the Phase 2 DP on June 8, 2003.

On October 6, 2003, Kaiser submitted a request to revise Chapter 14 of the DP. The revision will correct an error in Chapter 14, which incorrectly identified the Average Derived Concentration Level (ADCL w ) as the acceptance criteria for the 14 acre pond parcel area of the site. Kaiser has stated that the revisions to Chapter 14 will not change the scope of the work in the approved DP.

Prior to approving the DP revision, NRC will make findings in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment.

In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1405, the NRC is providing notice to individuals in the vicinity of the site that the NRC is in receipt of a revision to the Phase 2 DP, and will accept comments concerning this proposed modification to the DP and its associated environmental impacts. Comments with respect to this action should be provided in writing within 30 days of this notice and addressed to John T. Buckley, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6607, fax number (301) 415-5398, e-mail: jtb@nrc.gov. Comments received after 30 days will be considered if practicable to do so, but only those comments received on or before the due date can be assured consideration.

Although Kaiser is no longer a licensee subject to subpart L, “Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudication in Material Licensing Proceedings,” of NRC's rules and practice for domestic licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2. Discretion is being exercised in this case because of: (1) The unusually large volume of soil to be removed from the site; (2) the significant complexity of this project; and, (3) the close proximity of the site to a major population center. Whether or not a person has or intends to provide comments as set out in Section II above, pursuant to Section 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing in accordance with Section 2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of publication of this Federal Register notice.

The request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary either:

1. By delivery to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; or

2. By mail, telegram, or facsimile (301-415-1101) addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Because of continuing disruptions in the delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing also be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by e-mail to <hearingdocket@nrc.gov>.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail, to:

1. The applicant, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, 9141 Interline Avenue, Suite 1A, Baton Rouge, LA 70809-1957, Attention: Mr. J. W. Vinzant and;

2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays, or by mail, addressed to General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Because of continuing disruptions in the delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing be also transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov.

In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 2 of NRC's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in Section 2.1205(h);

3. The requestor's area of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with § 2.1205(d).

The application for the license amendment and supporting documentation are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic reading Room at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS Accession No. for the license amendment request is ML032820302.

I. Introduction

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Materials License SNM-124 to exempt Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) from the financial assurance requirements in 10 CFR 70.25(f) for the proposed Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Preparation Facility (BPF) in Erwin, Tennessee, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action. Based upon the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared.

The NRC staff has received an exemption request (Ref. 1), dated October 27, 2003, to exempt NFS from the provision in 10 CFR 70.25(f)(4) limiting the use of a letter of intent to government licensees only. NFS is a non-government licensee and wishes to use a letter of intent from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to guarantee part of the funds for decommissioning the BPF. NRC has received a letter from DOE (Ref. 2), dated October 20, 2003, stating its intent to reimburse the actual costs of decommissioning the BPF within the limits stated in the letter. The purpose of this document is to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed exemption.

The NFS facility in Erwin, Tennessee is authorized under SNM-124 to manufacture high-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. NFS is constructing a new complex at the Erwin site to manufacture low-enriched nuclear reactor fuel. NFS has requested an amendment to authorize operations at the BPF that will prepare low-enriched uranium solutions for use in the new complex (Ref. 3). The BPF operations will be conducted within the existing complex because that facility is already authorized to handle high-enriched material. After the high-enriched material is downblended and converted to a low-enriched uranium solution, it will be transferred from the BPF to the new complex. NFS must provide financial assurance for decommissioning the BPF before operations can be authorized.

The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of the exemption request. It does not approve the request. This EA is limited to the financial assurance of proposed BPF activities at the Erwin Plant. The existing conditions and operations for the Erwin facility were evaluated by NRC for environmental impacts in a 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 4), and a 2002 EA related to another amendment request for the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) Project (Ref. 5). The proposed operations at the BPF were evaluated for environmental impacts in a 2003 EA related to the BPF amendment request (Ref. 6). This assessment will determine whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS will be prepared.

The proposed action is to grant an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 70.25(f)(4) and authorize NFS to use a DOE letter of intent to provide part of the financial assurance for decommissioning the BPF.

The BLEU Project is part of a DOE program to reduce stockpiles of surplus high-enriched uranium. DOE has entered into an interagency agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to convert 7400 kilograms of high-enriched uranium to commercial reactor fuel for a TVA nuclear power reactor. Under the interagency agreement, DOE has assumed the obligation to reimburse TVA and its contractors for the actual decommissioning costs associated with processing the high-enriched uranium. The DOE letter of intent recognizes NFS as a TVA contractor under the interagency agreement and commits to reimbursing the actual decommissioning costs associated with processing the high-enriched uranium at NFS.

Alternatives

The alternatives available to the NRC are:

1. Approve the exemption request as submitted;

2. No action ( i.e. , deny the exemption request).

The affected environment for Alternatives 1 and 2 is the NFS site. A full description of the site and its characteristics is given in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 1) and a 2002 EA related to another amendment request for the BLEU Project (Ref. 2). The NFS facility is located in Unicoi County, Tennessee, about 32 km (20 mi) southwest of Johnson City, Tennessee. The plant is about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) southwest of the Erwin city limits. The site occupies about 28 hectares (70 acres). The site is bounded to the northwest by the CSX Corporation (CSX) railroad property and the Nolichucky River, and by Martin Creek to the northeast. The plant elevation is about 9 m (30 ft) above the nearest point on the Nolichucky River.

The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of residential, industrial, and commercial areas, with a limited amount of farming to the northwest. Privately owned residences are located to the east and south of the facility. Tract size is relatively large, leading to a low housing density in the areas adjacent to the facility. The CSX railroad right-of-way is parallel to the western boundary of the site. Industrial development is located adjacent to the railroad on the opposite side of the right-of-way. The site is bounded by Martin Creek to the north, with privately owned, vacant property and low-density residences.

A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site is provided in the 1999 EA related to the renewal of the NFS license (Ref. 4), a 2002 EA related to another amendment request for the BLEU Project (Ref. 5), and a 2003 EA related to the BPF amendment request (Ref. 6). The NFS Erwin Plant conducts effluent and environmental monitoring programs to evaluate potential public health impacts and comply with the NRC effluent and environmental monitoring requirements. The effluent program monitors the airborne, liquid, and solid waste streams produced during operation of the NFS Plant. The environmental program monitors the air, surface water, sediment, soil, groundwater, and vegetation in and around the NFS Plant.

Airborne, liquid, and solid effluent streams that contain radioactive material are generated at the NFS Plant and monitored to ensure compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 20. Each effluent is monitored at or just before the point of release. The results of effluent monitoring are reported on a semi-annual basis to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59.

Airborne and liquid effluents are also monitored for nonradiological constituents in accordance with State discharge permits. For the purpose of this EA, the State of Tennessee is expected to set limits on effluents under its regulatory control that are protective of health and safety and the local environment. On October 10, 2002, the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board issued a discharge permit for airborne effluents from the BPF.

The proposed action will not result in the release of any chemical or radiological constituents to the environment. In addition, the proposed action will not cause any adverse impacts to local land use, biotic resources, or cultural resources.

Under the no action alternative, NFS would have to provide financial assurance for decommissioning the BPF using another method. Obtaining another funding mechanism would cause delays and increase the costs of NFS’ contract obligations for the BLEU Project.

Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are insignificant. Thus, the staff considers that Alternative 1 is the appropriate alternative for selection.

On October 29, 2003, the NRC staff contacted the Director of the Division of Radiological Health in the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation concerning this request. On October 29, 2003, the Director responded that the Division of Radiological Health, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation concurred with the draft EA.

The NRC staff has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action is administrative in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat.

The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties because it is administrative in nature. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required.

Unless otherwise noted, a copy of this document and the references listed below will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of amending NRC Materials License SNM-124 to exempt NFS from the financial assurance requirements in 10 CFR 70.25(f) for the BPF. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be significant and the Commission is making a finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted.

For further details, see the references listed above. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

Although we are not required to do so pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2), we are publishing this Social Security Ruling in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1).

Social Security Rulings make available to the public precedential decisions relating to the Federal old-age, survivors, disability, supplemental security income, and black lung benefits programs. Social Security Rulings may be based on case decisions made at all administrative levels of adjudication, Federal court decisions, Commissioner's decisions, opinions of the Office of the General Counsel, and policy interpretations of the law and regulations.

Although Social Security Rulings do not have the same force and effect as the statute or regulations, they are binding on all components of the Social Security Administration, in accordance with 20 CFR 402.35(b)(1), and are to be relied upon as precedents in adjudicating cases.

If this Social Security Ruling is later superseded, modified, or rescinded, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register to that effect.

This Ruling supersedes SSR 99-3p, Title XVI: Evaluation of Disability and Blindness in Initial Claims for Individuals Age 65 or Older (64 FR 33337, June 22, 1999).

Purpose: To clarify SSA's standards and procedures for the adjudication of titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act) disability and blindness claims for individuals aged 65 or older. In particular, this Ruling explains that:

• In general, the regulations and procedures for determining disability for adults who are under age 65 are used when determining whether an individual aged 65 or older is disabled.

• Adjudicators are required to consider any impairment(s) the individual has, including those that are often found in older individuals.

• If an individual aged 72 or older has a medically determinable impairment, that impairment will be considered to be “severe.”

• If the individual's impairment(s) prevents the performance of his or her past relevant work (PRW), or if the individual does not have PRW, the adjudicator must consider two special medical-vocational profiles showing an inability to make an adjustment to other work before referring to appendix 2 to subpart P of 20 CFR part 404.

• Generally, adjudicators should use the rules for individuals aged 60-64 when determining whether an individual aged 65 or older can adjust to other work.

• Some individuals aged 65 or older may not understand, or be able to comply with, our requests to submit evidence or attend a consultative examination (CE). Therefore, adjudicators must make special efforts in situations in which it appears that an individual aged 65 or older may not be cooperating.

Citations: Section 5301 of Public Law (Pub. L.) 105-33, sections 402 and 431 of Pub. L. 104-193, as amended, sections 216(l), 223(a)(1), 223(d), 1614(a), 1616, 1619(b) and 1621(f)(1) of the Act, as amended; 20 CFR part 404, subpart P, appendices 1 and 2, §§ 404.1501-1599, and 20 CFR part 416, subpart I, §§ 416.901-416.923, 416.925-416.926, 416.927-416.986, 416.988-416.994, and 416.995-416.998.

Background: Section 216(l) of the Act phases in a gradual increase in the full retirement age from age 65 to age 67. These changes first affect individuals who were born in 1938; that is, who turn age 65 in 2003. By 2027, the incremental increases will be complete, and a full retirement age of 67 will be applicable to all individuals who were born in 1960 or later. These provisions do not change the age at which an individual can take early retirement at a reduced benefit amount, which remains at age 62. Under title II, an individual can establish entitlement to benefits based on disability or blindness until the month in which he or she attains full retirement age. Therefore, as a result of the increases in the full retirement age, we will be processing some disability claims under title II of the Act for individuals who are aged 65 or older.

On August 5, 1997, Pub. L. 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, amended Pub. L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as amended, and added additional alien eligibility criteria. Under the new criteria, “qualified” aliens who were lawfully residing in the United States on August 22, 1996, and who are disabled or blind as defined in section 1614(a) of the Act are eligible for benefits under title XVI provided all other eligibility requirements are met. Individuals can establish eligibility based on disability or blindness at any age, even on or after attainment of age 65.

In addition to qualified aliens, determinations of disability under title XVI also may be needed for other individuals aged 65 or older to determine:

• State supplements in some States (section 1616 of the Act);

• Whether the work incentive provisions of section 1619(b) of the Act are applicable; or

• Appropriate deeming of income and resources (section 1621(f)(1) of the Act; 20 CFR 416.1160, 416.1161, 416.1166a, and 416.1204).

Ruling: Evaluation Issues. In general, the regulations and procedures for determining disability for adults who are under age 65 are used when determining whether an individual aged 65 or older is disabled, except as provided later in this Ruling.

To determine if an adult is disabled as defined in the Act, adjudicators generally use the 5-step sequential evaluation process set out in 20 CFR 404.1520 and 416.920.

Step 1—Is the Individual Working? If the individual is working and the work is substantial gainful activity (see 20 CFR 404.1571-404.1576 and 416.971-416.976), we will find that the individual is not disabled regardless of his or her medical condition, age, education, or work experience.

Step 2—Does the Individual Have a Severe Impairment?

At step 2 of the sequential evaluation process, a determination is made about whether an individual has a medically determinable impairment and whether the individual's medically determinable impairment—or combination of impairments—is “severe.” An individual who does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that is “severe” will be found not disabled.

An impairment(s) is considered “severe” if it significantly limits an individual's physical or mental abilities to do basic work activities. An impairment(s) that is “not severe” must be a slight abnormality, or a combination of slight abnormalities, that has no more than a minimal effect on the ability to do basic work activities. It is incorrect to disregard an impairment or consider it to be “not severe” because the impairment's effects are “normal” for a person of that age.

As in any claim, adjudicators must consider signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings when determining whether an individual aged 65 or older has a medically determinable impairment (see 20 CFR 404.1508 and 404.1528, and 416.908 and 416.928). The likelihood of the occurrence of some impairments increases with advancing age; e.g. , osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, certain cancers, adult-onset diabetes mellitus, impairments of memory, hypertension, and impairments of vision or hearing. Adjudicators are required to consider any impairment(s) the individual has, including impairments like the ones listed above that are often found in older individuals. It is incorrect to disregard any of an individual's impairments because they are “normal” for the person's age.

When an individual has more than one medically determinable impairment and each impairment by itself is “not severe,” adjudicators must still assess the impact of the combination of those impairments on the individual's ability to function. A claim may be denied at step 2 only if the evidence shows that the individual's impairments, when considered in combination, are “not severe”; i.e. , do not have more than a minimal effect on the individual's physical or mental ability(ies) to perform basic work activities.

Special Rule for Individuals Applying for Title XVI Benefits Who Are Aged 72 or Older. Generally, we use step 2 of the sequential evaluation process as a “screen” to deny individuals with impairments that would have no more than a minimal effect on their ability to work even if we considered their age, education, and work experience. However, with advancing age, it is increasingly unlikely that individuals with medically determinable impairments will be found to have minimal limitations in their ability to do basic work activities. By age 72, separate consideration of whether an individual's medically determinable impairment(s) is “severe” does not serve the useful screening purpose that it does for individuals who have not attained age 72. Therefore, if an individual aged 72 or older has a medically determinable impairment(s), that impairment(s) will be considered to be “severe,” and evaluation must proceed to the next step of the sequential evaluation process.

Step 3—Does the Individual Have an Impairment(s) That Meets or Equals an Impairment Listed in Appendix 1? When an individual has a severe impairment(s) that meets or medically equals the requirements for one of the impairments in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to subpart P of 20 CFR part 404 and meets the duration requirement, the individual is disabled.

When Disability Cannot Be Found at Step 3—Assessing Residual Functional Capacity. When the individual does not have an impairment(s) that meets or equals the requirements for a listed impairment, the adjudicator is required to assess the individual's residual functional capacity (RFC). The RFC assessment is an adjudicator's finding about the ability of an individual to perform both physical and mental work-related activities despite his or her impairment(s). The assessment considers all of the individual's medically determinable impairments, including those that are “not severe,” and all limitations or restrictions caused by symptoms, such as pain, that are related to the medically determinable impairment(s). The assessment is based upon consideration of all relevant evidence in the case record, including medical evidence and relevant nonmedical evidence, such as observations of lay witnesses of an individual's apparent symptomatology, or an individual's own statement of what he or she is able or unable to do.

When assessing RFC in an initial claim, an adjudicator should not find that an individual has limitations or restrictions beyond those caused by his or her medically determinable impairment(s). Limitations or restrictions due to factors such as age, height, or whether the individual has ever engaged in certain activities in his or her PRW ( e.g. , lifting heavy weights) are, per se, not considered in assessing RFC. (See SSR 96-8p, “Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims.”)

Step 4—Does the Individual Have an Impairment(s) That Prevents Him or Her from Performing Past Relevant Work (PRW)? The RFC assessment discussed above is first used at step 4 of the sequential evaluation process to determine whether the individual is capable of doing PRW. The rules and procedures we use to make this determination for individuals under age 65 are also applicable to individuals aged 65 or older. This includes consideration of whether the individual can perform his or her PRW as he or she actually performed it or as it is generally performed in the national economy. If the individual's PRW was performed in a foreign economy, we will generally consider only whether the individual can perform his or her PRW as he or she described it. However, if the work the individual did in a foreign economy also exists in the United States, we will consider whether he or she can perform the work as it is generally performed in the national economy. If the individual can perform his or her PRW, he or she will be found not disabled. (See SSR 82-40, “Titles II and XVI: The Vocational Relevance of the Past Work Performed in a Foreign Country.”)

Step 5—Can the Individual Do Other Work? The last step of the sequential evaluation process requires us to determine whether an individual can do other work considering his or her RFC, age, education, and work experience.

Special Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work. If the individual's impairment(s) does preclude the performance of PRW, or if the individual does not have PRW, two special medical-vocational profiles must be considered before referring to appendix 2 to subpart P of 20 CFR part 404. The special profiles are discussed in SSR 82-63, “Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability to Make an Adjustment to Other Work.”

The “arduous unskilled physical labor” profile applies when an individual:

• Is not working;

• Has a history of 35 years or more of arduous unskilled physical labor  1 ;

• Can no longer perform this past arduous work because of a severe impairment(s); and

• Has no more than a marginal education (generally 6th grade or less).

The “no work experience” profile applies when an individual:

• Has a severe impairment(s);

• Has no PRW;

• Is aged 55 or older; and

• Has no more than a limited education (generally, 11th grade or less).

If either of these profiles applies, a finding of “disabled” must be made. This finding is made without considering the criteria in appendix 2 to subpart P of 20 CFR part 404.

Applying the Criteria in Appendix 2 to Subpart P of 20 CFR Part 404. If the special medical-vocational profiles are not applicable, we use the rules in appendix 2 to subpart P of 20 CFR part 404 to determine whether the individual has the ability to do other work. The highest age category used in appendix 2 is aged 60-64, “closely approaching retirement age.” However, we have longstanding internal procedures that direct our adjudicators to use the rules for ages 60-64 when making determinations for individuals aged 65 or older at step 5.

Under those rules, individuals aged 65 or older who are limited to “sedentary” or “light” work will be found disabled unless their PRW provided them with transferable skills or they are at least a high school graduate and their education provides for direct entry into skilled work. As set out in §§ 201.00(f) and 202.00(f) of appendix 2, to find transferability of skills for individuals aged 65 or older who are limited to “sedentary” or “light” work, there must be very little, if any, vocational adjustment required in terms of tools, work processes, work settings, or the industry.

Individuals aged 65 or older who can perform the full range of “medium” work are found disabled when they have no more than a limited education (including individuals who are illiterate in English or unable to communicate in English) and no PRW. Individuals aged 65 or older who can perform a full range of “medium” work are also found disabled when they have no more than a marginal education (including individuals who are illiterate in English or unable to communicate in English) and no PRW or their PRW is unskilled or their skilled or semi-skilled PRW provides no transferable skills.

Duration. As indicated earlier, the likelihood of the occurrence of some impairments, such as osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, certain cancers, adult-onset diabetes mellitus, impairments of memory, hypertension, and impairments of vision or hearing, increases with advancing age. Moreover, such impairments are more likely to be chronic than acute. Therefore, adjudicators must be especially careful before concluding that an impairment in an individual aged 65 or older will not meet the 12-month duration requirement.

Development Issues. Developing Allegations of Impairment(s). When obtaining the medical history of an individual aged 65 or older, it is important to be alert to and address allegations of impairments that are commonly associated with the aging process, such as osteoporosis, arthritis, loss of vision, hearing loss, and memory loss. Allegations may be raised in response to specific questions about the individual's impairment(s); e.g. , on Form SSA-3368-BK. However, adjudicators must also be alert to allegations raised in other evidence in the file. For example, questionnaires about activities of daily living may contain statements like “I have difficulty walking or climbing stairs because my legs hurt,” “I can't clean my apartment because my back hurts,” or “I don't read much anymore because I don't see well.” These statements constitute allegations of impairment(s). Therefore, adjudicators must:

• Review the case file thoroughly to identify all allegations or other indications of impairment.

• Be aware that the medical evidence or third party statements can raise additional allegations.

• When contacting an individual aged 65 or older, be alert to statements indicating the presence of an impairment(s) commonly associated with the aging process.

• Consider all signs or symptoms indicative of an impairment(s), including those impairments caused by degenerative changes associated with the aging process.

Purchasing Medical Evidence. Our regulations, at 20 CFR 404.1512(f), 404.1517, 416.912(f) and 416.917, indicate that we will purchase CEs when the individual's medical sources cannot or will not give us sufficient medical evidence about the individual's impairment for us to determine if he or she is disabled. Sections 404.1519f and 416.919f further provide that we will purchase only the specific examinations and tests that we need to make a determination or decision. Due to the wide range of allegations contained in cases of individuals aged 65 or older, evidence addressing more than one body system may need to be purchased. In these situations, it is usually appropriate to purchase general medical examinations rather than examinations targeted at particular body systems. This will ensure that all allegations of impairment are evaluated, and will reduce the burden on the individual. For example, if the individual alleges back and knee pain, shortness of breath on exertion, and numbness and weakness in his or her arm, a general medical examination would usually be preferable to separate orthopedic, neurologic, respiratory, or cardiac examinations.

Failure to Cooperate. Individuals filing for benefits based on disability or blindness have certain responsibilities for furnishing us with, or helping us obtain, needed evidence. Our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1512(c), 404.1516, 404.1518, 416.912(c), 416.916, and 416.918 describe these responsibilities. However, due to factors such as possible language barriers or limited education, some individuals aged 65 or older may not understand, or be able to comply with, our requests to submit evidence or attend a CE.

If it appears that an individual aged 65 or older is not cooperating, adjudicators must take the following additional actions when the individual does not have an appointed representative, or when the appointed representative has asked us to deal directly with the individual.

If an individual aged 65 or older has not supplied evidence or taken an action we requested and still need, the adjudicator must:

• Contact the individual to determine why he or she has not complied with our request. If it appears that the individual needs personal assistance, including interpreter assistance, to complete forms, request field office assistance.

• Contact a third party ( i.e. , someone other than the individual's representative), if one has been identified, about assisting the individual at the same time the adjudicator contacts the individual.

If an individual aged 65 or older did not attend a CE, the adjudicator must:

• Contact the individual to determine why he or she did not attend the CE.

• Make at least two attempts at different times on different days to contact the individual by telephone. (A busy signal does not constitute an attempt.)

• Send the claimant a call-in letter if telephone contact is not possible or successful.

• Contact a third party, if one has been identified, about assisting the claimant at the same time contact is attempted with the claimant.

• When contact is made with the individual or the third party, explain that the CE is for evaluation purposes only and that no treatment will be required.

• Reschedule the CE if the individual had a good reason for not attending the prior CE ( e.g. , he or she had transportation problems or was out of the country at the time of the CE) and indicates a willingness to attend a rescheduled CE.

Non-English-Speaking or Limited-English-Proficiency Individuals . For all the development issues discussed above, adjudicators must remember that we are responsible for obtaining the services of a qualified interpreter if the individual requests or needs one. This includes providing an interpreter at a CE if the CE provider is not sufficiently fluent in the individual's language.

Effective Date: This Ruling is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register (November 10, 2003).

Cross-References: SSR 82-40, “Titles II and XVI: The Vocational Relevance of the Past Work Performed in a Foreign Country”; SSR 82-61, “Titles II and XVI: Past Relevant Work—The Particular Job or the Occupation as Generally Performed”; SSR 82-62, “Titles II and XVI: A Disability Claimant's Capacity To Do Past Relevant Work, In General”; SSR 82-63, “Titles II and XVI: Medical-Vocational Profiles Showing an Inability To Make an Adjustment to Other Work”; SSR 85-28, “Titles II and XVI: Medical Impairments That Are Not Severe”; SSR 96-3p, “Titles II and XVI: Considering Allegations of Pain and Other Symptoms in Determining Whether a Medically Determinable Impairment Is Severe”; SSR 96-4p, “Titles II and XVI: Symptoms, Medically Determinable Physical and Mental Impairments, and Exertional and Nonexertional Limitations”; SSR 96-8p, “Titles II and XVI: Assessing Residual Functional Capacity in Initial Claims”; SSR 96-9p, “Titles II and XVI: Determining Capability to do Other Work—Implications of Residual Functional Capacity for Less Than a Full Range of Sedentary Work”; and Program Operations Manual System, sections DI 22505.015, DI 22510.018, DI 22510.019, DI 23515.010, DI 23515.025, DI 25010.001, SI 00502.142, and GN 00203.001.

This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Vero Beach Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements or part 150, effective October 28, 2003.

Under section 103 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict noncompatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport.

An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) part 150, promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes for the reduction of existing noncompatible uses and for the prevention of the introduction of additional noncompatible uses.

The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and related descriptions submitted by the City of Vero Beach. The specific maps under consideration are “Existing Conditions 2003 Noise Exposure Contours” (Figure 9.1) and “Five-Year Forecast Conditions 2008 Noise Exposure Contours” (Figure 9.3) in the submission. The FAA has determined that these maps for Vero Beach Municipal Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on October 28, 2003.

FAA's determination on the airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program.

If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator which submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 103 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under § 150.21 of FAR part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.

Copies of the noise exposure maps and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps are available for examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Dr., Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822.

Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) will convene a meeting to accept input from the public on the Harmonization Work Program. The meeting will be held on November 21, 2003 at FAA Headquarters Offices, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, GSA Training Center Room, Suite 3207, Washington, DC, beginning at 10:30 a.m. The agenda will include:

• Debrief on Items from the Authorities-Only Meeting of the Harmonization Management Team

• Debrief on Operations/Maintenance/Licensing Harmonization Group (OHG)

• Debrief on FAA/JAA/TCCA Certification Codes Harmonization Group (CCHG)

• Review/Approbation of Minutes of March 3-4, 2003 HMT Meeting

• Any Other Business

A block of rooms has been reserved until Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at Lowe's L'Enfant Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC. Telephone 1-202-484-1000, extension 5000 or 1-800-635-5065, fax 1-202-646-5060. The room rate for all attendees of the HMT meeting will be the U.S. Government lodging rate of $150 per night (single room), $175 per night (double room), excluding 14.5 percent tax. In making your reservation, identify yourself as attending the FAA/Joint Aviation Authorities meeting to get the meeting rate. Special conditions: Any cancellations to reservations must be made 24 hours in advance in order to avoid a no-show penalty of one night's room charges. At check-in, each guest will be asked to confirm his/her departure dates and in the event of an unscheduled early departure, there will be a charge of $50.

The FAA should receive requests from persons who wish to present oral and written statements at the public meeting no later than November 15, 2003. Statements and presentations should be provided on diskette or forwarded by e-mail to the person identified under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to be made part of the official minutes of the meeting. Requests to present oral statements received after November 15 will be scheduled if time is available during the meeting.

Persons who plan to attend the meeting should be aware of the following procedures established for this meeting:

1. There will be no admission fee or other charge to attend or to participate in the public meeting. The meeting will be open to all persons who have requested in advance to present statements or who register on the day of the meeting, subject to availability of space in the meeting room.

2. The meeting may adjourn early if scheduled speakers complete their statements in less than the time scheduled for the meeting.

3. The FAA will try to accommodate all speakers. If the available time does not permit this, speakers generally will be scheduled on a first-come-first-served basis. However, the FAA reserves the right to exclude some speakers if necessary to present a balance of viewpoints and issues.

4. Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if requested at the above number listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 calendar days before the meeting.

5. Representatives from FAA and JAA will preside over the meeting.

6. The FAA and JAA will review and consider all material presented by participants at the meeting. Position papers or material presenting views or information related to proposed harmonization initiatives may be accepted at the direction of the FAA and JAA. The FAA requests that persons participating in the meeting provide copies of all materials to be presented. Copies may be provided to the audience at the discretion of the participant.

7. Statements made by the FAA and JAA are intended to facilitate discussion of issues or to clarify issues. Any statement made during the meeting by an official is not intended to be, and should not be construed as, a position of the FAA or JAA.

8. The meeting is designed to solicit public views and more complete information on proposed harmonization initiatives. Therefore, the meeting will be conducted in an informal and nonadversarial manner. No individual will be subject to cross-examination by any other participant; however, panel members may ask questions to clarify a statement and to ensure a complete and accurate record.

A notice of availability was published on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 56809). No comments were received, and the design criteria are adopted as proposed.

This airplane will be certified under the requirements of JAR-VLA (Joint Aviation Requirements-Very Light Aircraft) Amendment VLA/92/01 as developed by the Joint Aviation Authority and 14 CFR part 21, § 21.17.

The Aquila AT01 is a full composite single-engine aircraft with the engine mount fitted to the glass fiber composite fuselage. The airplane will be certified to the requirements of JAR/VLA 865 (Fire protection of flight controls and other flight structure) and JAR/VLA 1191 (Firewalls). However, tests must be performed that demonstrate that the interface between the metallic engine mount and the glass fiber reinforced plastic fuselage withstand a fire for 15 minutes while carrying loads under the following conditions:

(a) With one lost engine mount fitting the loads are distributed over the remaining 3 engine mount fittings. The most critical of these fittings must be chosen for the test.

(1) The loads are:

(i) In Z-direction the mass of the propulsion unit multiplied by a maneuvering load factor resulting from a 30° turn for 15 minutes, superimposed by a maneuvering load of 3 seconds representing the maximum positive limit maneuvering load factor of n=3.8 arising from JAR/VLA 337(a).

(ii) In X-direction the engine propulsion force at maximum continuous power for 5 minutes.

(b) The flame to which the component test arrangement is subjected must provide a temperature of 500° C within the target area.

(c) The flame must be large enough to maintain the required temperature over the entire test zone, i.e. , the fitting on the engine compartment side.

(d) It must be shown that the test equipment, e.g. , burner and instrumentation are of sufficient power, size, and precision to yield the test requirements arising from paragraphs (a) to (c) above. Guidance will be drawn from advisory material AC 20-135 to AC 23-2.

Since winglets, as a specific structural element, are not addressed in the JAR/VLA requirements, the following is required:

Compliance must be demonstrated to the requirements of JAR 23.445—Outboard fins or winglets.

Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.

Background: The Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities provides financial assistance for the specialized transportation service needs of elderly persons and persons with disabilities. The program is administered by the States and may be used in all areas, urbanized, small urban, and rural. The Nonurbanized Area Formula Program provides financial assistance for the provision of public transportation services in nonurbanized areas and this program is also administered by the States. 49 U.S.C. 5310 and 5311 authorize FTA to review applications for federal financial assistance to determine eligibility and compliance with statutory and administrative requirements. Information collected during the application stage includes the project budget, which identifies funds requested for project implementation; a program of projects, which identifies subrecipients to be funded, the amount of funding that each will receive, and a description of the projects to be funded; the project implementation plan; the State management plan; a list of annual certifications and assurances; and public hearings notice, certification and transcript. The applications must contain sufficient information to enable FTA to make the findings required by law to enforce the program requirements. Information collected during the project management stage includes an annual financial report, an annual program status report, and pre-award and post-delivery audits. The annual financial report and program status report provide a basis for monitoring approved projects to ensure timely and appropriate expenditure of federal funds by grant recipients.

Respondents: State and local government, business or other for-profit institutions, non-profit institutions, and small business organizations.

Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 102.44 hours for each of the respondents.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 11,370 hours.

Frequency: Annual.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal Register .

Automobile Concepts, Inc. of North Miami, Florida (“AMC”) (Registered Importer 01-278) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2000-2002 BMW 5 Series passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which AMC believes are substantially similar are 2000-2002 BMW 5 Series passenger cars that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2000-2002 BMW 5 Series passenger cars to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

AMC submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2000-2002 BMW 5 Series passenger cars, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2000-2002 BMW 5 Series passenger cars are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, 103 Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Retention, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

The petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Inscription of the word “brake” on the dash in place of the international ECE warning symbol; (b) replacement of the speedometer to read in miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment: (a) Installation of U.S.-model headlamps which incorporate front sidemarker lights; (b) installation of U.S.-model tail lamp assemblies which incorporate rear sidemarker lights; (d) installation of a U.S.-model high mounted stop lamp.

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire information placard.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: Replacement of the passenger side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component, or inscription of the required warning statement on the mirror's face.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Activation of the warning buzzer.

Standard No. 118 Power Window Systems: Reprogramming of the power window system so that the windows will not operate with the ignition switched off.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Activation of the seat belt warning buzzer by reprogramming the unit; (b) inspection of all vehicles and replacement of the driver's and passenger's air bags, head air bags, side air bags, knee bolsters, control units, sensors, and seat belts with U.S.-model components on vehicles that are not already so equipped. Petitioner states that the vehicles should be equipped in the front and rear outboard seating positions with combination lap and shoulder belts that are self-tensioning and that release by means of a single red pushbutton. Petitioner further states that the vehicles are equipped with a seat belt warning lamp that is identical to the lamp installed on U.S.-certified models.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: Inspection of all vehicles to ensure that they are equipped with door bars in the front and rear doors identical to those in U.S. certified models and installation of those components on vehicles that are not already so equipped.

Standard No. 301 Fuel System Integrity: Petitioner states that the vehicles will comply with this standard once a U.S.-model expansion tank, active carbon container pipe, vent pipe, carbon canister, and leak diagnostic pump is installed to complete the vehicles' ORVR system.

In addition, the petitioner claims that front and rear bumper reinforcements and shocks must be added to the vehicles to comply with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.

The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post and a reference and certification label must be affixed in the area of the left front door post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in the Federal Register .

Sunshine Car Import of Cape Coral, Florida (“SCI”) (Registered Importer 01-289) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2000 Mazda MPV multi-purpose passenger vehicles are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which SCI believes are substantially similar are 2000 Mazda MPV multi-purpose passenger vehicles that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2000 Mazda MPV multi-purpose passenger vehicles to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

SCI submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2000 Mazda MPV multi-purpose passenger vehicles, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2000 Mazda MPV multi-purpose passenger vehicles are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, 103 Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 113 Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires, 124 Accelerator Control Systems, 202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 207 Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 212 Windshield Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Petitioner states that the vehicles also comply with the Bumper Standard found at 49 CFR part 581.

Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays: (a) Inscription of the word “BRAKE” on the instrument cluster in place of the international ECE warning symbol; (b) replacement or modification of the speedometer to read in miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment: Installation of U.S.-model taillamp assemblies.

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirror: Replacement of the passenger side rearview mirror with a U.S.-model component, or inscription of the required warning statement on the face of that mirror.

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: Installation of a key warning buzzer, or reprogramming of the vehicle to activate the key warning system.

Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems: Inspection of all vehicles and installation of a relay to make the window transport inoperative when the ignition is switched off in vehicles that are not already so equipped.

Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims: Installation of a tire information placard.

Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact: Inspection of all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model components necessary to achieve compliance with the standard in vehicles that are not already so equipped.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection: (a) Installation of a seat belt warning buzzer, wired to the seat belt micro switch; (b) Inspection of all vehicles and replacement of the driver's and passenger's air bags, knee bolsters, control unit, sensor, and all seat belts that are not U.S.-model components. The petitioner states that the vehicles should be equipped with dual front air bags and knee bolsters, with combination lap and shoulder belts at the front and rear outboard seating positions that are self-tensioning and released by means of a single red pushbutton, and with a lap belt in the rear center seating position.

Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection: Inspection of all vehicles and installation of U.S.-model door beams on vehicles that are not already so equipped.

Standard No. 225 Child Restraint Anchorage Systems: Installation of a U.S.-model child seat tether anchor kit.

The petitioner states that all vehicles must be inspected to ensure that they are equipped with U.S.-model bumpers and that these components will be installed in vehicles not already so equipped to achieve compliance with the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.

The petitioner also states that a vehicle identification plate must be affixed to the vehicles near the left windshield post and a reference and certification label must be affixed in the area of the left front door post to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565. The petition further states that a certification label must be affixed to the driver's door latch post to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR part 567.

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St. SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

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

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

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

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

In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collection of information:

Title: Brake Hose Manufacturing Identification, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106.

OMB Control Number: 2127-0052.

Type of Request: Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved collection of information.

Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

Abstract: 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., as amended (“the Safety Act”), authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The Safety Act mandates that in issuing any Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency is to consider whether the standard is reasonable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed. Using this authority, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, was issued. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for all motor vehicle brake hose assemblers, brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufacturers for automotive vehicles. Prior to selling brake hoses, these entities must register their identification marks with NHTSA to comply with the labeling requirements of this standard. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the agency must obtain OMB approval to continue collecting labeling information. The agency prepared a Supporting Statement in conjunction with this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. 1

Currently, there are 1,114 manufacturers of hoses and assemblies registered with NHTSA. However, only approximately 20 respondents annually request to have their symbol added to or removed from the NHTSA database. To comply with this standard, each brake hose manufacturer or assembler must contact NHTSA and state that they want to be added to or removed from the NHTSA database of registered brake hose manufacturers. This action is usually initiated by the manufacturer with a brief written request via U.S. mail, facsimile, an e-mail message, or a telephone call. Currently, a majority of the requests are received via U.S. mail and the follow-up paperwork is conducted via facsimile, U.S. mail, or electronic mail. The estimated cost for complying with this regulation is $100 per hour. Therefore, the total annual cost is estimated to be $3,000 (time burden of 30 hours × $100 cost per hour).

Estimated Annual Burden: 30 hours.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation, has formally changed its name to St. Paul Protective Insurance Company, effective April 7, 2003. The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 68 FR 39228, July 1, 2003.

A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds, dated today, is hereby issued under Sections 9304 to 9308 of Title 31 of the United States Code, to St. Paul Protective Insurance Company, Chicago Illinois. This new Certificate replaces the Certificate of Authority issued to the Company under its former name. The underwriting limitation of $22,032,000 established for the Company as of July 1, 2003, remains unchanged until June 30, 2004.

Certificates of Authority expire on June 30, each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the Company remains qualified (31 CFR, Part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1, in the Department Circular 570, which outlines details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2003 Revision, at page 39228 to reflect this change.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 769-004-04643-2.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F07, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Title: Disclosure Statement (Form 8275) and Regulation Disclosure Statement (Form 8275-R).

OMB Number: 1545-0889.

Form Number: Forms 8275 and 8275-R.