Non-intact raw beef products and intact raw beef products intended for processing into non-intact products that are contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 are adulterated. The revised Directive 10,010.1, which sets out the FSIS verification sampling program for E.coli O157:H7, focuses on raw ground beef products and the beef products that are used to produce raw ground beef products. The directive also discusses the significance of a finding that a sample is “presumptive positive” and the disposition of products that test positive for E. coli O157:H7.

Directive 6420.2 covers FSIS verification procedures for meat and poultry. Directive 5000.2 pertains to review of industry food safety records.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that the public, and in particular minorities, women, and persons with disabilities, are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov.

The notice will also be published at the Regulations.gov Web site, the central online rulemaking portal of the United States government. Regulations.gov is offered as a public service to increase participation in the Federal government's regulatory activities. The site allows visitors to search by keyword or Department or Agency for rulemakings that allow for public comment. Each entry provides a quick link to a comment form so that visitors can type in their comments and submit them to FSIS. The Web site is located at http://www.regulations.gov.

FSIS also will make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The update is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service consisting of industry, trade, farm and consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals who have requested to be included. The update also is available on the FSIS Web page. Through Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

Title: Field Crop Production.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0002.

Expiration Date of Approval: 12/31/04.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Field Crop Production program consists of probability field crop surveys and supplemental panel surveys. The panel surveys capture unique crop characteristics such as the concentration of crops in localized geographical areas. These surveys are extremely valuable for commodities where acreage and yield are published at the county level.

The Field Crop Production Program was last approved by OMB in 2001 for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the survey be approved for another 3 years. Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response.

Respondents: Farms.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 550,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 150,000 hours.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, the Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: 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 assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5330B South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024 or gmcbride@nass.usda.gov.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

Title: Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops Surveys.

OMB Control Number: 0535-0039.

Expiration Date of Approval: 11/30/04.

Type of Request: To extend a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The primary objective of the National Agricultural Statistics Service is to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production, prices, and disposition. The Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops survey program collects information on acreage, yield, production, price, and value of citrus and noncitrus fruits and nuts and other specialty crops in States with significant commercial production. The program provides data needed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other government agencies to administer programs and to set trade quotas and tariffs. Producers, processors, other industry representatives, State Departments of Agriculture and universities also use forecasts and estimates provided by these surveys.

The Fruits, Nuts, and Specialty Crops Program was last approved by OMB in 2001 for a 3-year period. NASS intends to request that the survey be approved for another 3 years.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 17 minutes per response.

Respondents: Producers, processors, and handlers.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 53,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 17,000 hours.

These data will be collected under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentiality to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, the Agency OMB Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: 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 assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to: Ginny McBride, Agency OMB Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5330B South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024 or gmcbride@nass.usda.gov.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

The Walnut Bayou project area encompasses approximately 23,500 acres in Little River County in Southwest Arkansas. The project area begins at the Arkansas/Oklahoma state line and continues east along Walnut Bayou to its confluence with the Red River. The Red River is the largest source of surface water in the project area, and has about 48,000 square miles of drainage upstream from Arkansas. Corn, soybeans, pecans, grain sorghum, rice, and wheat are the primary crops produced within the project area.

Preliminary Issues: Among the issues that NRCS plans to consider in the scope of the EIS analysis are:

• The potential impacts on endangered species;

• The potential for soil salinization;

• The economic and social impacts of the proposed action and alternatives;

• The potential for floodplain impacts;

• The costs and benefits of the proposed action and alternatives; and

• Analysis of known and foreseeable cumulative effects on the Red River.

Preliminary Alternatives: The Draft EIS will assess the potential environmental impacts of a range of alternatives. The preliminary alternatives for the Draft EIS include: (1) On-farm irrigation water storage with no withdrawal from the Red River; (2) on-farm irrigation water storage with additional water withdrawn from the Red River; (3) on-farm conservation measures, no irrigation water storage, with water withdrawn from the Red River; and (4) no action. The alternatives will be refined and supplemented, as appropriate, based on input by the public and agencies during the public scoping process.

Alternative 1—On-farm irrigation water storage with no withdrawal from the Red River. Under this alternative runoff from rainfall that falls upon the project area would be captured, stored in reservoirs, and used for irrigation. Other on-farm water conservation practices such as tailwater recovery pits and pipelines would also be installed as appropriate, according to individual farm irrigation water management plans. No water would be used from the Red River and there would be no district water distribution system.

Alternative 2—On-farm irrigation water storage with additional water withdrawn from the Red River. Under this alternative runoff from rainfall that falls upon the project area would be captured, stored in reservoirs, and used for irrigation. Other on-farm water conservation practices such as tailwater recovery pits and pipelines would also be installed as appropriate, according to individual farm irrigation water management plans. Water, as permitted by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, would be withdrawn from the Red River and distributed to farms in the project area utilizing canals, pipelines, and some natural channels.

Alternative 3—On-farm conservation measures, no irrigation water storage, water withdrawn from the Red River. Under this alternative on-farm water conservation practices such as tailwater recovery pits and pipelines would also be installed as appropriate, according to individual farm irrigation water management plans. Water, as permitted by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, would be withdrawn from the Red River and distributed to farms in the project area by utilizing canals, pipelines, and some natural channels.

Alternative 4—No Action. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the impacts of a No Action alternative when preparing an EIS, even though the alternative would not meet the agency's purpose and need.

Permits or Licenses Required: This proposal is being planned under a Congressional earmark. A nonriparian use permit from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission would be required to withdraw water from the Red River for nonriparian users. A permit would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act (CWA), section 404 for any project that would impede the flow of waters of the U.S. or that would affect any wetlands. A FEMA floodplain permit from effected National Flood Insurance Program Communities may be needed if flood waters of a one hundred year flood are altered. Approval from the State Historic Preservation Office would be required if any National Register-eligible historic properties would be effected. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required if the proposal may effect any species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

Estimated Dates for Draft EIS and Final EIS: NRCS expects to file the Draft EIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to have it available for public review and comment by July 30, 2004. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register . The public comment period on the Draft EIS will be a minimum of 45 days from the date the EPA published the NOA.

After the comment period ends on the Draft EIS, the comments will be analyzed, considered, and responded to by NRCS in preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS is scheduled for completion by October, 2004. The responsible officials will consider the comments, responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the Final EIS, and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision regarding this proposed action. The responsible officials will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CRF part 215.

Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State Technical Guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed change. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Arizona regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standard.

No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register .

Each year the U.S. Census Bureau sends the school Enrollment Report, P-4 form, to the 30 state departments of education that do not publish enrollment data early enough in the year for us to use their published reports. Information requested includes fall public and nonpublic enrollment by grade for the state and counties. In six states we collect year-end enrollment. The U.S. Census Bureau uses school enrollment data in preparing estimates of state population. State population estimates are used by dozens of Federal agencies for allocating Federal program funds, as bases for rates of occurrences, and as input for Federal surveys. State and local governments, businesses, and the general public use state population estimates for planning and other information uses.

The School Enrollment Report, P-4 form, is mailed each spring to approximately 30 state education agencies. We request fall public and nonpublic school enrollment by grade for the states and counties. Responses are returned and reviewed on a flow basis during the summer and early fall. Data collected will be used as input for the development of population estimates. The estimates are made in November, December, and January.

OMB Number: 0607-0459.

Form Number: P-4.

Type of Review: Regular Review.

Affected Public: State education agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 15 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $27.25 per hour, $409.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 181 and 182.

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

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

On May 21, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value: Certain Aluminum Plate from South Africa , 69 FR 29262. The final determination of this investigation is currently due no later than July 27, 2004. Pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), on May 27, 2004, Hulett Aluminium (Pty) Limited (“Hulett”), the sole South African respondent, requested that the Department postpone its final determination in the investigation until 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register . 1 In addition, in accordance with section 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Hulett requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act to not more than six months.

Section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the publication of the preliminary determination, if, in the event of an affirmative determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters which account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), require that request by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to not more than six months. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.210(b), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are granting Hulett's request and are fully extending the due date for the final determination by 60 days, until no later than October 4, 2004. 2 Suspension of liquidation will be extended accordingly.

For purposes of this order, the term “certain color television receivers” (CTVs) includes complete and incomplete direct-view or projection-type cathode-ray tube color television receivers, with a video display diagonal exceeding 52 centimeters, whether or not combined with video recording or reproducing apparatus, which are capable of receiving a broadcast television signal and producing a video image. “Incomplete” CTVs are defined as unassembled CTVs with a color picture tube ( i.e. , cathode ray tube), printed circuit board or ceramic substrate, together with the requisite parts to comprise a complete CTV, when assembled. Specifically excluded from this order are computer monitors or other video display devices that are not capable of receiving a broadcast television signal.

The color television receivers subject to this order are currently classifiable under subheadings 8528.12.2800, 8528.12.3250, 8528.12.3290, 8528.12.4000, 8528.12.5600, 8528.12.3600, 8528.12.4400, 8528.12.4800, and 8528.12.5200 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive, and parts or imports of assemblages of parts that comprise less than a complete CTV.

On May 27, 2004, the International Trade Commission (the ITC) notified the Department of Commerce (the Department) of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), that the industry in the United States producing CTVs is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of subject merchandise from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further advice by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price of the merchandise for all relevant entries of CTVs from the PRC. These antidumping duties will be assessed on all unliquidated entries of CTVs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from the warehouse, for consumption on or after November 28, 2003, the date on which the Department published its Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800 (Nov. 28, 2003).

Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than 4 months except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise extend that 4-month period to not more than 6 months. In this investigation, the 6-month period beginning on the date of the publication of the preliminary determination ends on May 25, 2004. Furthermore, section 737 of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of CTVs from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 26, 2004, and before the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register . See Notice of Amended Antidumping Duty Orders: Stainless Steel Bar From France, Germany, Italy, Korea, and the United Kingdom, 68 FR 58660, 58661 (Oct. 10, 2003). Suspension of liquidation will continue on or after this date.

On or after the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determination in the Federal Register , CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, cash deposits for the subject merchandise equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins listed below. The PRC-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from the exporters that are identified individually below.

This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to CTVs from the PRC, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211.

The Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on honey from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on December 10, 2001. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order; Honey from the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 63670 (December 10, 2001). On June 30, 2003, the Department received timely filed requests from Cheng Du and Jinfu for new shipper reviews under the antidumping duty order on honey from the PRC, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214(c) of the Department's regulations. Cheng Du identified itself as the producer and exporter of the merchandise subject to review. Jinfu identified itself as the exporter of subject merchandise produced by its supplier, Cixi City Yikang Bee Industry Co., Ltd. (“Cixi Yikang”).

Under the new shipper provisions, an exporter or an exporter that is also a producer of the subject merchandise, in requesting a new shipper review, must certify to the following: (i) it did not export the merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”); and (ii) it is not affiliated with any exporter or producer who exported the subject merchandise during that period. In addition, if the exporter is not the producer, then the entity that produced or supplied the subject merchandise must also certify to the above-listed requirements. Moreover, in an antidumping proceeding involving imports from a nonmarket economy country, the new shipper must also certify that its (and its producers') export activities are not controlled by the central government. If these provisions are met, the Department will conduct a new shipper review to establish an individual weighted-average dumping margin for such new shipper, if the Department has not previously established such a margin for the exporter or producer. ( See generally section 351.214(b)(2) of the Department's regulations.)

The regulations further require that the entity making the request include in its request documentation establishing: (i) the date on which the merchandise was first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, or, if it cannot establish the date of first entry, the date on which it first shipped the merchandise for export to the United States; (ii) the volume of that and subsequent shipments; and (iii) the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. See section 351.214(b)(2)(iv).

Cheng Du's and Jinfu's requests were accompanied by information and certifications establishing that neither they nor their suppliers exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, and that they were not affiliated with any company that exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Cheng Du and Jinfu provided information and certifications that demonstrated the date on which they first shipped and entered honey for consumption in the United States, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to the unaffiliated customer in the United States (Jinfu did not provide the latter information). See the “Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review” section below. Additionally, Cheng Du and Jinfu certified that neither their nor their suppliers' export activities are controlled by the central government.

Because the Department determined that Cheng Du's and Jinfu's requests met the requirements of section 351.214 of its regulations at that time, on August 11, 2003, the Department published its initiation of this new shipper review for the period December 1, 2002, through May 31, 2003. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews , 68 FR 47537 (August 11, 2003) (“ Initiation of New Shipper Reviews ”). Accordingly, the Department is now conducting this new shipper review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and section 351.214 of its regulations.

On August 4, 2003, we issued the Department's antidumping duty questionnaire to Cheng Du and Jinfu. Cheng Du and Jinfu submitted their Section A questionnaire responses on September 2, 2003 and September 16, 2003, respectively. On September 8, 2003, Cheng Du submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On September 28, 2003, Jinfu submitted its Section C and D questionnaire responses. On October 8, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Cheng Du's Sections A, C, and D responses. On November 10, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Jinfu's Sections A, C, and D responses.

On October 29, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire covering Cheng Du's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We received Cheng Du's first supplemental questionnaire response on November 14, 2003. On December 3, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on Cheng Du's first supplemental questionnaire response.

On December 3, 2003, the Department provided interested parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information regarding surrogate country selection and factors of production surrogate values for consideration in the preliminary results of this review.

On December 3, 2003, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Cheng Du to forward to its importer (“importer questionnaire”). We issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Cheng Du, covering its first supplemental response, on December 8, 2003.

On December 11, 2003, we issued a supplemental questionnaire covering Jinfu's Section A, C, and D questionnaire responses. We received a response to the importer questionnaire from Cheng Du's importer on December 12, 2003. On December 17, 2003, petitioners submitted comments on the surrogate country selection. On December 22, 2003, we received Cheng Du's second supplemental questionnaire response. On December 30, 2003, we received Jinfu's first supplemental questionnaire response.

On January 5, 2004, petitioners submitted information on factors of production surrogate values for consideration. We did not receive any comments or information from Cheng Du. On January 5, 2004, we received surrogate value information from Jinfu.

Petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the Department's verification of Cheng Du's questionnaire responses on January 6, 2004. On January 12, 2004, petitioners submitted comments on Jinfu's first supplemental questionnaire response. On January 14, 2004, the Department extended the preliminary results of this new shipper review by 120 days until May 26, 2004. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review , 69 FR 2112 (January 14, 2004). We issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Jinfu, covering its first supplemental response, on January 16, 2004. We received Jinfu's second supplemental questionnaire response on January 23, 2004. Petitioners submitted comments for consideration in the Department's verification of Jinfu's questionnaire responses on January 29, 2004 and March 4, 2004, respectively.

The products covered by this review are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form. The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act and section 351.307 of the Department's regulations, we conducted verification of the questionnaire responses of Cheng Du (January 12, 2004, through January 16, 2004) and Jinfu (February 2, 2004, through February 5, 2004). We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the production facilities of Cixi Yikang in Cixi, PRC (Jinfu's supplier of processed honey), and Cheng Du in Anshan, PRC, the sales and administrative office of Jinfu in Kunshan, PRC, and the sales office of Cheng Du in Chengdu, PRC, and the examination of relevant sales and financial records. We also conducted verification at the sales and administrative office of Jinfu's claimed U.S. affiliate, Jinfu Trading (USA), Inc., from March 8, 2004, through March 9, 2004, near Seattle, Washington. Our verification results are outlined in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863): Verification of U.S. Sales and Factors of Production for Respondent Cheng Du Wai Yuan Bee Products Co., Ltd. (“Cheng Du”), dated March 1, 2004 (“Cheng Du Verification Report”), the Third New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863); Verification of Intra-company U.S. Sales Information Submitted by Jinfu Trading Company, Ltd. and Factors of Production Information Submitted by Cixi City Yikang Bee Industry Co., Ltd., dated May 5, 2004 (“Jinfu Verification Report”), and the Third New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China (PRC) (A-570-863); Sales Verification of Questionnaire Responses Submitted by Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. on behalf of its U.S. affiliate, Jinfu Trading (USA), Inc., dated May 5, 2004 (“Jinfu USA Verification Report”). Public versions of these reports are on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”) located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

For the reasons stated below, we are preliminarily rescinding, in part, the new shipper review with respect to Jinfu because documentation on the record shows that Jinfu was not affiliated with Jinfu USA during the POR. See Memorandum to Richard O. Weible, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Analysis of the Relationship between Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. and Jinfu Trading (USA), Inc. (“Affiliation Memo”), dated May 26, 2004 for further discussion. Specifically, in its Section A response and first supplemental response, Jinfu stated that Jinfu USA is wholly-owned by its president and was legally incorporated in the State of Washington on October 4, 2002. However, upon further examination of documents relating to the establishment/incorporation of Jinfu USA, it appears that Jinfu and Jinfu USA were not affiliated at the time of Jinfu's first sale to the United States. In particular, the “Certificate of Incorporation,” which was placed by Jinfu on the record, incorporating the precursor of Jinfu USA, Yousheng Trading (USA) Co., Ltd. (“Yousheng USA”), was issued by the State of Washington on October 4, 2002. See Jinfu's December 30, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 7. The transaction in which Jinfu claims that Jinfu USA was an affiliated party, however, occurred only one month following Yousheng USA's incorporation. The extremely short period of time between the incorporation of Yousheng USA and the transaction in question, coupled with the fact that even the respondent admits that Yousheng USA officially became Jinfu USA ten days following the sale at issue, leads the Department to believe that on November 2, 2002 Yousheng and Jinfu were not affiliated. See Jinfu's December 30, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response at Exhibit 7. Moreover, based on other record evidence, we have reason to believe that the president of Jinfu did not own Jinfu USA until after the POR. Specifically, the ownership transfer agreement provided by Jinfu in its supplemental questionnaire response dated December 30, 2003, was dated and signed by Jinfu's president and the owner of Yousheng USA on October 25, 2003, approximately five months after the POR and over a year after Jinfu's first sale to the United States. For further details, see Affiliation Memo. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, the Department has concluded that this transaction should not be treated as an affiliated transaction as claimed by Jinfu.

In order to qualify for a new shipper review under 19 CFR 351.214, a company must provide certifications and documentation establishing, among other things, the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. See 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(C). Given that Jinfu could not substantiate its affiliation with Jinfu USA at the time of its first sale to the United States or any time during the POR, we have preliminarily determined to treat the sale under review as an export-price (“EP”) sale. Because Jinfu's certification (which it provided prior to the initiation of the new shipper review) does not include documentation establishing the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States, Jinfu is not entitled to a new shipper review. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect to Jinfu. 1

Based on questionnaire responses submitted by Cheng Du, and our verification thereof, we preliminarily determine that Cheng Du has met the requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. We have determined that Cheng Du made its first sale and/or shipment of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to the United States. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating Cheng Du's sale of honey to the United States as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review.

In proceedings involving nonmarket economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty rate ( i.e. , a PRC-wide entity rate) unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ), with respect to its export activities. In this review, Cheng Du requested a separate company-specific rate.

As stated in the “Partial Rescission of New Shipper Review” section above, Jinfu did not qualify for a new shipper review under the Department's new shipper regulations. We are, therefore, preliminarily rescinding the new shipper review with respect to Jinfu. Consequently, consistent with the statement in our notice of initiation, the Department will not conduct a separate rates analysis for these preliminary results with respect to Jinfu, and thus, Jinfu will continue to be treated as part of the PRC-wide entity. See Initiation of New Shipper Reviews .

To establish whether a company is sufficiently independent in its export activities from government control to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes the exporting entity in an NME country under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (“ Sparklers ”), and amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585, 22586-22587 (May 2, 1994) (“ Silicon Carbide ”).

Cheng Du provided separate-rate information in its responses to our original and supplemental questionnaires. Accordingly, we performed a separate-rates analysis to determine whether this producer/exporter is independent from government control ( see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Bicycles From the People's Republic of China , 61 FR 56570 (April 30, 1996)).

The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers , 56 FR 20588, 20589.

Cheng Du has placed on the record a number of documents to demonstrate absence of de jure control , including the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China” (May 12, 1994) and the “Administrative Regulations of the People's Republic of China Governing the Registration of Legal Corporations” (June 3, 1988). The Department has analyzed such PRC laws and found that they establish an absence of de jure control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved Mushrooms From the People's Republic of China , 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 2001). At verification, we found that Cheng Du's business license and “Certificate of Approval-For Enterprises with Foreign Trade Rights in the People's Republic of China” were granted in accordance with these laws. Moreover, the results of verification support the information provided regarding these PRC laws. See Cheng Du Verification Report at 10-11. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de jure control over Cheng Du's export activities.

Typically, the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto governmental control of its export functions: (1) whether the export prices are set by, or subject to, the approval of a governmental authority; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts, and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of its management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide at 22587.

As stated in previous cases, there is some evidence that certain enactments of the PRC central government have not been implemented uniformly among different sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. See Silicon Carbide at 22586-22587. Therefore, the Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of governmental control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates.

Cheng Du has asserted the following: (1) it is a privately-owned company; (2) there is no government participation in its setting of export prices; (3) its chief executive officers and authorized employees have the authority to bind sales contracts; (4) it does not have to notify any government authorities of its management selection; (5) there are no restrictions on the use of its export revenue; and (6) it is responsible for financing its own losses. Cheng Du's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters of PRC honey. Furthermore, our analysis of the responses during verification reveal no other information indicating the existence of government control. See Cheng Du Verification Report at 11-12. Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over Cheng Du's export activities, we preliminarily determine that Cheng Du has met the criteria for the application of a separate rate.

To determine whether the respondent's sale of the subject merchandise to the United States was made at a price below normal value, we compared their United States price to normal value, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

For Cheng Du, we based the United States price on export price (“EP”), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser was made prior to importation, and constructed export price (“CEP”) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on the packed price from the exporter to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. For Cheng Du, we deducted domestic inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling expenses from the starting price (gross unit price), in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using a factors-of-production methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. Cheng Du did not contest such treatment in this review. Accordingly, we have applied surrogate values to the factors of production to determine NV for Cheng Du. See the Factor Valuation Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated May 26, 2004 (“Factor Valuation Memo”). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU located in room B-099 of the Main Commerce Building.

We calculated NV based on factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act and section 351.408(c) of our regulations. Consistent with the less-than-fair-value investigation of this order, we determine that India (1) is comparable to the PRC in level of economic development, and (2) is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Accordingly, we valued the factors of production using publicly available information from India. See Memorandum to the file, through Abdelali Elouaradia, Program Manager, Selection of Surrogate Country with Significant Producer of Comparable Merchandise in the New Shipper Review of Honey from the People's Republic of China, dated May 26, 2004.

In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data, in accordance with our practice. Where appropriate, we adjusted Indian import prices by adding foreign inland freight expenses to make them delivered prices. When we used Indian import data to value inputs sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we added to Indian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost calculated using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest port of export to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States , 117 F. 3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When we used non-import surrogate values for factors sourced domestically by PRC suppliers, we based freight for inputs on the actual distance from the input supplier to the site at which the input was used. In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to have generally available export subsidies ( i.e. , Indonesia, Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Floor-Standing, Metal-Top Ironing Tables and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 5127 (February 3, 2004). For those surrogate values not contemporaneous with the POR, we adjusted for inflation using the wholesale price indices for India, as published in the International Monetary Fund's (“IMF's”) publication, International Financial Statistics . 2

We valued the factors of production as follows:

To value raw honey, we used the conservative rupee (“Rs.”) price for one kilogram (“kg.”) of raw honey, as stated in an article published in The Tribune (of India) on December 15, 2003, entitled, “Honey sweet despite price fall.” A copy of the original article is attached at Attachment 15 of the Factor Valuation Memo. The article states that there had been a fall in the price of raw honey to Rs. 65 per kg. from a high of Rs. 105 per kg. during the past year. In their March 30, 2004 submission, petitioners proposed calculating a raw honey price based on the assumption that the price of raw honey peaked in January 2003 at 105 Rs/kg. and calculated an average increase in the rupee price from May 2002 to January 2003. Then, petitioners calculated the percentage decrease in the raw honey price from January 2003 (105 Rs./kg.) to 65 Rs./kg. in December 2003. Based on these percentage price decreases, petitioners calculated a monthly raw honey price for each POR month and then averaged these raw honey prices to generate a raw honey surrogate price for the POR. Since we are not certain specifically when the price of raw honey during the past year was 105 Rs./kg. or 65 Rs./kg., we are using the conservative price of 65 Rs./kg. Because the POR for this new shipper review is December 2002 through May 2003, we do not have evidence contradicting that the raw honey price was 65 Rs. per kg. during the POR. Hence, this 65 Rs. per kg. raw honey price is contemporaneous.

On January 5, 2004, Jinfu submitted an article, dated April 2003, entitled, “Girijan co-op targets Rs 135-cr turnover,” which stated a raw honey price of 30 to 45 Rs./kg. for the Andhra Pradesh region of India. While this article is contemporaneous with the POR, we have determined that this article is not reliable because it provides information about the price of raw honey in a particular region of India rather than an Indian-wide price. Additionally, the article's information is based on data provided by an Indian honey cooperative (Girijan Cooperative Corporation Ltd.). Consistent with the less-than-fair-value investigation, we rejected data based on an Indian honey processing cooperative because we determined that such data represented the experience by a single processor of honey in a particular region of India. Generally, it is the Department's preference to use a publicly-available price that reflects numerous transactions between many buyers and sellers, because the experience of a single producer is less representative of the cost of an input in the surrogate country. See Honey from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review , 68 FR 62053 (October 31, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2 (“ Wuhan NSR Final ”).

Also, petitioners, in their January 5, 2004 filing, submitted raw honey price information from fourteen producers/processors, including several cooperatives. See Exhibit 1 of petitioners' submission dated January 5, 2004. However, we have determined that petitioners' raw honey price information is not reliable because it is not contemporaneous, as opposed to the information from the December 15, 2003 article from The Tribune . As stated above, we reject data based on Indian honey processing cooperatives. Therefore, the Department has preliminarily valued the raw honey input using the 65 Rs. per kg. surrogate price from The Tribune article dated December 15, 2003. See Attachment 3 of the Factor Valuation Memo. However, the Department intends to examine this issue further for the final results of this review. The Department therefore invites interested parties to submit comments on this issue for purposes of the final results.

To value beeswax, a raw honey by-product, we used the average per kg. import value of beeswax into India for the POR, using contemporaneous Indian import values of “beeswax, insect wax” under the Indian Customs' heading of “152190” obtained from the World Trade Atlas , which notes that its data was obtained from the Ministry of Commerce of India (“ World Trade Atlas ”).

To value coal, we relied upon contemporaneous Indian import values of “steam coal” under the Indian Customs' heading of “27011902” obtained from the World Trade Atlas. We also adjusted the surrogate value for coal to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory. To value electricity, we used the third and fourth quarter 2002 total average price per kilowatt hour (“KWH”), adjusted for inflation, for “Electricity for Industry” as reported in the International Energy Agency's publication, Key World Energy Statistics , 2003. To value water, we used the water tariff rate (April 2000, through March 2001), as reported on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai's website. See http://www.mcgm.gov.in and Attachment 17 of the Factor Valuation Memo for source documents. We also adjusted the water rate for inflation.

To value packing materials ( i.e. , paint and steel drums), we relied upon contemporaneous Indian import data under the Indian Customs' heading “3209” obtained from the World Trade Atlas, and a price quote from an Indian steel drum manufacturer, respectively. We adjusted the surrogate value for steel drums to reflect inflation. We also adjusted the surrogate values for packing materials to include freight costs incurred between the supplier and the factory.

To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (“SG&A”), and profit, we relied upon publicly-available information in the 2002-2003 annual report of the Mahabaleshwar Honey Producers Cooperative Society, Ltd. (“MHPC”), a producer of the subject merchandise in India. We applied these rates to the calculated cost of manufacture and cost of production using the same methodology established in Wuhan NSR Final . See Wuhan NSR Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

For labor, we used the PRC regression-based wage rate reported at Import Administration's home page, Import Library, Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries, revised in September 2003. Because of the variability of wage rates in countries with similar per capita gross domestic products, section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the use of a regression-based wage rate. The source of these wage rate data on the Import Administration's web site is the Year Book of Labour Statistics 2002, International Labour Office (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing.

To value truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based on Indian truck freight rates on a per metric ton basis published in the Iron and Steel Newsletter , April 2002, which we adjusted for inflation.

For details on factor of production valuation calculations, see the Factor Valuation Memo, dated May 26, 2004.

NMFS is responsible for determining whether species, subspecies, or DPSs of Pacific salmon and steelhead are threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). To be considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, a group of organisms must constitute a species, which is defined in section 3 of the ESA to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Since 1991, NMFS has used the term “evolutionarily significant unit” (ESU) to refer to a DPS of Pacific salmon and steelhead, and has defined an ESU as a Pacific salmon or steelhead population or group of populations that (i) is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations, and (ii) represents an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species (56 FR 58612; November 20, 1991). ESUs typically are composed of several genetically similar populations. (A few ESUs are composed of a single extant population, e.g., the Snake River sockeye, Snake River fall-run chinook, and Sacramento River winter-run chinook ESUs).

The viability of salmon and steelhead ESUs is characterized by the health, abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and genetic/behavioral diversity of the individual populations within the ESU (McElhany et al., 2001). An ESU with a greater abundance of productive populations will be more tolerant to environmental variation, catastrophic events, genetic processes, demographic stochasticity, ecological interactions, and other processes than one with a single or a few populations (Caughley and Gunn, 1996; Foley, 1997; Meffe and Carroll, 1994; Lande, 1993; Middleton and Nisbet, 1997). Similarly, an ESU that is distributed across a variety of well-connected habitats can better respond to environmental perturbations including catastrophic events, than ESUs in which connectivity between populations has been restricted or lost (Schlosser and Angermeier, 1995; Hanski and Gilpin, 1997; Tilman and Lehman, 1997; Cooper and Mangel, 1999). Genetic and behavioral diversity and the maintenance of local adaptations within an ESU allow for the exploitation of a wide array of environments, protect against short-term environmental changes, and provide the raw material for surviving long-term environmental change (Groot and Margolis,1991; Wood, 1995).

ESUs with fewer populations have greater risk of becoming extinct due to catastrophic events, and have a lower likelihood that the necessary phenotypic and genotypic diversity will exist to maintain future viability than ESUs with more populations. ESUs with limited geographic range are similarly at increased extinction risk due to catastrophic events. ESUs with populations that are geographically distant from each other, or are separated by severely degraded habitat, may lack the connectivity to function as metapopulations and are more likely to become extinct than populations that can function as metapopulations. ESUs with limited life-history diversity are more likely to become extinct as the result of correlated environmental catastrophes or environmental change that occurs too rapidly for an evolutionary response. ESUs comprised of a small proportion of populations meeting or exceeding these viability criteria may lack the “source” populations to sustain the non-viable “sink” populations during environmental downturns. ESUs consisting of a single population are especially vulnerable in this regard.

Assessing an ESU involves evaluating the current biological viability of the populations that comprise the ESU. The fact that the current biological status of an ESU does not reflect historical abundance, productivity, spatial structure or diversity does not mean that it is currently not viable, but historical status serves as an informative benchmark against which to weigh viability. Whether, upon assessment, the biological status of an ESU meets the ESA's standard for listing as either threatened or endangered i.e., the ESU is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or is likely to become so in the foreseeable future--depends on which viability criteria it fails to meet, what the past trend has been, whether that trend is likely to continue, and how far below the benchmark it is.

Most of the ESUs listed as threatened or endangered have associated hatchery populations (that is, artificially propagated salmon and steelhead released into habitats within the historic geographic range of the ESU) as well as mixed populations of natural and hatchery fish.

The artificial propagation of hatchery fish presents both potential benefits and risks to the biological status of salmonid ESUs (e.g., Independent Scientific Advisory Board (ISAB), 2003; Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), 2001; ISAB, 2001; Hatchery Scientific Review Group, 2004). Artificial propagation has been shown to be effective in bolstering the numbers of naturally spawning fish in the short term under certain conditions, and in conserving genetic resources and guarding against the catastrophic loss of naturally spawned populations at critically low abundance levels (IMST, 2001).

There are, however, several reasons why long-term deleterious consequences of such supplementation may outweigh the short-term advantage of increased population size (NRC, 1995). In recent years, various studies and scientific works have identified some potential adverse effects of artificial propagation, including behavioral differences that result in diminished fitness and survival of hatchery fish relative to naturally spawned fish; genetic effects resulting from poor broodstock and rearing practices (e.g., inbreeding, outbreeding, domestication selection); incidence of disease; and increased rates of competition with and predation on naturally spawned populations. In assessing the risks to any particular population, however, it is often difficult to demonstrate conclusively that adverse effects are actually occurring, and, if they are demonstrated, how serious they are (CDFG/NMFS, 2001).

In response to these concerns, there have been recent changes in hatchery practices seeking to mitigate risks and enhance benefits of artificial propagation. Continued scientific work is necessary to identify and to measure these risks and benefits more completely, and to assess the operations of hatcheries that implement modern management practices. In light of the developing science on the positive and negative effects of hatchery programs on natural populations, the legacy of hatchery programs and the existing requirements to maintain many of them present a challenge for developing a framework for consideration of hatchery fish in listing determinations.

Section 3 of the ESA defines (i) an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and (ii) a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The statute enumerates five factors that may cause a species to be threatened or endangered (ESA section 4(a)(1)): (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (b) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (c) disease or predation; (d) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (e) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Since 1991, NMFS has conducted ESA status reviews of six species of Pacific salmonids in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, identifying 51 ESUs and listing 26 of these ESUs as of September 2001. Twenty-three of the listed ESUs include hatchery populations, and in many of those cases the annual abundance of fish from hatcheries far exceeds that of naturally spawned fish. Thus, the manner in which the hatchery populations associated with an ESU are considered in making a determination whether the ESU should be listed can affect the outcome of that determination.

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires NMFS to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species. Accordingly, NMFS follows three steps in making its listing determinations. First, NMFS determines whether a population or group of populations constitutes an ESU; that is, whether the population(s) should be considered a “species” within the meaning of the ESA. Second, NMFS determines the biological status of the ESU and the factors that have led to its decline. Third, NMFS assesses efforts being made to protect the ESU and determines whether, in light of those efforts, the statutory listing criteria are satisfied.

In the past, NMFS focused on whether the naturally spawned fish are, by themselves, self-sustaining in their natural ecosystem over the long term. NMFS listed as “endangered” those ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found to have a present high risk of extinction, and listed as “threatened” those ESUs whose naturally spawned populations were found likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future (that is, whose present risk of extinction was not high, but whose risk of extinction was likely to become high within a foreseeable period of time).

In its listing determinations, NMFS did not explicitly consider the contribution of the hatchery fish to the overall viability of the ESU, or whether the presence of hatchery fish within the ESU might have the potential for reducing the risk of extinction of the ESU or the likelihood that the ESU would become endangered in the foreseeable future. (The listing of Snake River fall chinook, however, is an exception. See 57 FR 14653; April 22, 1992.) NMFS frequently evaluated artificial propagation only as a factor in the decline of the naturally spawned populations within an ESU.

For each ESU where hatchery fish were present, NMFS reviewed the associated hatchery populations to determine how closely related the hatchery populations were to the naturally spawned populations. This review focused on the origin of the hatchery fish and their similarity to locally adapted naturally spawned fish. Factors included in this consideration were: genetic, life history, and habitat use characteristics; the degree to which the characteristics of the wild population may have been altered over time; and other factors that would affect the biological usefulness of hatchery fish for recovery.

Since 1993, NMFS has applied an interim policy on how it will consider artificial propagation in the listing and recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead under the ESA (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993). The 1993 policy provided guidance on the use of artificial propagation to assist in the conservation of these listed species and to help avoid additional species listings. The policy also provided guidance for evaluating artificial propagation in section 7 consultation, section 10 permitting, and recovery planning pursuant to the ESA.

When NMFS determined that an ESU should be listed as threatened or endangered, it applied its interim artificial propagation policy for Pacific salmon and steelhead. That policy provided that hatchery salmon and steelhead found to be part of the ESU would not be listed under the ESA unless they were found to be essential for recovery (i.e., if NMFS determined that the hatchery population contained a substantial portion of the genetic diversity remaining in the ESU). The result of this policy was that a listing determination for an ESU depended solely upon the relative health of the naturally spawning component of the ESU. In most cases, hatchery fish within the ESUs were not relied upon to contribute to recovery, and therefore were not listed.

Subsequently, in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans , 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001)( Alsea decision ), the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, set aside NMFS' 1998 ESA listing of Oregon Coast coho salmon ( O. kisutch ) because it impermissibly excluded hatchery fish within the ESU from listing and therefore listed an entity that was not a species, subspecies or DPS. The court stated: “NMFS concluded that nine hatchery stocks were part of the same Oregon Coast ESU/DPS as the 'naturally-spawned' populations but none of the hatchery stocks were included in the listing decision because NMFS did not consider them 'essential to recovery.' The distinction between members of the same ESU/DPS is arbitrary and capricious because NMFS may consider listing only an entire species, subspecies or distinct population segment ('DPS') of any species.”

Although the court's ruling applied only to the Oregon Coast coho salmon ESU, the court's interpretation of the ESA implicitly called into question nearly all of NMFS' Pacific salmonid listing determinations since 1991. In addition, a preliminary review of the other 25 listing determinations suggested that hatchery populations were not treated consistently in those listings. Further, substantially more scientific research into artificial propagation issues had been completed since the interim policy was adopted in 1993.

Accordingly, NMFS determined that it would reconsider its 1993 interim policy on how it considers hatchery populations in making ESA listing determinations (67 FR 6215; February 11, 2002). The proposed policy set forth in this notice results from that reconsideration. It would supersede NMFS' 1993 interim artificial propagation policy.

The ESA defines “fish or wildlife” to mean “any member of the animal kingdom, including without limitation any fish .” [emphasis added]. This definition includes fish bred in a hatchery. 16 U.S.C. 1532(8).

The ESA defines “species” to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species or vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” 16 U.S.C. 1532(16). NMFS cannot list any group of organisms that is not a species, subspecies or DPS. If NMFS determines that an ESU includes hatchery fish as well as naturally spawned fish, it must list or not list the entire ESU.

The statutory provisions of the ESA do not address the relationship between naturally spawned populations and hatchery populations regarding species conservation. One of the purposes of the ESA, however, is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species may be conserved.” 16 U.S.C. 1531(b). Further, in issuing incidental take permits pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B), the Secretary is required to find that “the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild.” This incidental take permit provision was patterned after the preexisting joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation regulations to implement section 7 of the ESA, which defines “jeopardize the continued existence of” to mean “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild. . . .” 50 CFR 402.02. Accordingly, the ESA does not preclude NMFS from giving special recognition to naturally spawned fish as a measure of the sustainability of the natural ecosystem.

Section 4(b) of the ESA requires the Secretary to make listing determinations after conducting a review of the status of the species, and after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made to protect the species. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A). Such efforts being made to protect the species include “conservation” practices, defined by the ESA as “all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or any threatened species to the point at which” the protections of the act are no longer necessary. 16 U.S.C. 1532(3). The methods and procedures of conservation include “propagation” and “transplantation.”

Although the NMFS/FWS Policy Regarding Controlled Propagation of Species Listed Under the ESA (65 FR 56916; September 20, 2000) exempted Pacific salmon from its application (65 FR at 56921), the joint policy provides useful general guidance regarding the role of artificial propagation in the conservation and recovery of ESA-listed species, including plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species. The joint policy notes several potential contributions of artificial propagation including: preventing extinction; providing opportunities for scientific research regarding beneficial propagation methods and technologies; maintaining genetic vigor and demographic diversity; maintaining refugial populations while habitat threats or vulnerabilities to catastrophic events are addressed; introduction or re-introduction of individuals to (re)establish self-sustaining populations; and enhancing existing wild populations to facilitate recovery.

While acknowledging the potentially supportive role that artificial propagation may play in the conservation and recovery of listed species, the joint policy stresses that artificial propagation is not a substitute for addressing factors responsible for a species' decline and that recovery of wild populations in their natural habitat is the first priority. The policy recognizes that genetic and ecological risks may be associated with artificial propagation, and requires that artificial propagation for species conservation and recovery be conducted in a manner that minimizes risks and preserves the genetic and ecological distinctiveness of the species to the maximum extent possible.

The proposed policy is intended to be consistent with the joint policy. This policy provides more specific guidance for considering artificial propagation issues particular to listing Pacific salmon and steelhead under the ESA. For Pacific salmon and steelhead, artificial propagation programs have been in place for many decades, serving a variety of purposes established by Congress and local authorities. Those programs now number in the hundreds. Whereas the joint policy pertains to recovery, the proposed policy would guide NMFS' consideration of existing artificial propagation efforts when evaluating the extinction risk of a salmon or steelhead ESU for purposes of making an ESA listing decision.

Because NMFS must base its listing determinations for Pacific salmon and steelhead on the risk of extinction of the entire ESU, including both natural and hatchery fish, the agency must consider the likelihood that the hatchery and naturally spawned components will contribute to the continued existence of the ESU into the future.

Electronic Access: The full funding opportunity announcement for these Chesapeake Bay Studies programs is available via Web site: http://www.ofa.noaa.gov/amd/SOLINDEX.HTML or by contacting the program official identified above (see ADDRESSES ). This announcement will also be available through Grants.gov at http.//www.Grants.gov .

Funding Availability: This solicitation announces that approximately $550,000 may be made available through the Chesapeake Bay Studies submerged aquatic vegetation program and approximately $2,000,000 may be made available through the Chesapeake Bay Studies non-native oyster research program. This document describes how interested persons can apply for funding and how funding decisions will be made for both initiatives.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 753a; 16 U.S.C. 661-666c.

CFDA: 11.457, Chesapeake Bay Studies.

Eligibility: Eligible applicants include state, local and Indian tribal governments, institutions of higher education, other nonprofit organizations and commercial organizations.

Cost Sharing Requirements: NOAA strongly encourages applicants applying for either initiative to share as much of the costs of the award as possible. Funds from other Federal awards may not be considered matching funds. The nature of the contribution (cash versus in-kind) and the amount of matching funds will be taken into consideration in the final selection process. Priority will be given to proposals that propose cash rather than in-kind contributions.

Intergovernmental Review: Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Evaluation and Selection Procedures: An initial administrative review/screening is conducted by the NCBO to determine compliance with requirements/completeness including eligibility and relevance to the NCBO. Proposals that do not support the technical and management areas of interest of the Chesapeake Bay, as defined in the full funding announcement, will not be considered for funding. All applications meeting the requirements of this solicitation will undergo an external technical review conducted by a minimum of three independent mail reviewers. All proposals will be individually evaluated, rated and ranked in accordance with the assigned weights of the evaluation criteria listed below. This review normally will involve experts from both NOAA and non-NOAA organizations.

For the SAV Program, the technical reviewers' ratings will be used to produce a rank order of the proposals. In making the final selections, the selecting official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one of more of the selection factors.

For the non-native oyster research program, the NCBO will convene a review panel consisting of at least three regional experts in the scientific and management aspects of oyster research from NOAA and non-NOAA organizations. Each member of the panel will review the technical review ranking and comments and individually make recommendations and provide a numerical ranking to the Program Coordinator. No consensus advice will be given by the reviewer panel members. The selection official selects proposals after considering the technical reviewer's comments, peer panel reviews and selection factors listed below. In making the final selections, the selecting official will award in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon one of more of the selection factors.

Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following evaluation criteria at the indicated weights:

(1) Importance/Relevance and Applicability of Proposal (15 points). This criterion ascertains whether there is intrinsic value in the proposed work and/or relevance to NOAA, Federal, regional, state, or local activities.

(2) Technical/Scientific Merit (15 points). This criterion assesses whether the approach is technically sound and/or innovative, if the methods are appropriate, and whether there are clear project goals and objectives.

(3) Overall Qualification of Applicants (5 points). This criterion ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project.

(4) Project Costs (10 points). This criterion ascertains whether the applicant possesses the necessary education, experience, training, facilities, and administrative resources to accomplish the project.

(5) Outreach and Education (10 points). NOAA assesses whether this project provides a focused and effective education and outreach strategy regarding NOAA's mission to protect the Nation's natural resources.

Selection Factors: The Program Coordinator may, in consultation with the NCBO staff, review the ranking of the proposals and the technical review comments and make recommendations to the NCBO Director. The average numerical ranking from the technical review will be the primary consideration in deciding which of the proposals will be recommended for funding to the NOAA Grants Officer. The NCBO Director shall select awards in rank order unless the proposal is justified to be selected out of rank order based upon 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the following factors:

1. Availability of funding;

2. Balance/distribution of funds: geographically, by type of institutions, by type of partners, by research areas, by project types;

3. Duplication of other projects funded or considered for funding by NOAA or other Federal agencies;

4. Program priorities and policy factors;

5. Applicant's prior award performance; or

6. Partnerships and/or participation of targeted groups.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements: The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements contained in the Federal Register notice of October 1, 2001 (66 FR 49917), as amended by the Federal Register notice on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66109), are applicable to this solicitation.

Limitation of Liability: In no event will NOAA or the Department of Commerce be responsible for proposal preparation costs if these programs fail to receive funding or are cancelled because of other agency priorities. Publication of this announcement does not oblige NOAA to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): NOAA must analyze the potential environmental impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for applicant projects or proposals which are seeking NOAA Federal funding opportunities. Detailed information on NOAA compliance with NEPA can be found at the following NOAA NEPA Web site: http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/ , including our NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 for NEPA, http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf , and the Council on Environmental Quality implementation regulations, http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/toc_ceq.htm ). Consequently, as part of an applicant's package, and under their description of their program activities, applicants are required to provide detailed information on the activities to be conducted, locations, sites, species and habitat to be affected, possible construction activities, and any environmental concerns that may exist (e.g., the use and disposal of hazardous or toxic chemicals, introduction of nonindigenous species, impacts to endangered and threatened species, aquaculture projects, and impacts to coral reef systems).

In addition to providing specific information that will serve as the basis for any required impact analyses, applicants may also be requested to assist NOAA in drafting of an environmental assessment, if NOAA determines an assessment is required. Applicants will also be required to cooperate with NOAA in identifying and implementing feasible measures to reduce or avoid any identified adverse environmental impacts of their proposal. The failure to do so shall be grounds for the denial of an application.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This document contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, and CD-346 has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the respective control numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0348-0040, and 0605-0001.

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

Executive Order 12866: This action has been determined to be “not significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. section 553(a)(2)). Because notice and opportunity for comment are not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexible Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. are inapplicable. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared.

The Environmental Entrepreneurship Program solicitation was originally included in the NOAA Omnibus Notice, Availability of Grant Funds for fiscal year 2004, published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 29).

The Educational Partnership Program cancels the grant program competition for fiscal year 2004 announced in that solicitation. The competition did not result in an adequate number of eligible applications to be recommended for funding. All applicants that submitted applications in response to the solicitation will be notified of the cancellation. The program anticipates announcing a fiscal year 2005 competition in the NOAA Omnibus Notice in June 2004. Subject to availability of funding, approximately $6 million will be available for the Environmental Entrepreneurship Program competition in 2005.

Title: Procedural Requirements for Requests for Interpretative, No-Action, and Exemptive Letters (OMB Control No. 3038-0049). This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: Commission Rule 140.99 requires persons submitting requests for exemptive, no-action, and interpretative letters to provide specific written information, certified as to completeness and accuracy, and to update that information to reflect material changes. The proposed rule was promulgated pursuant to the Commission's rulemaking authority contained in Section 8a(5) of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 12a(5) (1994).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the CFTC's regulations were published on December 30, 1981. See 46 FR 63035 (Dec. 30, 1981). The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 18058-01).

Burden statement: The respondent burden for this collection is estimated to average 6.6 hours per response. These estimates include 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; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Securities Brokers and Dealers.

Estimated number of respondents: 410.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3,197 hours.

Frequency of collection: On occasion, quarterly, monthly, annually.

Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other aspect of the information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the addresses listed below. Please refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0049 in any correspondence.

Christopher W. Cummings, Division of Clearing and Intermediary Oversight, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581; and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for CFTC, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20503.

DoD provided a notice in the Federal Register (68 FR 7351-7352) published on Thursday, February 13, 2003, which set forth basic procedures for participation in the myelomeningocele demonstration project sponsored by the NICHD, wherein DoD provides TRICARE reimbursement for all eligible DoD beneficiaries, including active duty service members, to receive prenatal and postnatal surgical intervention for the repair of myelomeningocele.

The NICHD expects a total of two hundred patients (nationwide) whose fetuses have been diagnosed with myelomeningocele at 16 to 25 weeks' gestation and who are over the age of 18 years would be enrolled and referred to the Data and Study Coordinating Center (DSCC) at George Washington University in Rockville, Maryland, to undergo an initial evaluation. Those individuals who remain eligible and interested would be assigned by the DSCC to one of the three centers (Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, the University of California at San Francisco, or Children's Hospital of Philadelphia) where final evaluation and screening will be performed.

DoD continues to expect six to sixteen TRICARE members each year would have a fetus with a prenatal diagnosis of spina bifida and would be eligible for the NICHD clinical trial and agree to participate.

Participation in this clinical trial will improve access to prenatal and postnatal surgical intervention for the repair of myelomeningocele for active duty members, former members, and their dependents when their condition meets protocol eligibility criteria.

This notice of a partially closed meeting is provided per the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2). The executive session of the meeting will consist of discussions of personnel issues at the Naval Academy and internal Board of Visitors matters. Discussion of such information cannot be adequately segregated from other topics, which precludes opening the executive session of this meeting to the public. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that the meeting shall be partially closed to the public because it will be concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(2), (5), (6), (7), (9) of title 5, United States Code.

This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss NOPP activities. The meeting will include discussions on ocean observations, current and future NOPP activities, and other current issues in the ocean sciences community.

Petitioners raise issues concerning: (a) The provisions requiring owners/operators of coke plants having a “pushing emission control device” (“PECD”) to install, operate and maintain devices to monitor daily average fan motor amps, (or volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device and maintain daily average volumetric flow rate) at or above minimum levels established during initial performance tests (40 CFR 63.7290, 63.7323(c), 63.7326(a)(4), 63.73330(d), 63.7331(g) and (h)); and (b) the provisions requiring monthly inspections of pressure senors, dampers, damper switches and other equipment important to the performance of the total emissions capture system and requiring that a facility's operation and maintenance plan include requirements to repair any defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled inspection (40 CFR 63.7300(c)(1)).

EPA and Petitioners (collectively, the “Parties”) will jointly notify the Court that following the notice and comment period of this notice, the Parties anticipate that certain revisions to the Rule, if incorporated by EPA, will resolve COETF's challenge in this litigation. The Parties will jointly request that the Court's September 17, 2003 order remain in place and that the COETF's petition be held in abeyance pending implementation of, and subject to, the terms of this Settlement Agreement. Within 90 days after review of public comments received in response to this Notice, EPA will sign and submit for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Rule as set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement. Within 120 days after the close of the comment period on the proposal, EPA shall sign and submit for publication in the Federal Register a notice setting forth the Administrator's final decision on the issues covered by the proposal.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determine, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OGC-2004-0004 which contains a copy of the settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 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 Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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 identification number.

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. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. 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. 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.

Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket 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. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (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, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under TSCA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2003-0004. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

Under EPA IAG Number DW-36-92161001-0, LMI of 2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA, will assist EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing Oracle operations and maintenance support for OPPT's Confidential Business Information Tracking system. The operations and maintenance support shall fill a necessary role in OPPT's ability to properly maintain the production application. Support shall include Oracle development work and Oracle server work.

In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under EPA IAG Number DW-36-92161001-0, LMI will require access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA, to perform successfully the duties specified under the agreement.

LMI personnel will be given information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.

EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information under all sections of TSCA, that the Agency may provide LMI access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA Headquarters only. LMI personnel will be required to adhere to all provisions of EPA's TSCA Confidential Business Information Security Manual .

Clearance for access to TSCA CBI under EPA IAG Number DW-36-92161001-0 may continue until April 1, 2005. Access will commence no sooner than June 10, 2004.

LMI personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on appropriate security procedures before they are permitted access to TSCA CBI.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0779.

Title: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Use of the 200 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 2,124.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1-20 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 35,249 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $998,348.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No.

Needs and Uses: This collection includes rules to govern the future operation and licensing of the 200-222 MHz band (220 MHz service). In establishing this licensing plan, FCC's goal is to establish a flexible regulatory framework that allows for efficient licensing of the 220 MHz service, eliminates unnecessary regulatory burdens, and enhances the competitive potential of the 220 MHz service in the mobile service marketplace. However, as with any licensing and operational plan for a radio service, a certain number of regulatory and information burdens are necessary to verify licensees compliance with FCC rules. This collection of information is being revised because several reporting requirements have been met and are no longer in effect.

1. Title: Application for Waiver of Prohibition on Acceptance of Brokered Deposits by Adequately Capitalized Insured Institutions.

OMB Number: 3064-0099.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Any depository institution seeking a waiver to the prohibition on the acceptance of brokered deposits.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

Estimated Time per Response: 6 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 180 hours.

General Description of Collection: Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act prohibits undercapitalized insured depository institutions from accepting, renewing, or rolling over any brokered deposits. Adequately capitalized institutions may do so with a waiver from the FDIC, while well-capitalized institutions may accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits without restriction.

2. Title: Real Estate Lending Standards.

OMB Number: 3064-0112.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Any financial institution engaging in real estate lending.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,300.

Estimated Time per Response: 20 hours.

Total Annual Burden: 106,000 hours.

General Description of Collection: Institutions will use real estate lending policies to guide their lending operations in a manner that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices and appropriate to their size, nature and scope of their operations. These policies should address certain lending considerations, including loan-to-value limits, loan administration policies, portfolio diversification standards, and documentation, approval and reporting requirements.

3.Title: Management Official Interlocks.

OMB Number: 3064-0118.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Affected Public: Management officials of insured nonmember banks and their affiliates.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 2.

Estimated Time per Response: 4 hours.

Total Annual burden: 8 hours.

General Description of Collection: The collection is associated with the FDIC's Management Official Interlocks regulation, 12 CFR part 348, which implements the Depository Institution Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). DIMIA generally prohibits bank management officials from serving simultaneously with two unaffiliated depository institutions or their holding companies but allows the FDIC to grant exemptions in appropriate circumstances.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the collection should be modified prior to submission to OMB for review and approval. Comments submitted in response to this notice also will be summarized or included in the FDIC's requests to OMB for renewal of these collections. All comments will become a matter of public record.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is amending one of its Systems of Records, “The Location and Collection System of Records” (LCS), No. 09-90-0074, last published at 65 FR 57817 on September 26, 2000.

First, consistent with sections 453(j)(7) of the Social Security Act (the Act) as amended by Pub. L. 108-199, the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) will be used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of verifying the employment and income of individuals receiving benefits under certain enumerated programs, and, after removal of personal identifiers, to conduct analysis of the employment and income reporting of these individuals. Second, we have added a routine use to clarify that OCSE shares information with private individuals and companies who are under contract with OCSE for the purpose of operating the Location and Collection System.

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 health claims on dietary supplements. FDA has received petitions for new health claims for glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. Unlike traditional health claims that promote the ability of a product to reduce the risk of a particular disease, the petitioned claims promote the ability of the product to reduce the risk of a specific health outcome without mention of an associated disease.

Traditionally, a health claim states how a product will reduce the risk of contracting a particular disease. An example of this type of claim would include “Eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables may reduce the risk of cancer.” Here, the statement clearly defines the product (fruits and vegetables), its risk-reducing effect, and the disease upon which it may be effective (cancer). The petitioned claims, however, do not employ the standard structure as traditional health claims.

The petitioned claims are designed as health claims, in that they promote the risk reducing effect of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. The claims neglect, however, to mention the specific disease risk, or the risk of osteoarthritis, that the product intends to reduce. Instead, the claims mention symptoms, modifiable risk factors, and surrogate endpoints of the disease. An example of these claims is “Glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may reduce the risk of joint degradation.” The petitioned claims to be examined resemble health claims by their use of language concerning the reduction of risk. Yet they employ terminology suggestive of modifiable risk factors of the disease, which are elements not traditionally found in health claims. It is not clear how consumers will interpret these claims. The agency is concerned that the label language may cause consumers to interpret the claims in such a way that would suggest it has an effect on the disease or condition other than risk reduction.

Consumer research is needed to test consumer's perceptions of claims that promote risk reduction of contracting a symptom or a modifiable risk factor for a disease. Despite the verbiage within the claim about risk reduction, the presence of health conditions without mention of a disease may cause consumers to believe that the product will treat the health condition rather than reduce risk. If consumers disregard language concerning the reduction of risk and interpret the claim as one that promotes a treatment effect, then the claim language has created a misperception on the part of the consumer. The result is that consumer's interpret the claim as a treatment claim rather than a health claim.

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 petitioned health claims on glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate. The study examines various petitioned health claims about the effect of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate on osteoarthritis. The goal of the study is to determine if certain claims about glucosamine/chondroitin (the “product”) and the reduction of risk of specific outcomes related to osteoarthritis, namely joint degradation and cartilage deterioration, create misperceptions on the part of consumers about the intended use of the product. Results of the study will inform the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition decision making process, particularly as it concerns the approval of the use of these claims. The results may also assist in future decisions toward other claims that bear similar characteristics.

The need for consumer research on various dietary supplement claims arises over a concern that consumer's may misinterpret or misperceive a health claim as a treatment claim when the claim does not clearly refer to a specific disease. Traditional health claims for dietary supplements promote the ability of a product to reduce the risk of a particular disease. However, new claims about products promote the ability of a product to reduce the risk of a specific health outcome without mention of an associated disease. If the specific health outcome is mentioned without a disease, consumers may misunderstand the claim as one that promotes the product's ability to treat, and not reduce the risk of contracting, a particular health outcome.

The larger question of whether or not a consumer interprets a claim as a drug treatment claim or as a health claim will be answered by comparing the effect of various label claim language on a consumer's perceptions of the effect and potency of a product, and the time in which the product will be effective. This is accomplished by answering a number of smaller research questions about claims concerning glucosamine/chondroitin and their relationship to claims that could be made about food products, as well as their relationship to claims that could be made about an over-the-counter (OTC) or pharmaceutical drug.

The working hypothesis underlying the study design is that consumer's perceive dietary supplements as less potent, less effective, and therefore having a weaker effect on a health condition than drugs. A parallel hypothesis is that consumer's perceive dietary supplements as more potent, more effective, and therefore having a stronger impact on a health condition as food. The study is designed to assess the relative position of a dietary supplement product, “DS”, with respect to a food and a drug along three dimensions characterizing the impact of the DS. These three dimensions include the type of effect the consumer believes the DS will have on a health condition, and the perceived effectiveness of the substance at achieving the claimed effect, and the time in which the consumer believes the effect will occur. The study will also assess how various types of claims on food products, drugs, and dietary supplements change how consumers perceive the relative position of these products with each other. The study will determine if the presence of a petitioned claim on the product label causes consumers to perceive the product as more treatment-like in its effect than when an approved health claim is present.

FDA will conduct an experimental study using subjects recruited from an internet panel of 500,000 households. The internet panel 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 information intended by the health claims. 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 glucosamine/chondroitin, as well as a food product and an OTC drug product. The various health claims that are tested vary in terms of the use of language concerning treatment or risk-reduction effects, and the use of terminology related to a disease or a symptom or risk factor of a disease. In addition, on some labels a disclaimer accompanies the claims. A number of labels will carry claims about the product's effect on a specific disease (osteoarthritis) and will serve as control conditions that assess how consumers view the product when the claims mention only symptoms of the disease.

Panel members are recruited by a variety of means designed to reflect all segments of the population. They are required to have a computer with Internet access. Typical panel members receive three or four invitations per month to participate in research projects. Incentives of small monetary value are given to panel members for their participation periodically.

Each participant in the study will examine one of the label products described earlier. The product may be a food, drug, glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, or glucosamine/chondroitin combination. The study may also include an additional dietary supplement for comparison with the glucosamine and chondroitin product. The label will have a claim about the products effect on the reduction of risk of either osteoarthritis, joint degradation, or cartilage deterioration. The subject will answer a short set of questions related to each of the label products that they have been shown. These questions will pertain to the consumer's perception of the effect (treat/reduce risk) of the product, the relative effectiveness of the product, and the time in which the effect occurs (hours versus years).

The study includes three conditions, representing important types of label claims and label users that constitute benchmarks for assessing the direction and magnitude of effects due to the presence of symptom-like health conditions: (1) A control that is an approved or traditionally worded health claim, i.e., one that mentions risk reduction of a specific disease; (2) a petitioned health claim that mentions a symptom-like condition, but not the disease; and (3) a petitioned health claim with a disclaimer that states that the product is not intended to cure or treat a disease. The key measures for this study are the perceived effects of the product conveyed by the label condition, the effectiveness of the product, and the expected timeframe within which the product is expected to be effective.

FDA will use the information from this study to guide the decision making process concerning current and future petitions for 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:

The approaches and wording options for qualified health claims of central interest to the agency requires a complex experimental design. To ensure adequate power to identify differences, the minimum cell size is 60 participants. This will be sufficient to identify small to medium 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.

MDUFMA (Public Law 107-250) added a provision in section 704(g) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 374(g)) to permit third-party inspections of eligible establishments who market class II or class III devices in the United States and who also market or plan to market such devices in foreign countries. The new law also defines the qualifying criteria that a manufacturer must meet in order to participate in the AP program (section 704(g)(6)(A) of the act). This guidance will help manufacturers determine whether they are eligible to participate in this inspectional program and identifies the information manufacturers should submit to the agency when requesting permission to use an AP.

The AP program generally enables manufactures to better manage their inspection schedules since they will schedule the AP inspections themselves, provided FDA has approved their request to use an AP. Eligible firms, however, remain subject to inspections by FDA (section 704(g)(9) of the act). The program is voluntary; no manufacturer is required to participate, whether domestic or foreign.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance represents the agency's current thinking on inspection requests under the AP program authorized by section 201 of MDUFMA. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

Interested parties may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments regarding the draft guidance. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

To receive “Requests for Inspection under the Inspection by Accredited Persons Program Authorized by Section 201 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002” by fax machine, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number 1532 followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

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

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

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

Title : Requests for Inspection under the Inspection by Accredited Persons Program

Description : Section 201 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA) (Public Law 107-250) amends section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) by adding paragraph (g). This amendment authorizes FDA to establish a voluntary third party inspection program applicable to manufacturers of class II or class III medical devices who meet certain eligibility criteria. Under this new Inspection by Accredited Persons Program (AP program), such manufacturers may elect to have third parties that have been accredited by FDA (accredited person or AP) conduct some of their inspections instead of FDA.

The AP program applies to manufacturers who currently market their medical devices in the United States and who also market or plan to market their devices in foreign countries. Such manufacturers may need current inspections of their establishments to operate in global commerce.

The applicant must submit the following information in support of a request for approval to use an AP:

1. Information that shows that the applicant “manufactures, prepares, propagates, compounds, or processes” class II or class III medical devices.

2. Information that shows that the applicant markets at least one of the devices in the United States.

3. Information that shows that the applicant markets or intends to market at least one of the devices in one or more foreign countries and one or both of the following two conditions are met as follows:

a. One of the foreign countries certifies, accredits, or otherwise recognizes the AP the applicant has selected as a person authorized to conduct inspections of device establishments, or

b. A statement that the law of a country where the applicant markets or intends to market the device recognizes an inspection by the FDA or by the AP.

4. Information that shows that the applicant's most recent inspection performed by FDA, or by an AP under this program, was classified by FDA as either “No Action Indicated (NAI)” or “Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI)”; and

5. A notice to FDA requesting clearance (approval) to use an AP, and identifying the AP the applicant selected.

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

There are approximately 8,000 foreign and 10,000 domestic manufacturers of medical devices. Approximately 5,000 of these firms only manufacture class I devices and are, therefore, not eligible for the AP program. In addition, 40 percent of the domestic firms do not export devices and therefore are not eligible for the AP program. Also 10 to 15 percent of the firms are not eligible due to the results of their previous inspection. FDA estimates that there are 4,000 domestic manufacturers and 4,000 foreign manufacturers that are eligible for inclusion in the AP program. Based on informal communications with industry, FDA estimates that approximately 100 of these manufacturers may apply to use an AP in any given year.

This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, a survey instrument to obtain information from faith based and community organizations on their likelihood and success at applying for various funding programs. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting 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: PHA Development Cost Budget, Cost Statement, Actual Development Cost Certificate.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0036.

Form Numbers: HUD-52427, HUD-52484.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: HUD requires information on the Cost Budget/Statement to determine whether PHA expenditures or requests for funds are reasonable in relation to the stage of development. PHAs submit the Actual Development Cost Certificate to notify HUD that all development work has been completed, and to report the amount for all costs relating to development. Acquisition and relocation reports enable HUD to determine PHA compliance with acquisition and relocation requirements.

Frequency of Submission: Quarterly.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 8,905.

Status: Request for extension of an existing information collection.

Title: National Park Service, National Capital Region Application for a Permit to Conduct a Demonstration or Special Event in Park Areas and a Waiver of Numerical Limitations on Demonstrations for White House Sidewalk and/or Lafayette Park.

Departmental Form Number: None.

OMB Number: 1024-0021.

Expiration Date: 4/30/04.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Description of Need: The information collection responds to the statutory requirement that the NPS preserve park resources and regulate the use of units of the National Park System. The Information to be collected identifies: (1) Those individuals and/or organizations that wish to conduct a public gathering on NPS property in the National Capital Region, (2) the logistics of a proposed demonstration or special event that aid the NPS in the regulating activities to insure that they are consistent with NPS mission, (3) potential civil disobedience and traffic control issues for the assignment of the United States Park Police personnel, (4) circumstances which may warrant a bond to be assigned to the event for the purpose of covering potential cost to repair damage caused by the event.

Description of Respondents: Respondents are those individuals or organizations that wish to conduct a special event or demonstration on NPS property within the National Capital Region.

Estimated average number of annual respondents: 4200.

Estimated average burden hours per response: .5 hour.

Estimated annual reporting burden: 2100 hours.

Title: NPS Leasing Program—36 CFR part 18.

OMB Control Number: 1024-0233.

Expiration Date of Approval: April 30, 2004.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities ( see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). NPS has submitted a request to OMB to renew approval of the collection of information in 36 CFR part 18 regarding the NPS Leasing Program. NPS is requesting a 3-year extension of the OMB approval for this information collection activity.

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 number for this collection of information is 1024-0233.

As required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d), a Federal Register notice soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on January 22, 2004 (Pages 3171-3172). No comments were received. This notice provides the public with an additional 30 days in which to comment. The information is being collected to meet the requirements of section 802 of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, concerning the legislative authority, policies, and requirements for the solicitation, award, and administration of National Park Service leases for property located within areas of the national park system.

Bureau Form Number: None.

Frequency of Collection: Once.

Description of Respondents: Persons or entities seeking a leasing opportunity with the National Park Service.

Total Annual Responses: 627.

Estimated Average Burden Hours Per Response: 7.

Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,392.

We specifically request your comments on (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. Please refer to OMB control number 1024-0233 in all correspondence.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Title: NPS Research and Reporting System Collection of Information.

Form: The collection of information contains three automated NPS forms: Application for a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit (Form 10-741a); Application for a Science Education Permit (Form 10-741b), Investigator's Annual Report (Form 10-226).

OMB Number: 1024-0236.

Expiration Date: April 30, 2004.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection of information.

Description of Need: The NPS regulates scientific research and collecting studies and science education activities inside park boundaries under regulations codified at 36 CFR part 2, section 2.5. The NPS issued these regulations pursuant to authority under the NPS Organic Act of 1916 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq. ). The NPS administers these regulations to provide for scientific research and collecting and scientific education uses of parks while also protecting park resources and other park uses from adverse impacts that could occur if inappropriate scientific research and collecting studies or science education activities were to be conducted within park boundaries.

Respondents: Individual scientific investigators or science educators from other governmental agencies, universities and colleges, schools, research organizations, and science education organizations who apply for a permit and any members of this group who receive a permit and then must submit the required annual report of accomplishment.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000 per year.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: Two responses per year per respondent for an annual total of 6,000 responses. For each permit cycle, each respondent will respond usually once to prepare and submit the application for a permit and respondents who are successful in being issued a permit will respond a second time to submit the required Investigator's Annual Report. Given that most applicants are successful in being issued a permit and that permit renewal usually occurs annually, the number of responses will approach a total that is two times the number of respondents.

Estimate of Burden Per Respondent: NPS estimates the reporting burden for this collection of information, including both the relevant application and the annual report, will average slightly more than 1.6 hours per respondent per year.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,875 hours. This number assumes 3,000 respondents each take about 0.75 hours to complete the automated application form (including reading the guidance material), up to 3,000 successful applicants each take 0.25 hours to sign the issued permit and return it to the park, and up to 3,000 permittees each take 0.25 hours to complete the automated Investigator's Annual Report form, including reading the instructions. In addition, this number includes 0.25 hours each for approximately 1,500 respondents to copy and process documents that can not be submitted electronically, and 0.5 hours each for up to 1,500 respondents to prepare the portion of the Application for a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit that requires coordination with one or more non-NPS museums or other specimen repositories. Those few applicants who will be unable to process their applications and report forms electronically likely will spend a longer amount of time completing each form manually.

Methodology and Assumptions Underlying the Hour Estimate: Depending on complexity of the investigator's project, a complete Application for a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit consists of two or more electronic pages plus electronic or paper attachments of copies of existing materials. These copies of existing materials may include: (1) The research proposal the applicant prepared to secure funding for the applicant's project, (2) peer reviews that the applicant may have obtained on the research proposal during preparation of the proposal, (3) other permits the applicant may have had to obtain from other permitting organizations, and (4) other documents that may help the park receiving the application understand and evaluate the applicant's proposed activities in the park. A complete Application for a Science Education Permit consists of two electronic pages plus, if available, an electronic attachment or paper copy of an existing proposal the applicant may have prepared to secure funding or administrative approval for the applicant's science education activity. This analysis and burden hour estimate assume that, prior to preparing an application for a permit, respondents already have in hand study plans or education proposals, peer reviews as appropriate, other permits as necessary, and other supporting documents prepared for other purposes beyond what is required for either the Application for a Scientific Research and Collecting Permit or the Application for a Science Education Permit.

A complete Investigator's Annual Report consists of up to one and a half pages should the respondent completely fill the expandable portions of the electronic form. There are no attachments possible with the electronic Investigator's Annual Report form.

Estimated Non-Hour Cost Per Respondent to Comply with the Paperwork Requirements: There is no non-hour cost. There is no filing fee.

Petersburg National Battlefield does not currently have a General Management Plan. The park's existing Master Plan (1965) was primarily a facility development plan and all of its major recommendations have been completed. The GMP/EIS presents and analyzes four alternatives for preserving resources, enhancing interpretation, providing visitor services and working with partners. Three of these alternatives propose boundary expansion. The GMP/EIS responds to the park's mission and the challenges facing the park and adjacent communities today.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to Superintendent, Petersburg National Battlefield, 1539 Hickory Hill Road, Petersburg, VA 23803-4721. You may also comment via the Internet http://www.nps.gov/pete ( see the link) or via e-mail to pete_gmp@nps.gov. Please include your name and return address in your surface, Internet or e-mail message. Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to 1539 Hickory Hill Road, Petersburg, VA during regular business hours. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.