The planning area is within the boundary of the Granite Creek Watershed. The legal description of the decision area is as follows: T8-10S, R35E, 35- 1/2 E, 36E, W.M. surveyed.

The Oregon department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has listed Beaver Creek, Bull Run Creek, and Granite Creek as water quality impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Forest Service has determined that mining operations have the potential to affect water quality. Accordingly, the effects of new, existing, or modified Plans of Operations prepared under regulations at 36 CFR 228.4 and 228.5, and 36 CFR 228 Subpart C, will be analyzed in this EIS.

Mining operations are associated with the extraction of precious metals from placer and lode deposits. A number of different practices are being proposed on the various claims within the analysis area. These may include one or more of the following practices:

Test Pits: Holes are dug either by hand or mechanical equipment to sample sub-surface deposits.

Drilling: Portable drills are used as part of the exploration process to sample sub-surface mineral deposits.

Placer Mining: This includes a wide variety of practices to extract minerals from placer deposits. The techniques include handwork with shovels and pans, small sluice boxes and more complex operations that use mechanical equipment. On the more heavily worked claims backhoes and front end loaders are used for digging, and power trommels for separation and extraction. Water, to varying degrees, is used in all these techniques. Some minor road maintenance and maintenance of existing structures is also planned.

Lode Mining: This includes tunneling or other mechanical methods used to extract lode deposits.

Activities, which would occur in association with mining operation, include mitigation practices such as construction or maintenance of settling ponds, and reclamation activities such as recontouring, seeding, and treatment of noxious weeds.

Road Construction: This includes construction of 1/2 mile of road to access an existing operation.

Preliminary issues include effects of proposed activities on—water quality and fish habitat.

The Forest Service will consider a full range of alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. The no-action alternative is evaluated order to establish a baseline condition of existing and future environmental conditions in the project area. Based on the issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives may vary in the type of operations permitted, the timing of permitted operations and the types of mitigation required. Action alternatives include—the proposed mining activities and alternatives that modify the proposed plans with additional mitigation to address effects of mining on water quality and fisheries habitat.

Public participation will be especially important at several points during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). This environmental analysis and decision making process will enable additional interested and affected people to participate and contribute to the final decision. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments. and assistance from Federal, State, local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or organizations that may be interested in, or affected by the proposal. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process includes: Identifying potential issues; identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth; identifying issues which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis; considering additional alternatives based on themes which will be derived from issues recognized during scoping activities; and identifying potential environmental effects of this project and alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions).

The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available to the public for review by May 2005. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . It is important that those interested in the management of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest participate at that time.

Comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified number of days.

The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice, at this early stage, of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EIS's must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIS stage but that are not raised until completion of the final EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 f. 2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider and respond to them in the final EIS.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. (Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points).

The final EIS is scheduled for completion July 2005. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.

The Forest Service is the lead agency. The Whitman Unit Ranger is the Responsible Official. The Responsible Official will decide which, if any, of the proposed plans will be implemented. The Responsible Official will also document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), on October 29, 2004, the domestic interested parties  1 requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Brazil. On November 19, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the initiation of an administrative review of this order for the period October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 69 FR 67701 (November 19, 2004). On November 30, 2004, the domestic interested parties timely withdrew their request for this review.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review if the party that requested the review withdraws their request for review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review, or withdraws their request at a later date if the Department determines that it is reasonable to extend the time limit for withdrawing the request. The domestic interested parties withdrew their request within the 90-day period and were the only party to request this review. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection within 15 days of publication of this notice.

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

This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On August 2, 2004, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the antidumping duty order on candles from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 69 FR 46134 (August 2, 2004). The Department received the Notice of Intent to Participate from the domestic interested parties, the National Candles Association (“NCA”) and its participating member companies: AcScents Aromatics Fine Candles, Inc.; Alene Candles, Inc.; Arizona Natural Resources, Inc.; Armadilla Wax Works, Inc.; Aromatique, Inc.; Best Candle, LLC; Blyth HomeScents Intl.; BMC Manufacturing, LLC; Bright Glow Candle Corp.; Bright of America; Bullfrog Light Co.; Candle Lamp Co.; Candle-Lite, Inc.; Carolina CandleLites, Inc.; Casey Pottery Co.; Cathedral Candle Co.; Changing Paradigms, LLC; Covered Bridge Candle Co.; Dadant & Sons, Inc.; Dial Corp.; Dianne's Custom Candles; Dreamers Candles; Early American Candle; Empire Candle Manufacturing, LLC; Evan Scent, Inc.; General Wax & Candle Co.; GlobalTech Industries, Inc.; Gold Canyon Candles, LLC; Guildhouse—An American Greetings Corp.; Hanna's Candle Co.; Heartland Fragrance & Herb Co.; Heritage Candles, Inc.; Hillhouse Natural Farms, Ltd.; Home Essentials, LLC; Home Fragrance Holdings, Inc.; Hot Wax Candle Co., Inc.; Lamplight Farms; Laredo Candle Co.; Latitudes Intl.; Lumi-Lite Candle Co., Inc.; Miracle Candle Co.; Natures Finest Candles; Old Virginia Candle Co.; Old Williamsburgh Candle Corp.; Olio, Inc.; Panacea Products Corp.; Park Avenue Candles; Primal Elements, Inc.; Private Gardens—Trapp Candles; Reed Candle Co.; Root Candles; Salt City Candle Co.; Starlume, Inc.; Surgipath Medical Industries, Inc. dba Cera Bella; Suzzette's Cabin Candles; Tyler Candle Co.; USA Labs, Inc.; Votivo, Ltd.; Williamsburg Soap and Candle Co.; Wizard Candles, Inc.; and Yankee Candle Co, Inc. (collectively “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's Regulations (“Sunset Regulations”). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(E) of the Act, as a trade association, the majority of members of which manufacture, produce, or wholesale a domestic-like product in the United States. We received a complete substantive response only from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no response from the respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)( 2 ), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of this order.

The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were originally classifiable under the Tariff Schedules of the United States item 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule item number 3406.00.00.

The Department determined several products were excluded from the scope of this order. For a complete list of the Department's scope rulings, please check our Web site at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/download/candles-prc-scope. Also, additional scope determinations are pending. The written description remains dispositive.

All issues raised in these reviews are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“Decision Memo”) from Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Director, Office of Policy, Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 10, 2004, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “December 2004.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on candles from the PRC would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Background

On August 5, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. In the Preliminary Results, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily rescinded the review of the antidumping duty order on sebacic acid from the PRC for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, with respect to subject merchandise exported to the United States by Tianjin Chemical Import and Export Corporation. On August 31, 2004, the Department issued a Memorandum to the File from Jennifer Moats entitled “Analysis for the Post-Preliminary Calculation of Sebacic Acid from the People's Republic of China: Guangdong Chemicals Import and Export Corporation” to correct an error made in the Preliminary Results. This review covers subject merchandise exported by Guangdong. The POR is July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003.

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of review. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by this order are all grades of sebacic acid, a dicarboxylic acid with the formula (CH 2 ) 8 (COOH) 2 , which include but are not limited to CP Grade (500 ppm maximum ash, 25 maximum APHA color), Purified Grade (1000 ppm maximum ash, 50 maximum APHA color), and Nylon Grade (500 ppm maximum ash, 70 maximum ICV color). The principle difference between the grades is the quantity of ash and color. Sebacic acid contains a minimum of 85 percent dibasic acids of which the predominant species is the C 10 dibasic acid. Sebacic acid is sold generally as a free-flowing powder/flake.

Sebacic acid has numerous industrial uses, including the production of nylon 6/10(a polymer used for paintbrush and toothbrush bristles and paper machine felts), plasticizers, esters, automotive coolants, polyamides, polyester castings and films, inks and adhesives, lubricants, and polyurethane castings and coatings.

Sebacic acid is currently classifiable under subheading 2917.13.00.30 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Guangdong has requested a separate, company-specific antidumping duty rate. In the Preliminary Results , we found that Guangdong met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. We have not received any other information since the Preliminary Results which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rate determination with respect to Guangdong. Therefore, we determine that Guangdong should be assigned an individual dumping margin in this administrative review.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” ( Decision Memo ) from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated December 10, 2004, which is adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo , is attached to this notice as an appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Record Unit, room B-099, of the main Commerce building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/summary/countrylist.htm under the heading “China.” The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

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

Specifically, for these final results, we have revalued activated carbon with a more type-specific price quote consistent with our practice, revalued labor with updated labor statistics, revalued capryl alcohol with a more recently submitted value for octanol, and made the necessary corrections for clerical errors in the Preliminary Results.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003:

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

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Guangdong will be 29.87 percent; (2) for a company previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) the cash deposit rate for the NME/PRC entity will continue to be the NME/PRC-wide rate ( i.e. , 243.40 percent); and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. There are no changes to the rates applicable to any other companies under this antidumping duty order.

The Department will disclose calculations performed in connection with the final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b) of its regulations. This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

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

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

Regulations at 50 CFR part 660.16 require that all vessels with Federal permits to fish in the Southwest display the vessel's official number. Regulations at 50 CFR part 300.35 require that vessels in the South Pacific tuna purse seine fishery must display their international radio call sign on the hull, the deck, and on the sides of auxiliary equipment such as skiffs and helicopters. The numbers must be a specific size at specified locations. The display of the identifying number aids in fishery law enforcement.

No information is collected.

OMB Number: 0648-0361.

Form Number: None.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations, and individuals or households.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,481.

Estimated Time Per Response: 45 minutes (15 minutes for each of three markings) for non-purse seine vessels; and 1 hour and 15 minutes for purse seine vessels.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,130.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: 17,000.

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.

January 10, 2005, 7 p.m., Salmon Troller's Hall, 19292 South Harbor Drive, Fort Bragg, CA.

January 11, 2005, 7 p.m., Community Center Auditorium, 1001 Kennedy Way, Morro Bay. Morro Bay, CA.

January 12, 2005, 7 p.m. California Department of Fish and Game, Los Alamitos Field Office and Laboratory, 4665 Lampson Ave., Suite C, Los Alamitos, CA.

January 25, 2005 6 p.m., Ocasta High School, 2580 Montesano Street South, Westport, WA.

January 31, 2005, 6 p.m., Hatfield Marine Science Center, Room 32, 2040 SE Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR.

February 1, 2005, 6 p.m., Oregon State University, Seafood Laboratory, 2021 Marine Drive, Astoria, OR, and

February 7, 2005, 6 p.m., Gable Chambers at City Hall, 555 W. 20th St. Port Orford, OR.

In 2003, the Council began using depth-based management for commercial and recreational groundfish fishing in order to avoid harvest of overfished groundfish species. Depth-based management allows or disallows fishing in certain depth zones. Depth-based management can be difficult to enforce with limited state and Federal enforcement resources. To improve the enforceability of depth-based management areas, the NMFS implemented a vessel monitoring program on January 1, 2004.

Vessels registered to limited entry permits are currently required to carry and use a VMS transceiver unit and to provide declaration reports before fishing with allowed gear in areas with depth-based fishing regulations. At this time, open access exempted trawl and tribal trawl vessels are also required to provide declaration reports before fishing with allowed gear in areas with depth-based fishing regulations. While VMS creates additional costs and responsibilities for both managers and fishermen, it allows more fishing than would otherwise be possible using traditional enforcement tools. VMS uses electronic transmitters, placed on fishing vessels, to transmit information about a vessel's position to a communications provider via satellite, where it is relayed to NMFS enforcement. This allows someone on land, monitoring such transmissions, to determine if a vessel is in a closed area.

Issues related to the implementation of VMS include the variety of VMS equipment and associated costs, the vessels's physical ability to carry VMS, VMS operating requirements, vessel coverage (the portion of the fleet that is required to carry and use VMS), and coordination with traditional enforcement techniques. Because most of these issues were addressed during the initial implementation of VMS, they are not being addressed at this time. The only issue currently being considered is the level of coverage necessary for the open access fisheries.

Between September and December 2002, the Council's Enforcement Consultants group recommended VMS equipment requirements, identified approximate fleet sizes for fishing sectors likely to be considered for VMS units, and estimated the cost associated with purchase, installation, and operation of VMS. In November 2002, the Council made recommendations to NMFS regarding vessel coverage, costs, and gear regulations.

In 2003, NMFS prepared a proposed rule for a pilot VMS program for the limited entry fleet. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2003 (68 FR 27972). On November 4, 2003, the final rule implementing the pilot VMS program in 2004 was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 62374). A list of approved VMS units was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2003 (68 FR 64860). At its November 2003 meeting the Council considered expansion of the VMS program into other sectors of the groundfish fishery. However, the Council delayed a decision about program expansion until the pilot program was fully implemented in 2004.

At the June 2004 Council meeting, NMFS reported on the successful implementation of the VMS program in the limited entry fisheries and the associated telephone declaration system. Nearly 300 VMS units have been activated, generating more than 1.6 million position reports in conjunction with over 800 declaration reports. At its September 2004 meeting, the Council reviewed a range of alternatives for program expansion. Incorporating comments from the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel and the public, the Council adopted a range of alternatives for expanding the VMS program into the open access groundfish fisheries. The alternatives being considered focus on directed open access groundfish vessel, but also include vessels in other target fisheries that incidentally take and retain groundfish in Federal waters (seaward of 3 nm). Vessels that only fish in state waters are not being considered for this program.

To allow time for public review of the alternatives, the Council has delayed action on expanding the VMS program until the April 2005 Council meeting, and has recommended an October 1, 2005 implementation date. The purpose of these public meetings is for NMFS to provide the interested public with information regarding the expansion of VMS into the open access fisheries in Federal waters.

These meetings are accessible to people with physical disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Becky Renko (206) 526-6110 (voice) or (206) 526-6736 (fax), at least 5 working days prior to the scheduled meeting date.

None.

None.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District (Corps) has the responsibility to operate and maintain the congressionally authorized Federal navigation channel in the lower Snake River from McNary reservoir on the mid-Columbia River up the Snake River to Lewiston, Idaho at the confluence of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. The Corps is authorized by Congress to maintain a channel 250 feet wide and 14 feet deep as measured at minimum regulated flows. Historically the Corps has routinely dredged accumulated sediments from the navigation channel to maintain its operational efficiency. The Corps has not performed maintenance dredging in the channel since the winter of 1998-1999.

Presently sediment has accumulated in the Federal navigation channel to the point that the channel is less than 14 feet deep at minimum pool at several locations. Sediment has also accumulated in port berthing facilities in the Lewiston-Clarkston area, reducing the water depth at those facilities to less than 14 feet. The shallow water depths in the Federal channel and port facilities are interfering with commercial navigation and creating a potentially hazardous situation. Barge companies and commercial vessels are having difficulty accessing port facilities and navigating the federal channel due to shallow conditions. In response to these conditions they have made costly operational changes. Additional sediment accumulation could render these operational changes ineffective and increase the potential for safety hazards and additional economic impact.

The Corps recognizes the need to restore the authorized depth of the navigation channel and port facilities, and that additional sediment is likely to accumulate with each successive spring runoff. Therefore, the Corps proposes to take action at the first opportunity following the spring 2005 runoff to address the accumulated sediment. The local ports will fund any actions the Corps takes within the port facilities. The Corps will consider both dredging and non-dredging measures, either separately or in combination. Measures identified to date include no action, sediment reduction, reservoir drawdown/flushing, dredging with traditional protocols, and dredging with beneficial use of dredged material.

At this time, the Corps does not plan to conduct public scoping meetings for this EIS. However, affected Federal, state, and local agencies; Indian tribess; and other interested organizations and individuals are invited to provide input to the Corps on the scope of this EIS. To ensure consideration, input on the scope should be provided to the Corps by comment date ( see DATES ). Additional opportunities for public input on the EIS will be provided during the normal review periods for the draft and final EIS.

The draft EIS is currently scheduled to be available for public review in early 2005.

Proposed Agenda: An Executive Session of the Board will meet to discuss action items from past meetings and ongoing initiatives.

This meeting is open to the public, but since seating capacity of the meeting room is limited, advance notice of intent to attend, although not required, is requested in order to assure adequate arrangements for those wishing to attend.

Pursuant to the Commission's rules governing petitions for reconsideration, the Commission invites interested parties to update the record pertaining to the petition for reconsideration filed by the Competitive Telecommunications Association (CompTel) and Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). In the Numbering Resource Optimization Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NRO Order), 65 FR 37703, June 16, 2000, the Commission, inter alia , adopted a mandatory utilization data reporting requirement, a uniform set of categories of numbers for which carriers must report their utilization, and a utilization threshold framework to increase carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently. Subsequent to the NRO Order, the Commission released a Public Notice stating that the reporting requirements established in the NRO Order apply to all carriers that receive numbering resources from the NANPA ( i.e. , code holders), or that receive numbering resources from a Pooling Administrator in thousands blocks ( i.e. , block holders), including the 500 and 900 numbering plan areas (NPAs).

On July 12, 2001, CompTel and PCIA jointly filed a petition for reconsideration insisting that 500 and 900 NPAs were not included in the NRO Order. Because the petition for reconsideration was filed some time ago, the passage of time and intervening developments may have rendered the records developed for those petitions stale. Moreover, some issues raised in the petition for reconsideration may have become moot or irrelevant in light of intervening events.

For these reasons, the Wireline Competition Bureau requests the petitioners identify issues from the petition that remain unresolved now and supplement the petition, in writing, to indicate which findings they still wish to be reconsidered. To the extent that intervening events may have materially altered the circumstances surrounding the filed petition or the relief sought by filing parties, those entities may refresh the record with new information or arguments related to their original petition that they believe to be relevant to the issues. The previously filed petition will be deemed withdrawn and will be dismissed if parties do not indicate in writing an intent to pursue their petition for reconsideration.

Petitioners may file supplemental comments updating their previously filed petition for reconsideration on or before December 30, 2004. Reply Comments are due on or before January 6, 2005. All pleadings are to reference CC Docket No. 99-200. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

One (1) courtesy copy should also be sent to Sheryl Todd, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, Room 5-B540, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).

The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

The original petition for reconsideration that CompTel and PCIA jointly filed in 2001 is available for inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th St. SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com.

This matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200 and 1.1206. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one-or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

The Bureau has debarred Mr. John Dotson from the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism for a period of three years pursuant to 47 CFR 54.521 and 47 CFR 0.111(a)(14). The Commission previously suspended Mr. John Dotson from the schools and libraries mechanism, pending debarment proceedings. See 69 FR 62047, October 22, 2004. Attached is the debarment letter, Notice of Debarment; Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, DA 04-3828, which was mailed to Mr. John Dotson and released on December 6, 2004, in turn attached the suspension letter, Notice Of Suspension and of Proposed Debarment Proceedings, DA 04-3209. The complete text of the debarment letter with attachment 1 is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, the complete text of this letter may be retrieved from the FCC's Web site at www.fcc.gov. The text may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 202-863-2898, or via e-mail qualexint@aol.com.

The debarment letter, with attached suspension letter, follows:

Under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, SACHRP was established to provide expert advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Assistant Secretary for Health on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects.

On January 31, 2005, SACHRP will receive and discuss reports from its three subcommittees, the Subpart C subcommittee (HHS regulations and policies for research involving prisoners); the Subcommittee on Research Involving Children; and the newly formed Subpart A Subcommittee. The first two subcommittees were established by SACHRP at its meeting held on July 22, 2003, and the Subpart A Subcommittee was established at the SACHRP's fourth meeting on October 5, 2004, to provide assistance in addressing issues related to the specified topics.

On February 1, 2005, SACHRP will hear presentations from experts on the following topics: Adverse Events reporting and Compliance Oversight Issues.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact persons. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments on both days of the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed materials distributed to SACHRP members for this scheduled meeting should submit materials to the Executive Director, SACHRP, prior to the close of business on January 14, 2005.

Information about SACHRP and the draft meeting agenda will be posted on the SACHRP Web site at http://www.dhhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/index.html.

In 1988, CMS modified an SOR under the authority of sections 1842 (r)-(42 U.S.C. 1395u) of Public Law 101-508; 1861(s)(1)-(42 U.S.C. 1395x); sections 1833 (q)(1)-(42 U.S.C. 1395l); 1842(b)(18)-(42 U.S.C. 1395u); (1842 (h)(4) & (5)-(42 U.S.C. 1395u); and 4164 of Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA). Section 1871 (a)(1)-(42 U.S.C. 1395hh) provides that the Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the administration of the insurance program under Title XVIII. Section 1833 (d)-(42 U.S.C. 1395l), prohibits making payment under Part B for services which are payable under Part A. Notice for this system, “Unique Physician/Practitioner Identification Number (UPIN),” System No. 09-70-0525, was most recently published in full at 54 FR 28119 (July 5, 1989), an expanded function and purpose of system and name change are at 61 FR 20528, (May 7, 1996), an unnumbered routine use was added for the Social Security Administration (SSA) at 61 FR 6645 (Feb. 21, 1996), three new fraud and abuse routine uses were added at 63 FR 38414 (July 16, 1998), and then at 65 FR 50552 (Aug. 18, 2000), two of the fraud and abuse routine uses were revised and a third deleted. UPIN contains records of all physicians, non-physician practitioners and medical group practice as defined by section 1861(r)-(42 U.S.C. 1395x), 1877(h) (4)-(42 U.S.C. 1395) of Title XVIII of the Act, who provide services for which payment is made under Medicare. By uniquely identifying all Part B health professional and practitioners and groups, CMS believes we will eliminate the possibility of double payment.

Medicare carriers currently identify physicians, non-physician practitioners and groups using their own individual systems of assigned numbers. These individualized systems allow for Physician Identification Numbers (PIN) ranging from 4 to 16 alphabetic and/or numeric characters. Some carriers assign separate PINs to the same physician providing medical services in more than one locality, office or practice and lack the capability to cross reference the PIN and related physician data (e.g., group affiliation).

Other carriers maintain a single PIN or cross-referenced PIN for each physician practicing within the carrier's geographic area of responsibility. The assignment of a unique, nationwide identification number will help eliminate the possibility of double billing where physicians, non-physician practitioners, and groups can furnish medical services in, as well as bill for these services from several locations or states which are in different carrier jurisdictions. In addition, independent physicians who have been found to be ineligible for Medicare payments in one area, location or state are prevented from receiving inappropriate or illegal payment in one or more other areas, locations or states.

In order to rectify the problems inherent in these individualized identification systems, CMS proposed to expand the Registry under Congressional mandate (Section 9202 of the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985, Public Law 99272), that created a uniform record system under UPIN. The proposed changes to this national system or Registry of Unique Physician/Practitioner Identification Number will enable CMS to more readily identify all physicians, non-physician practitioners, and group practices deemed ineligible for Medicare payments and maintain more comprehensive data on physician credentials.

The records contain a UPIN for each physician, non-physician practitioner, and medical group practices defined by sections 1124(A)-(42 U.S.C. 1320A-3), 1861(r), 1842(b)(18)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(r), and 1877(h)(4) of the Act who request or receive Medicare reimbursement for medical services. The system contains a UPIN, tax identification, and social security number for each physician, non-physician practitioner and medical group. Also, the system contains information concerning a provider's birth date, place of residence, medical education, and eligibility information necessary for Medicare reimbursement.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release UPIN information that can be associated with each physician, non-physician practitioner and medical group practices as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use. Identifiable data includes individual records with UPIN information and identifiers. Non-identifiable data includes individual records with UPIN information and masked identifiers or UPIN information with identifiers stripped out of the file.

We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of UPIN. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. In general, disclosure of information from the system of records will be approved only for the minimum information necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected; e.g., assure accurate identification of each physician, non-physician practitioner, or medical group practice requesting or receiving Medicare payment.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. the purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. there is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may release information from the UPIN without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. We propose to establish or modify the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To provide beneficiaries and other individuals, the identification of each physician or non-physician practitioner who have been assigned a Unique Physician/Practitioner Identification Number (UPIN) and who are participating in the Medicare program.

Beneficiaries and providers often request the help of Medicare contractors (carriers and intermediaries) in the proper identification of physicians and non-physician providers participating in the Medicare program. The Secretary of HHS is required under provision of section 1863 of the Act to provide to the public certain information maintained in this system that serves this purpose.

2. To support Agency contractors or consultants who have been engaged by the Agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this SOR and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a CMS function relating to purposes for this SOR.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or consultant whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or consultant from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor or consultant to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

Carriers and intermediaries occasionally work with contractors to identify and recover erroneous Medicare payments for which workers' compensation programs are liable.

3. To assist another Federal or state agency, agency of a state government, an agency established by state law, or its fiscal agent pursuant to agreements with CMS to:

a. Contribute to the accuracy of CMS's proper payment of Medicare benefits,

b. Enable such agency to administer a Federal health benefits program, or as necessary to enable such agency to fulfill a requirement of a Federal statute or regulation that implements a health benefits program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds, and/or

c. Assist Federal/state Medicaid programs within the state.

Other Federal or state agencies in their administration of a Federal health program may require UPIN information for the purposes of determining, evaluating, and/or assessing cost, effectiveness, and/or the quality of health care services provided in the state, to support evaluations and monitoring of Medicare claims information of beneficiaries, including proper reimbursement for services provided.

RRB requires UPIN information to enable them to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the Medicare program.

SSA requires UPIN data to enable them to assist in the implementation and maintenance of the Medicare program.

The Internal Revenue Service may require UPIN data for the application of tax penalties against employers and employee organizations that contribute to Employer Group Health Plan or Large Group Health Plans that are not in compliance with 42 U.S.C. 1395y (b).

State and other governmental worker's compensation agencies working with CMS to assure that workers' compensation payments are made where Medicare has erroneously paid and workers' compensation programs are liable.

Disclosure under this routine use shall be used by state Medicaid agencies pursuant to agreements with HHS for administration of state supplementation payments for determinations of eligibility for Medicaid, for enrollment of welfare recipients for medical insurance under section 1843 of the Act, for quality control studies, for determining eligibility of recipients of assistance under Titles IV, and XVIII of the Act, and for the complete administration of the Medicaid program.

Occasionally state licensing boards require access to the UPIN data for review of unethical practices or nonprofessional conduct.

We also contemplate disclosing information under this routine use in situations in which state auditing agencies require UPIN information for auditing of Medicaid eligibility considerations. Disclosure of physicians' customary charge data are made to state audit agencies in order to ascertain the correctness of Title XVIII charges and payments. CMS may enter into an agreement with state auditing agencies to assist in accomplishing functions relating to the purposes for this SOR.

4. To assist Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO) in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities, conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.

QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to state agencies. QIOs will assist the state agencies in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

5. To provide the American Medical Association (AMA), for the purpose of assisting CMS to identify medical doctors when CMS is unable to establish an identity, provided the AMA agrees to:

a. Use the information provided by CMS solely to identify a medical doctor;

b. Make no copies of the information it receives from the CMS, except for one back-up copy;

c. Return such information to CMS upon completion of its matching operation, and erase the back-up copy;

d. Establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of the records; and,

e. Sign a written statement attesting to its understanding of, and willingness to abide by these provisions.

CMS exchanges information with the AMA for the purpose of attempting to identify medical doctors when the UPIN Registry is unable to establish identity after matching carrier-submitted data to the data extract provided by the AMA. The AMA would attempt to establish medical doctor identity by matching the UPIN data to data maintained in the AMA Physician Master File.

6. To support a Member of Congress or congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Beneficiaries and other individuals often request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving an issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

7. To support the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:

a. The Agency or any component thereof, or

b. Any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. Any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. The United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

8. To support a CMS contractor (including, but not limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contract or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

9. To assist another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud or abuse in a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require UPIN information for the purpose of combating fraud and abuse in such Federally funded programs.

This system contains Protected Health Information as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), Subparts A and E. Disclosures of Protected Health Information authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: all pertinent NIST publications; the HHS Automated Information Systems Security Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will monitor the collection and reporting of UPIN data. UPIN information on individuals is completed by contractor personnel and submitted to CMS through standard systems located at different locations. CMS will utilize a variety of onsite and offsite edits and audits to increase the accuracy of UPIN data.

CMS will take precautionary measures (see item IV. above) to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure of identifiable data from the modified system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.

CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

In 1987, CMS established this SOR under the authority of sections 205, 1155, 1156, 1869, and 1872 of the Act. Notice of this system, “Medicare Hearings and Appeals Systems (MHAS), System No. 09-70-5001,” was published at 52 FR 34846 (Sept. 15, 1987), and an unnumbered routine use for disclosure to SSA was added at 61 FR 6645 (Feb. 21, 1996). Additional authority for the maintenance of this system is given under of sections 205 of Title II, sections 1155 and 1156 of Title XI, sections 1812, 1814, 1816, 1842, 1869, and 1872 of Title XVIII of the Act, as amended (42 United States Code (U.S.C.) sections 405, 1320c-4, 1320c-5, 1395d, 1395f, 1395h, 1395u, 1395ff, and 1395ii).

The system contains information concerning Medicare beneficiaries, physicians, providers, and other persons involved in furnishing services to health insurance beneficiaries. Information on beneficiaries consist of name, address, social security numbers (SSN), health insurance claims numbers (HICN), medical services, equipment and supplies for which Medicare reimbursement is requested, and materials used to determine amount of benefits allowable under Medicare. Information on appellants, physicians, and other persons consist of name, work address, work phone number, an assigned provider identification number, specialty, medical services for which Medicare reimbursement is requested, and materials used to determine amounts of benefits allowable under Medicare.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release MAS information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use.

We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MAS. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the SOR will be approved only for the minimum information necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g. , collecting and maintaining information used in processing the appellant's hearing or appeal, to track a particular case, and information necessary to reply to future correspondence.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose (s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest, legally permissible-time all individually-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which CMS may release information from the MAS without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. We are proposing to establish or modify the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system:

1. To support agency contractors, or consultants who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this SOR and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a CMS function relating to purposes for this SOR.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or consultant all information that is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or consultant from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor or consultant to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To assist another Federal agency in the accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this SOR and who need to have access to the records in order to support CMS.

DOJ may require MAS data to assist them in investigating and prosecuting violations of the Act to which criminal penalties attach, or other criminal statutes as they pertain to certain programs authorized by the Act, and for representing the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with another Federal agency to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to purposes for this SOR.

3. To assist Quality Improvement Organizations in connection with review of claims, or in connection with studies or other review activities, conducted pursuant to Part B of Title XI of the Act and in performing affirmative outreach activities to individuals for the purpose of establishing and maintaining their entitlement to Medicare benefits or health insurance plans.

QIOs will work to implement quality improvement programs, provide consultation to CMS, its contractors, and to ensure that payment is only made for medically necessary services. QIOs will assist in related monitoring and enforcement efforts, assist CMS and intermediaries in program integrity assessment, investigate beneficiary complaints about quality of care, and prepare summary information for release to CMS.

4. To support a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Individuals sometimes request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving some issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

5. To support the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when

a. The agency or any component thereof, or

b. Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or

c. Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or

d. The United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, CMS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.

Whenever CMS is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and CMS's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, CMS would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.

6. To support a CMS contractor (including, but not limited to fiscal intermediaries and carriers) that assists in the administration of a CMS-administered health benefits program, or to a grantee of a CMS-administered grant program, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such program.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contract or grant with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to the purpose of combating fraud and abuse.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor or grantee whatever information is necessary for the contractor or grantee to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or grantee from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requiring the contractor or grantee to return or destroy all information.

7. To support another Federal agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States (including any state or local governmental agency), that administers, or that has the authority to investigate potential fraud or abuse in, a health benefits program funded in whole or in part by Federal funds, when disclosure is deemed reasonably necessary by CMS to prevent, deter, discover, detect, investigate, examine, prosecute, sue with respect to, defend against, correct, remedy, or otherwise combat fraud or abuse in such programs.

Other agencies may require MAS information for the purpose of combating fraud and abuse in such Federally funded programs.

This system contains Protected Health Information as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00), Subparts A and E. Disclosures of Protected Health Information authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of data not directly identifiable, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on data where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary.

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management Of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent NIST publications; the HHS Automated Information Systems Security Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MAS. Disclosure of information from the SOR will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure. CMS has assigned a higher level of security clearance for the information in this system to provide added security and protection of data in this system.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.

CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

The 6,240-acre Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge site is in northern Jefferson County and southern Boulder County, Colorado. The Rocky Flats site was used as a nuclear weapons production facility until 1992, when the mission of Rocky Flats changed to environmental cleanup and closure. The majority of the site has remained undisturbed for over 50 years and provides habitat for many wildlife species, including the federally threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse, and several rare plant communities. Under the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, most of the site will become a National Wildlife Refuge once cleanup and closure has been completed. The Refuge will likely be established sometime between 2006 and 2008.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, requires the Service to develop a CCP for the Refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife science, conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, the CCP identifies wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The CCP is intended to be a dynamic document that will be adaptable to changing resource and management conditions.

Significant issues addressed in the Final CCP/EIS include: Vegetation management, wildlife management, public use, cultural resources, property, infrastructure, and refuge operations. The Service developed four alternatives for management of the Refuge: Alternative A—No Action; Alternative B—Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use; Alternative C—Ecological Restoration; and Alternative D—Public Use. All four alternatives outline specific management objectives and strategies related to wildlife and habitat management; public use, education, and interpretation; safety; open and effective communication; working with others; and refuge operations.

Alternative B, the Service's Proposed Action, emphasizes wildlife and habitat conservation with a moderate amount of wildlife-dependent public use. Refuge-wide habitat conservation would include management of native plant communities, weeds, restoration tools, removal and revegetation of unused roads and stream crossings, management of deer and elk populations, prairie dogs, and protection of Preble's meadow jumping mouse habitat. Visitor use facilities would include about 16 miles of trails, a seasonally staffed visitor contact station, trailheads with parking, and developed overlooks. Most of the trails would use existing roads and public access would be by foot, bicycle, horse, or car. A limited public hunting program would be developed.

Public comments were requested, considered, and incorporated throughout the planning process in numerous ways. Some of the changes from the Draft CCP/EIS that resulted from public comments included changes to trail alignments, more flexible trail implementation, changes to the types of weaponry allowed for hunting, more discussion about issues related to cleanup and contamination, and additional discussion about potential impacts from transportation improvements. Public outreach has included public open houses, public hearings, individual outreach activities, planning update mailings, and Federal Register notices. Two previous notices were published in the Federal Register concerning this CCP/EIS (67 FR 54667, August 23, 2002; and 69 FR 7789, February 19, 2004).

During the Draft CCP/EIS comment period that occurred from February 19, 2004 to April 25, 2004, the Service received over 5,000 comments from about 1,000 individuals, agencies, and organizations. Comments were received through public hearing testimony, letters, emails, form letters, and petitions. All substantive issues raised in the comments were addressed in the Final CCP/EIS. Public comments will be available for review at the Front Range Community College Library, Rocky Flats Reading Room or at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center on weekends. Responses to comments will be included as a companion document with the Final CCP/EIS.

The proposed Golden Sunlight Mine pit backfill and reclamation is in response to a District Court order stipulating that reclamation of the open pit be carried out in accordance with the Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act. The public is invited to review and comment on the range and adequacy of the alternatives, potential environmental impacts, and proposed mitigation of impacts in the SEIS. For comments to be most helpful, they should be specific in identifying any concerns or conflicts the reviewer may have with the analysis in the SEIS.

Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

The FEIS complies with NEPA, FLPMA, and BLM management policies as defined in the Las Vegas RMP of 1998. The FEIS contains a summary of the alternatives and resulting impacts of implementing land disposal actions, identifies the preferred alternative (Conservation Transfer), and contains a summary of written and verbal comments received during the 60-day public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and responses to the substantive issues raised during the review. The DEIS was released for public review on September 10, 2004.

Shortly after approval of SNPLMA, the BLM received a rapid increase in the requests for public land disposal. The Clark County Act significantly increased the amount of land available for disposal by adding approximately 22,000 acres to the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Area by amending the boundary defined and approved in SNPLMA. The rapid disposal rate and additional lands created the need to augment the impact analysis conducted for the Las Vegas Resource Management Plan (RMP), signed October 5, 1998. The FEIS addresses the intent of Congress, as manifested in the SNPLMA and the Clark County Act, to provide public land for local community development. This does not preclude other authorized uses of public lands such as applications for Rights-of-Way, Leases, and Recreation and Public Purpose uses pending disposal of public lands located in Clark County, Nevada.

The FEIS analyzes three alternatives. The alternatives include complete disposal, a disposal implementation option (Conservation Transfer) that addresses sensitive environmental resources, and a no action alternative as required by NEPA. The no action alternative to land disposal is a continuation of realty management as specified in the RMP. Comments that were received on the DEIS from the public and internal BLM review comments were incorporated into the FEIS where appropriate. Major resource issues addressed in the FEIS include air quality, surface water hydrology and water quality, water supply and demand, protected and sensitive plant and wildlife species, archaeological and historic sites, paleontological resources, socio-economics, recreation opportunities, and visual characteristics.

BLM intends to proceed with the land sale scheduled for February 2, 2005 ( see Notice of Realty Action, Federal Register , Vol. 69, No. 218, Friday, November 12, 2004, Notices, pages 65450-65454), based in part on the Record of Decision for the Land Disposal FEIS. Copies of the Las Vegas Valley Disposal FEIS have been sent to affected Federal, State and local government agencies and to interested parties.

This action has been prompted by recent rulings of the IBLA and the Court concerning the adequacy of the 1985 Buffalo RMP EIS to support leasing in areas with CBNG potential. The ruling also considered the adequacy of developmental NEPA documents, such as the Wyodak EIS, to support leasing decisions since they do not consider “not issuing the leases at all” as leasing alternatives. The Powder River Basin Oil and Gas EIS Resource Management Plan Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on April 30, 2003. That ROD amended the 1985 Buffalo RMP to expand the anticipated level of use of the resource area for oil and gas and to develop appropriate resource use restrictions to mitigate impacts to other resources. These restrictions were designed to be implemented at the development stage through site-specific Conditions of Approval (COA) on permits. The PRB EIS analyzed the effects on air, water and other resources of the potential for development of 51,000 CBNG wells. This EA will substantially incorporate by reference the impact analysis from the PRB EIS.

This document will also analyze any other new information pertaining to oil and gas leasing in the BFO area. This analysis will tier to the 1985 BFO RMP EIS and may amend the current BFO RMP. Should BLM at any time during the process determine that it will be unable to make a finding of no significant impact, it will commence preparation of an environmental impact statement.

During the preparation of this EA, BLM does not intend to offer parcels in coal bearing areas (generally considered the Fort Union Formation) for oil and gas leasing, these being the areas currently productive for CBNG.

In response to the Court's decision, the BLM is initiating a separate EA to examine its leasing decisions between February 2000 and August 2004 in the coal bearing areas of the BFO area.

In the PRB EIS, BLM carefully reviewed the 1985 land use objectives for the BFO and determined that with the leasing stipulations in the 1985 Buffalo RMP and new mitigation measures approved in the PRB EIS, the 51,000 wells would not result in any social, environmental or economic effects that would preclude accomplishment of one or more of the Buffalo RMP objectives, as long as appropriate mitigation measures are required and applied in site-specific authorizations.

Given the extensive analyses of development stage impacts that have already been prepared to support the increase in the level of use for CBNG and establish the necessary protective measures to be applied at the project level, the purpose of this document will be to take a hard look at oil and gas land use allocations and lease stipulations. This EA will consider options open to the BLM prior to lease issuance and identify those practices that should be applied to leases as stipulations. The options include closing an area to leasing or applying lease stipulations beyond the standard lease stipulations applicable to every lease. Any new restrictions would be applied to the extent lawful and appropriate through the use of Conditions of Approval (COAs) on future development for new leases. An interdisciplinary team approach will be used to develop the EA. At a minimum, the following key disciplines will be represented: air quality, hydrology and ground water, and fluid minerals specialist or petroleum engineer (or both).

Existing land use plan decisions that will be evaluated, and may be amended, include the following:

• Areas to be open, closed, or “open subject to protective stipulations or restrictions to future oil and gas leasing.”

• The necessary level of program constraints, management intensity, and management practices (such as lease stipulations) sufficient to mitigate the impacts of CBNG development and ensure that other resource programs will continue to meet the goals and objectives in the RMP.

• Other decisions as appropriate.

Potential Alternatives: The BLM invites scoping comments on seven potential alternatives:

1. The No Action alternative: Maintain existing land use allocations and leasing decisions based on the 1985 RMP, as amended in 2003.

2. Open the entire Field Office area to leasing while applying standard lease terms and conditions; i.e. , standard environmental and resource protections.

3. Maintain existing land use allocations for areas to be open or closed to consideration for leasing. Develop and consider a new mix of management constraints such as protective stipulations (see the examples below) to be attached as terms of use at lease issuance based on new information, current development scenarios ( i.e. , PRB Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario) and new technologies. For example:

4. Modify areas currently designated as open to leasing with a special lease stipulation that precludes development of CBNG until the planned Buffalo RMP revision, scheduled to begin in FY 2008, is completed. Upon revision of the Buffalo RMP, lessees subject to this restriction may seek modification or waiver pursuant to the terms of the revised RMP following a 30-day public review period.

5. Maintain existing land use allocations and leasing decisions, but close to leasing areas within the six proposed ACECs.

6. Adopt a moratorium on lease sales until completion of the Buffalo RMP revision.

7. Close the BFO to oil and gas leasing.

Planning Criteria: Criteria proposed will include:

This action has been prompted by a recent ruling of the IBLA and the Court concerning the adequacy of the 1985 Buffalo RMP EIS and developmental NEPA documents, such as the Wyodak EIS, to support certain oil and gas leasing decisions. In August 2004, the Court reversed a Federal District court and affirmed the decision of the IBLA that concluded that BLM had insufficient NEPA analysis to make a decision in February 2000 to issue three leases for oil and gas in an area where CBNG was likely to be produced. The Court reinstated IBLA's remand of the issuance of these three leases to BLM for “additional appropriate action.”

In the course of its opinion, the Court stated that the NEPA analysis upon which the BLM relied in issuing three leases “did not consider pre-leasing options, such as not issuing leases at all.” Accordingly, the BLM will evaluate whether to affirm, modify, or cancel the leases, which include the right to develop CBNG. Recognizing that the leases have been issued, the alternatives to be considered in the EA will analyze whether to modify the leasing decisions in light of the remedial issue analysis ( i.e. , after consideration of the appropriate environmental issues foreseeable at the time the leases were offered for sale.)

The rationale of the Court ruling requires that BLM consider those environmental issues found to have been inadequately considered in the 1985 Buffalo RMP EIS. This EA may, however, examine a broader array of environmental issues associated with CBNG leasing decisions that were reasonably foreseeable prior to the issuance of these leases. An array of environmental issues was subject to in-depth re-examination in the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project (PRB) EIS and RMP Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) that was signed April 30, 2003. The ROD amended the 1985 Buffalo RMP to raise the anticipated level of use of the resource area for oil and gas and to develop appropriate resource use restrictions to mitigate impacts to other resources.

In the PRB EIS, the BLM carefully analyzed the cumulative effects on air, water, and other resources of the potential development of 51,000 CBNG wells. The BLM determined that with the leasing stipulations in the 1985 Buffalo RMP and new mitigation measures approved in the PRB EIS, the 51,000 wells would not result in any social, environmental, or economic effects that would preclude accomplishment of one or more of the 1985 Buffalo RMP objectives as long as appropriate conditions of use are required. This EA may substantially incorporate by reference impact analyses from the PRB EIS.

BLM is including in the scope of the EA the three leases that were the subject of the Court and IBLA's decisions, as well as 418 additional oil and gas leases that have been issued since February 2000 within the Buffalo Field Office administrative area. BLM will take a “hard look” at the environmental consequence of each alternative and has not foreclosed, simply because of the difficulty of implemention, choosing to implement any of the alternatives under review.

In addition to this EA, BLM is preparing an EA to consider continued implementation of the leasing decisions in the Buffalo RMP in future years.

Potential Alternatives: For the purposes of analysis, the BLM has developed the following reasonable range of comprehensive alternatives, and will analyze particular environmental issues that were foreseeable at the time the leases were offered for sale:

1. No Action Alternative: Affirm the issuance of 421 leases on the terms prescribed in the 1985 RMP, as amended.

2. Modify leases to add stipulations to address issues such as water disposal, use of diesel engines, slopes, erosive soils, and proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).

3. Modify leases to subject them to less restrictive stipulations consistent with the 1985 RMP, as amended.

4. Modify leases to preclude development of CBNG. We believe that this is what the Court meant by “not issuing the leases at all,” since the Court found no problems with the adequacy of existing NEPA analyses to support leasing for conventional oil and gas.

The Southwest Colorado RAC advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of public land issues in Colorado.

Topics of discussion for all Southwest Colorado RAC meetings may include the BLM National Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy, committee reports, recreation, fire management, land use planning, invasive species management, energy and minerals management, travel management, wilderness, land exchange proposals, cultural resource management, and other issues as appropriate.

These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the RACs. Each formal RAC meeting will also have time, as identified above, allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

BLM published a Notice of Request for Comments on Potential for Oil Shale Development on November 22, 2004; see 69 FR 67935. The purpose of this notice is to extend the comment period from December 22, 2004 to January 31, 2005. The United States holds over 50 percent of the world's oil shale resources, which contain 2.6 trillion barrels of oil. These resources include the oil shale deposits in the Green River formation in the Western United States.

This survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The lands we surveyed are:

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of portions of the township boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines and portions of various U.S. Surveys and the survey of the Lock and Dam No. 25 acquisition boundary, in Townships 49 and 50 North, Ranges 2 and 3 East, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and was accepted on November 30, 2004.

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be made available to the public as a matter of information.

Prohibited Acts: The following acts are prohibited in the closure area.

A. Operating a motorized vehicle of any kind, including stopping, standing, or parking in the closure area.

Limited Exceptions: Motor vehicles may be operated across the crest of Keswick Dam 24 hours a day in compliance with all signs and other directions posted or disclosed. This limited exception to the closure order may be revoked at any time to meet operational, security, or safety concerns as determined by the area manager or his/her designee.

General Exception: Reclamation employees acting within the scope of their employment; operations, maintenance, and construction personnel that have express written authorization from Reclamation; law enforcement and fire department officials; ambulances and others who have received express written authorization to enter the closure area.

B. Entering the closure area on foot, on bicycle, or by any other means.

Limited Exceptions: Pedestrians and bicyclist may enter that portion of the closure area that crosses the crest of Keswick Dam on the roadway or walkway across the dam. All persons shall comply with all signs and other directions as posted or disclosed. This limited exception to the closure order may be revoked at any time to meet operational, security, or safety concerns as determined by the area manager or his/her designee. Reclamation employees acting within the scope of their employment; operations, maintenance, and construction personnel that have express authorization from Reclamation; law enforcement and fire department officials; and others who have received express written authorization from Reclamation to enter the closure area.

C. Operating a vessel or watercraft of any kind, swimming, or scuba diving.

Limited Exceptions: Reclamation employees acting within the scope of their employment; operations, maintenance, and construction personnel that have express authorization from Reclamation; law enforcement and fire department officials; and other who have received express written authorization from Reclamation to enter the closure area.

D. Carrying or discharging firearms.

Exceptions: Law Enforcement, i.e. Federal, state, and local agencies and others who have received express written authorization from Reclamation to enter the closure area.

E. Carrying or using any other type of weapons, including explosives of any kind.

F. Fires.

G. Vandalism or destroying, injuring, defacing, or damaging property or real property that is not under one's lawful control or possession.

This order is posted in accordance with 43 CFR 423.3(b). Violation of the prohibition or any prohibition listed in 43 CFR part 423 is punishable by fine or imprisonment for not more then 6 months, or both.

The CVP was first authorized as a Federal project in 1935 and includes facilities on the Sacramento River. Prior to the authorization of the CVP, individuals and entities along the Sacramento River were diverting water for irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) uses under various claims of right. Construction of CVP dams on the Sacramento River and the Trinity River modified the flows of the Sacramento River. To settle controversy over assertions of rights, the United States, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, negotiated the Settlement Contracts to provide agreement on diversion of the natural flow of the Sacramento River and stored CVP water. Using jointly conducted studies, the parties negotiated to arrive at agreed amounts of Base Supply and Project Water. Base Supply is water the Settlement Contractors divert during the period of April through October each year, free of charge in recognition of their unquantified water rights, which existed prior to the construction of the CVP. In addition, Reclamation agreed to provide the Settlement Contractors with certain designated monthly quantities of CVP water, referred to as Project Water, primarily in the months of July, August, and/or September. Project Water is subject to all requirements of the Federal Reclamation Law, including pricing regulations. Base Supply water is subject only to the provisions of the Settlement Contracts and applicable State law. The term of the initial Sacramento River Settlement contracts was not to exceed 40 years, and the contracts were set to expire on March 31, 2004; however, Congress has granted a 2-year extension of the contracts.

The EIS addresses impacts related to the proposed March 2005 renewal of up to 145 Sacramento River Settlement contracts to continue delivery of supplemental Project Water for agricultural and M&I uses and the renewal of a contract with the Colusa Basin Drain Mutual Water Company for Project Water to replace the drain water that is consumptively used. Water would continue to be delivered through existing CVP facilities, with no new construction required. With the exception of Sutter Mutual Water Company and the Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District, the proposed Settlement contracts provide for the continued delivery of the same quantities of Project Water provided for under the expiring Settlement contracts. In addition, the Colusa Basin Drain Mutual Water Company's project water allocation is being reduced from 100,000 to 70,000 acre-feet.

Under the proposed action, the Sacramento River Settlement Contractors would divert up to 1.8 million acre-feet of Base Supply per year from the Sacramento River, and up to 380,000 acre-feet of Project Water per year from the Sacramento River. Twenty of the 145 Settlement Contractors account for approximately 94 percent of the total Settlement contract amount. The proposed contract renewal amounts range in size from 10 to 825,000 acre-feet per year. Contracts would be renewed for a 40-year term. The renewal contracts provide for continued delivery of CVP water to the same lands and for the same purposes of use, with exception of Natomas Central Municipal Water Company which has requested a change from agricultural use to M&I use in the Metro Air Park portion of its service area. The EIS describes and analyzes the effects of the proposed contract renewals on fish resources, vegetation, and wildlife, hydrology, and water quality, recreation, cultural resources, land use, geology and soils, and air quality.

A public hearing was held on Wednesday, October 27, 2004, in Willows, California.

Copies of the Final EIS and ROD are available for public inspection and review at the following locations:

• Bureau of Reclamation, Northern California Area Office, 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, CA 96019-8400 (Shasta County); telephone 530-275-1554

• Bureau of Reclamation, Mid Pacific Construction Office, 1140 West Wood Street, Willows, CA 95988-0988 (Glenn County); telephone 530-934-7066

• Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, CA 95630; telephone 916-988-1707

• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, 6th and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225; telephone 303-445-2072

• Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Public Affairs, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1898; telephone 916-978-5100

• Bureau of Reclamation, Red Bluff Field Office, 22500 Altube Road, Red Bluff, CA 96080 (Tehama County); telephone 530-529-3890

• Natural Resources Library, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001

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

The Commission instituted this investigation on August 18, 2004, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Sanford, L.P. of Freeport, Illinois (“complainant”). 69 FR 52029. The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ink markers and packaging thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 807,818 and 2,721,523 and also by reason of infringement of trade dress. The notice of investigation identified 12 respondents.

On October 27, 2004, the complainant filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation, pursuant to Commission rule 210.14(b), to add three additional respondents: (1) Big Lots Stores, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio; (2) Big Lots, Inc. of Columbus, Ohio; and (3) Two Powers Enterprise Co., Ltd. of Taipei, Taiwan.

On November 4, 2004, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response supporting the motion. No other party responded to the motion.

On November 10, 2004, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation. No petitions for review of the ID were filed.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.42 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.42).

This patent-based section 337 investigation was instituted by the Commission based on a complaint filed by American Biophysics Corporation (“ABC”) of Greenwich, Rhode Island. 68 FR 53752 (September 12, 2003). ABC alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain insect traps by reason of infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,145,243 (hereinafter “the ‘243 patent”) and 6,286,249 (hereinafter “the ‘249 patent”). The complaint named Ferrellgas, LP, of Liberty, Missouri as a respondent. 1

On December 8, 2003, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an initial determination (“ID”) amending the complaint and notice of investigation to add Blue Rhino Global Sourcing, LLC, of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Guangdon Dong Fang Imp. & Exp. Corp. of Shenzhen, China, and Lentek International, Inc. of Kissimmee, Florida (“Lentek”) as respondents. This ID was not reviewed by the Commission (Order No. 5).

On April 19, 2004, the ALJ issued an ID, which was not reviewed by the Commission, finding respondent Lentek in default (Order No. 11). On April 27, 2004, ABC filed a declaration for immediate relief against Lentek based on both patents at issue. On May 24, 2004, ABC filed a motion to amend its request for immediate relief against Lentek by withdrawing its request for relief with respect to the ‘243 patent.

On September 10, 2004, the ALJ issued his final ID finding no violation of section 337 based on a finding of no infringement of claims 1 and 32 of the ‘243 patent by the remaining respondents, Ferrellgas, LP, Blue Rhino Consumer Products, LLC, Blue Rhino Global Sourcing, LLC, and Guangdon Dong Fang Imp. & Exp. Corp. (collectively “Ferrellgas/BlueRhino/GDF”). (On April 9, 2004, the ALJ had issued an unreviewed ID effectively terminating the investigation as to the ‘249 patent with respect to these respondents.)

On September 30, 2004, ABC and respondents, Ferrellgas/Blue Rhino/GDF, filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to all issues based upon a settlement agreement. On October 25, 2004, the Commission granted the joint motion to terminate the investigation against Ferrellgas/BlueRhino/GDF and further requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest and, bonding relating to the default finding of unlawful importation and sale of infringing products by Lentek. The Commission investigative attorney submitted his brief on remedy, the public interest and bonding on November 2, 2004. ABC submitted its briefing on remedy, the public interest and bonding on November 8, 2004. No reply submissions were filed.

The Commission found that each of the statutory requirements of section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E), has been met with respect to defaulting respondent Lentek. Accordingly, pursuant to section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), and Commission rule 210.16(c) 19 CFR 210.16(c), the Commission presumed the facts alleged in the amended complaint to be true. The Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief in this investigation is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed entry of insect traps covered by claims 1-6, 8, 13-15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 34, 36-41 and 44 of the ‘249 patent. The order covers insect traps that are manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, or imported by or on behalf of, Lentek, or any of its affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. The Commission also determined to issue a cease and desist order prohibiting Lentek from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for insect traps covered by the above-mentioned claims of the ‘249 patent. The Commission further determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order. Finally, the Commission determined that the bond under the limited exclusion order during the Presidential review period shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles. The Commission's orders were delivered to the President on the day of their issuance.

The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in section 210.16(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c)).

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. The comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on all respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the NARA request for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collections:

Title: Order Forms for Genealogical Research in the National Archives.

OMB number: 3095-0027.

Agency form numbers: NATF Forms 81, 82, 83, 84. 85, and 86.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Individuals or households.

Estimated number of respondents: 97,600.

Estimated time per response: 10 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 16,267 (rounded up).

Abstract: Submission of requests on a form is necessary to handle in a timely fashion the volume of requests received for these records (approximately 12,000 per year for the NATF 81, approximately 600 per year for the NATF 82, approximately 1,000 per year for the NATF 83, approximately 6,000 per year for the NATF 84, approximately 46,000 per year for the NATF 85, and approximately 32,000 per year for the NATF 86) and the need to obtain specific information from the researcher to search for the records sought. The form is printed on carbonless paper as a multi-part form to allow the researcher to retain a copy of his request and NARA to respond to the researcher on the results of the search or to bill for copies if the researcher wishes to order the copies. As a convenience, the form will allow researchers to provide credit card information to authorize billing and expedited mailing of the copies. You can also use Order Online! ( http://www.archives.gov/research_room/obtain_copies/military_and_genealogy_order_forms.html ) to complete the forms and order the copies.

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

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

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

1. Department of Commerce, Office of Acquisition Management (N1-40-05-1, 1 item, 1 temporary item).

Information concerning agency employees responsible for acquiring and managing goods and services. Records, which are maintained in a web-based system, include data concerning employees' education, training, contract warrants, certifications, and contact information.

2. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs (N1-174-02-4, 44 items, 16 temporary items). Program records of the Bureau, including files relating to such matters as international visitor programs, cooperative activities, technical assistance to foreign countries, grant programs, and immigration policy. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as significant management and policy files, program files for major Bureau components, publications, international and advisory committee files, trade policy files, and research project files.

3. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (N1-398-04-19, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to the publication of notices in the Federal Register , including such records as drafts, final notices, newspaper clippings, and press releases. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

4. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (N1-398-04-20, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Records relating to the agency's responses to internal and external audits, evaluations, and investigations. Included are such records as correspondence, position papers, work plans, studies, and tracking documents. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

5. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (N1-398-04-23, 12 items, 12 temporary items). Reports filed by domestic air carriers regarding such matters as finances, freight losses, scheduled arrival performance, unaccommodated passengers, discounts, and credit extended to political candidates. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

6. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (N1-406-04-5, 5 items, 3 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that are associated with planning, numbering, and designating interstate highways. Also included are duplicate copies of these records. Recordkeeping copies of these files are proposed for permanent retention.

7. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (N1-GRS-04-4, 9 items, 9 temporary items). Addition to the General Records Schedules covering records accumulated by Chief Information Officers. Included are records relating to such matters as information technology program planning, enterprise architecture, IT capital investments, legal and regulatory compliance, the activities of committees, and schedules of daily activities. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

8. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Human Resources and Information Services (N1-64-05-2, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Case files relating to information technology projects, including records documenting various stages of the project such as concept development, system testing, and approvals. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.

9. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register (N1-64-05-3, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Inquiries from researchers and the general public concerning publications, policies, and procedures of the Federal Register and other Government publications. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.

10. Small Business Administration, Office of Capital Access (N1-309-04-1, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Inputs, outputs, master files, and documentation associated with an electronic system which contains information concerning the Small Business Investment Company interim funding process and the New Markets Venture Capital Program. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail.