The Bitterroot, Nez Perce, Payette and Salmon Challis National Forests administer the Frank Church—River of No Return Wilderness. These National Forests chose to address several issues relative to consistent management of the FC-RONR Wilderness. Most of the issues addressed were recreational in nature. The need for consistent management of noxious weeds within the Wilderness was also addressed. A Draft EIS was released in January 1998. Public comment was extremely polarized regarding the recreational issues. Many individuals and interests were concerned that the Alternatives displayed in the DEIS would institute excessively harsh measures to address management of recreational use. On the other hand, public support for an aggressive noxious weeds program was evident in the comments received on this issue.

The Forest Supervisors decided upon a two-prong approach in response to those public comments. (1) They would issue a Supplemental Draft to evaluate additional management actions to respond to public concerns prior to development of a FEIS for revision of the FC-RONRW Management Plan. (2) They would issue a Final Weeds EIS and ROD responsive to public support for a consistent noxious weeds program.

The Weeds FEIS proposed action was to treat 300 sites encompassing 1,775 acres beginning in 1999 and up until the FEIS for revising the FC-RONRW Management Plan was completed. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Weeds FEIS deferred addressing non-treatment practices, including coordination, education, prevention and inventory in the Management Plan Revision FEIS.

The Weeds ROD selected Alternative 2, which consisted of an Aggressive Integrated Weed Treatment Wilderness-wide. Specific actions included:

• Controlling weed populations through a combination of manual, chemical and biological methods;

• Implementing restoration following control methods; and

• Monitoring.

This decision was appealed, and while the Regional Forester upheld the Forests, direction to the Forests reaffirmed the earlier commitment to complete a Noxious Weeds Prevention Strategy as part of the non-treatment practices to be addressed in the revision of the Management Plan FEIS.

The Forests implemented an integrated weed management strategy and committed to readdress non-treatment practices, specifically the Prevention Strategy in the Management Plan FEIS.

The 1999 Weed FEIS analysis was based on nearly 300 inventoried sites encompassing 1,775 acres. The Weed FEIS evaluated, and the ROD adopted, an Adaptive Strategy for future treatment of new weed invasions and expansion of existing infestations. Extensive wildfires burned over 1/2 million acres in and adjacent to the FC-RONR Wilderness during the summer of 2000 and accelerated expansion of noxious weeds into those fire distrubed areas. Recent inventories document sites encompassing 5,204 acres. Therefore, a Supplemental analysis to the Noxious Weeds EIS will be prepared to address the changed conditions. The SEIS will also address an additional herbicide for use in Noxious Weed control (Plateau). Finally, the SEIS will address a Noxious Weed Prevention Strategy for the FC-RONR Wilderness.

The Draft SEIS is expected to be available for public review in October 2003. The comment period on the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register . It is very important that those interested in this analysis participate at that time. To be most helpful, comments on the DSEIS should be as specific as possible. The Final SEIS is scheduled for completion in January 2004. At that time, we will release the Final SEIS along with the Record of Decision (ROD). A 45-day appeal period will follow as required pursuant to 36 CFR 215. Implementation of the decision can occur 5 days following release of the ROD if not appealed or after a favorable appeal decision.

To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. 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 Salmon-Challis National Forest Supervisor has determined that preparation of a Supplemental EIS (Draft and Final) is required in order to address changed conditions and prior agency commitments, under CEQ regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501-1508). The Supplemental EIS will address a proposal by the Salmon-Challis, Bitterroot, Payette and Nez Perce National Forests to address weeds management as described above. That portion of the Boise National Forest that falls within the FC-RONRW is proposed and will be administered by the Salmon-Challis National Forest.

I am the responsible official for release of the Notice of Intent to prepare this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. My address is Salmon-Challis National Forest, 50 Hwy 93 South, Salmon, Idaho 83467. In addition to myself, Deciding Officials will include: Mark Madrid, Forest Supervisor Payette National Forest; Bruce Bernhardt, Forest Supervisor Nez Perce National Forest and Dave Bull, Forest Supervisor Bitterroot National Forest.

Title: Seismic Safety of New Building Construction.

OMB Control Number: 0572-0099.

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

Abstract: The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq. ) was enacted to reduce risks to life and property through the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is designated as the agency with the primary responsibility to plan and coordinate the NEHRP. This program includes the development and implementation of feasible design and construction methods to make structures earthquake resistant. Executive Order 12699 of January 5, 1990, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction, requires that measures to assure seismic safety be imposed on federally assisted new building construction.

Title 7 Part 1792, Subpart C, Seismic Safety of Federally assisted New Building Construction, identifies acceptable seismic standards which must be employed in new building construction funded by loans, grants, or guarantees made by RUS or the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) or through lien accommodations or subordinations approved by RUS or RTB. This subpart implements and explains the provisions of the loan contract utilized by the RUS for both electric and telecommunications borrowers and by the RTB for its telecommunications borrowers requiring construction certifications affirming compliance with the standards.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.5 hours per response.

Respondents: Small business or organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.2.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 800.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Dawn Wolfgang, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 720-0812.

Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Richard Annan, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1522, Room 5168 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522.

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

Deputy Secretary of Commerce Samuel W. Bodman, and Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance William Lash, will lead a senior-level business development mission to Sao Paulo, Brasilia and Recife, Brazil from November 9-13, 2003. The focus of the mission will be to help U.S. companies explore trade and investment opportunities in Brazil. The delegation will include approximately 10-15 U.S.-based senior executives of small, medium and large U.S. firms representing, but not limited to, technology, equipment, and services in the following key growth sectors: infrastructure (port, rail, construction), information technology, security, agribusiness and biotechnology.

Brazil is the largest market in the Western Hemisphere after the United States, with 180 million people and a GDP of over $450 billion. Total trade between the United States and Brazil has held steady at about $30 billion per year. In 2002, Brazil had a $13 billion surplus with the world ($3.4 billion with the U.S.) as a result of an aggressive export strategy, relatively favorable exchange rate regime, and strong agricultural exports.

Brazil offers substantial opportunities for U.S. firms due to the sheer size and sophistication of its internal market. Developing Brazil's infrastructure is a priority for the Lula Administration, and is key to modernizing the underdeveloped Northeast region of the country, as well as furthering efficiency in the Brazil's industrial zones. The Brazilian federal government and many individual states are moving forward on a variety of infrastructure development projects backed by multilateral lending institutions, focusing on transportation and construction. Development of Brazil's technology sector—both information technology and biotechnology—is another priority for the Lula government. Strong links between the research and industry communities offer a wealth of business opportunities across the country. Brazil also has advanced genetic and biotechnology research sectors with a focus on agriculture and agribusiness.

The financial situation in Brazil has greatly improved since last year's Presidential elections. The new administration immediately set out to calm the markets by vowing to maintain strict fiscal policies, fulfill Brazil's debt obligations, promote economic growth, and install pro-business officials in his cabinet. Although high interest rates have dampened internal investment, the Lula Administration has created a solid economic climate by holding inflation in check, reforming part of the tax code, and working to reduce bureaucracy in international trade.

The mission will further U.S. commercial policy objectives, and advance specific U.S. business interests. It is intended to:

• Assist individual U.S. companies to pursue export and other new business opportunities in Brazil by introducing them to key government decision-making officials and potential business partners;

• Evaluate the market potential for the company's products and assist firms in gaining an understanding of how to operate successfully in Brazil's commercial environment;

• Enhance the dialogue between government and industry on issues affecting U.S.-Brazil commercial relations, and build upon the pro-growth agenda launched during the Summit between President Bush and Brazilian President Lula; and

• Promote the benefits of economic growth through liberalized trade and investment policies, especially in the underdeveloped Northeast region of Brazil.

The Business Development Mission will provide participants with exposure to high-level business and government contacts and an understanding of market trends and the commercial environment. American Embassy officials will provide a detailed briefing on the economic, commercial and political climate, and participants will receive individual counseling on their specific interests from the in-country U.S. Commercial Service industry specialists. Meetings will be arranged as appropriate with senior government officials and potential business partners. Representational events also will be organized to provide mission participants with opportunities to meet Brazil's business and government representatives, as well as U.S. business people living and working in Brazil.

The recruitment and selection of private sector participants for this mission will be conducted according to the “Statement of Policy Governing Department of Commerce-Overseas Trade Missions” established in March 1997. Approximately 10-15 companies will be selected for the mission. Companies will be selected according to the criteria set out below.

Applicants must be: (1) incorporated in the United States; and (2) the products and/or services that it will promote (a) must be manufactured or produced in the United States; or (b) if manufactured or produced outside the United States, must be marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service.

Companies will be selected for participation in the mission on the basis of:

• Consistency of company's goals with the scope and desired outcome of the mission as described herein;

• Relevance of a company's business and product line to market opportunities in Brazil;

• Rank of the designated company representative;

• Past, present, or prospective international business activity;

• Diversity of company size, type, location, demographics, and traditional under-representation in business;

• Degree of company's commitment to good corporate citizenship; and

• Timely receipt of signed mission application, participation agreement, and participation fee.

Recruitment will begin immediately and will be conducted in an open and public manner, including publication in the Federal Register , posting on the Commerce Department trade missions calendar— http://www.ita.doc.gov/doctm/tmcal.html —and other Internet websites, press releases to the general and trade media. Promotion of the mission will also take place through the involvement of U.S. Export Assistance Centers and relevant trade associations.

An applicant's partisan political activities (including political contributions) are irrelevant to the selection process.

Applications for the trade mission to Brazil will be made available on or about September 4, 2003. The fee to participate in the mission has not yet been determined, but will be approximately $5,000 to $8,000. The participation fee will not cover travel to and from Brazil or lodging expenses; these will be the responsibility of each mission participant. For additional information on the trade mission or to obtain an application, contact the Office of Business Liaison at (202) 482-1360. Applications should be submitted by October 3, 2003, in order to ensure sufficient time to obtain in-country appointments for applicants selected to participate in the mission. Applications received after that date will be considered only if space and scheduling constraints permit. A mission website will be posted at http://www.commerce.gov/brazilmission2003 to share information as it becomes available. Contact: Office of Business Liaison, Room 5062, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, Tel: (202) 482-1360 Fax: (202) 482-4054, e-mail: obl@doc.gov, http://www.commerce.gov/brazilmission2003.

On April 4, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on ARG Windshields from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Antidumping Duty Order: Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 16087 (April 4, 2002). On April 7, 2003, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001, through March 31, 2003. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 16761 (April 7, 2003). On May 21, 2003, in response to timely requests from respondents subject to the order on ARG windshields from the PRC, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review of sales by respondents, including Changchun Pilkington Safety Glass Company, Ltd., Dongguan Kongwan Automobile Glass, Ltd., Fuyao Glass Industry Group Company, Ltd., Guilin Pilkington Safety Glass Company, Ltd., Peaceful City, Ltd., Shanghai Yaohua Pilkington Autoglass Company, Ltd., Benxum, TCGI, Wuhan Yaohua Pilkington Safety Glass Company, Ltd., and Xinyi of ARG windshields from the PRC for the period September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. See Initiation Notice , 68 FR 27781 (May 21, 2003).

On June 3, 2003, the Department issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the respondents, including Benxum, TCGI, and Xinyi. On July 8, 2003, Benxum submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing its request for an administrative review of sales and entries of subject merchandise exported by Benxum and covered by the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC. On July 31, 2003, TCGI submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing its request for an administrative review of sales and entries of subject merchandise exported by TCGI and covered by the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC. On July 31, 2003, Xinyi submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing its request for an administrative review of sales and entries of subject merchandise exported by Xinyi and covered by the antidumping duty order on ARG windshields from the PRC.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of requested review. Benxum, TCGI, and Xinyi withdrew their respective requests for review within the 90 day time limit; accordingly, we are rescinding this administrative review as to those companies and will issue appropriate assessment instructions to the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. For Benxum and TCGI, the period of the administrative review that is hereby rescinded is September 19, 2001 through March 31, 2003. For Xinxi, the period of the administrative review that is hereby rescinded is February 12, 2002 through March 31, 2003. 1

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 APO is a sanctionable violation.

This determination is issued in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 351.213(d)(4) and section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 11, 2002, the Department issued an antidumping duty questionnaire to TAMSA. On November 1, 2002, TAMSA and Siderca Corporation (TAMSA's U.S. affiliate) claimed that they “did not directly or indirectly, enter for consumption, or sell, export or ship for entry for consumption in the United States subject merchandise during the period of review.” Petitioner subsequently claimed on November 12, 2002, that publicly available import data from the Department's IM-145 database showed that 2,187 metric tons of seamless OCTG from Mexico entered the United States during the POR. Petitioner asserted that TAMSA was the only producer of seamless OCTG in Mexico. Petitioner requested that the Department investigate these transactions to determine whether this merchandise is subject to review. On December 10, 2002, the Department forwarded a no-shipment inquiry to Customs for circulation to all Customs ports. Customs did not indicate to the Department that there was any record of consumption entries during the POR of OCTG from Mexico exported by TAMSA. As part of this investigation, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires on March 28, 2003, and April 14, 2003. On April 4, 2003 and April 23, 2003, TAMSA submitted its responses to the supplemental questionnaires.

The Department has thoroughly investigated proprietary information from U.S. Customs Service (as of March 1, 2003, renamed the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection) (Customs) for all HTSUS numbers covered by the scope of this review. After reviewing the Customs information and the public data submitted by petitioner, the Department determined that the merchandise entered during the POR was exported from a third country or was exported to a foreign trade zone by TAMSA. The Department notes that the merchandise was entered under the proper country of export (the third country or Mexico) and the merchandise was declared as being of Mexican origin and was entered subject to duty.

Finally, the Department requested additional information from Customs and the respondent regarding certain entries. Both Customs and TAMSA submitted information pertaining to these entries ( see August 6, 2003 TAMSA submission). The documentation clearly indicates the merchandise was first admitted into a foreign trade zone. After further analysis we found that these entries were subsequently entered for consumption in the U.S. and were subject to antidumping duties. After reviewing the information, the Department determines that TAMSA had no knowledge that these sales were destined for consumption in the United States. Under these circumstances, Petitioners did not object to rescinding this review involving these entries of subject merchandise produced by TAMSA. See Memorandum to the File From Richard O. Weible dated August 21, 2003.

Accordingly, we are rescinding this review. The cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate established in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

On August 17, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register (58 FR 43755) the countervailing duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Mexico. On August 6, 2002, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review” (67 FR 50856) of this countervailing duty order. On August 30, 2002, we received a timely request for review from Altos Hornos de Mexico, S.A. (AHMSA), the respondent company in this proceeding. On September 25, 2002, we initiated the review covering the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001 (67 FR 60210). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 67 FR 60210 (September 25, 2002).

On September 27, 2002, we issued initial questionnaires to AHMSA and the Government of Mexico (GOM) covering the programs reviewed in the previous segment of the proceeding. On October 22, 2002, petitioners argued that two GOM programs, asset tax relief provided under the Immediate Deduction Program and the Program for Sectoral Promotion (PROSEC), were either subsumed by or successors to programs previously found to be countervailable in this proceeding and, thus, should be included in any questionnaires issued to AHMSA and the GOM. 1 On December 16, 2002, petitioners submitted new subsidy allegations. These allegations included the Immediate Deduction Program and PROSEC as well as the following programs: Provision of Debt Relief from AHMSA's Creditors by Nacional Financiera (NAFIN) and the Coahuila State Government (CGS), Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) Guaranteed Provision of Natural Gas for less than Adequate Remuneration, and Debt Relief on Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior S.N.C. (Bancomext) Loans. Petitioners also alleged that AHMSA was uncreditworthy during calendar year 2000. On January 21, 2003, petitioners submitted additional factual information regarding their new subsidy allegations.

On March 26, 2003, we extended the period for completion of the preliminary results of review pursuant to section 751(a)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act). See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Mexico: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review (68 FR 14580). On April 29, 2003, we issued our first supplemental questionnaires to AHMSA and the GOM.

On June 3, 2003, we issued a memorandum concerning petitioners' new subsidy allegations. In the memorandum, we agreed with petitioners that asset tax relief provided under the Immediate Deduction Program was related to a program previously found countervailable by the Department and that the program merited an examination in the instant proceeding. Furthermore, we initiated investigations of the following programs: Provision of Debt Relief from AHMSA's Creditors by Nacional Financiera (NAFIN) and the Coahuila State Government (CGS), Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) Guaranteed Provision of Natural Gas for less than Adequate Remuneration, and Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior S.N.C. (Bancomext) Debt Relief. In addition, we initiated an investigation of AHMSA's creditworthiness covering calendar year 2000. We declined to initiate an investigation of PROSEC because we found no record evidence to support petitioners allegation that the PROSEC program was countervailable. For more information, see the June 3, 2003, memorandum from the Team to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, the public version of which is on file in Room B-099 of the Central Records Unit (CRU) in the Main Commerce Building ( New Subsidies Memorandum ). The programs for which we initiated investigations are discussed in further detail in the “Creditworthiness and Calculation of Discount Rate” and “Analysis of Programs” sections of this preliminary results notice.

On June 3, 2003, we issued second supplemental questionnaires to AHMSA and the GOM. On June 30, 2003, we issued a third supplemental questionnaire to AHMSA.

From July 16 through July 24, 2003, we conducted a verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by AHMSA and the GOM. The results of our verification are contained in the September 2, 2003, memoranda from Lyman Armstrong to Eric Greynolds, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI (AHMSA Verification Report and GOM Verification Report, respectively), the public versions of which are on file in the CRU.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested, i.e. , AHMSA, and 17 programs.

The products covered by this administrative review are certain cut-to-length carbon steel plates. These products include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included in this administrative review are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( i.e. , products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this administrative review is grade X-70 plate. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation or review, and that the difference between the company-specific AUL and the AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.

In this administrative review, the Department is considering both non-recurring subsidies previously allocated in the initial investigation and non-recurring subsidies received since the period of investigation (POI). For non-recurring subsidies previously allocated in the initial investigation, the Department is using the original allocation period of 15 years. For non-recurring subsidies received since the original investigation, no party to the proceeding has claimed that the AUL listed in the IRS tables did not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the firm or industry under review. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2), we have allocated all of AHMSA's non-recurring subsidies received since the original investigation over 15 years, the AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry.

In the course of this proceeding, we have repeatedly sought information from AHMSA concerning its creditworthiness status during calendar year 2000, in connection with the renegotiation of a loan. See questions C.1 through C.7 of the Department's June 3, 2003, supplemental questionnaire. See also question B.1 of the Department's June 30, 2003, supplemental questionnaire. In both instances, AHMSA responded that it was “unable to respond to the Department's questions on creditworthiness at this time.”  2

Section 776(a) of the Act requires the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. As described above, AHMSA has failed to provide information regarding its creditworthiness during calendar year 2000 in the manner explicitly and repeatedly requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts otherwise available. Lacking a questionnaire response from AHMSA on the issue of its creditworthiness in 2000, we have relied on primary source information from AHMSA that was submitted onto the record of this proceeding prior to the initiation of our creditworthiness investigation. Namely, we have used, as facts available, AHMSA's financial statements for the years 1997 through 2000, as well as information obtained during verification concerning AHMSA's financial standing in 2000. Using this primary source information, we have determined that, for purposes of these preliminary results, AHMSA was uncreditworthy during 2000. For a discussion of our creditworthiness analysis, see the September 2, 2003 memorandum from the team to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, a public document which is on file in the CRU ( Creditworthiness Memorandum ) as well as the “Creditworthiness and Calculation of Discount Rate” section of this preliminary results notice.

In November 1991, the GOM sold all of its ownership interest in AHMSA. Prior to privatization, AHMSA was almost entirely owned by the GOM. Since November 1991, the GOM has held no stock in AHMSA.

In accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Delverde Srl v. United States , 202 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc denied (June 20, 2000) ( Delverde III ), the Department addresses this fact pattern by first determining whether the person who received the subsidies is, in fact, distinct from the person that produced the subject merchandise exported to the United States during the POR. If the two are distinct, the original subsidies may not be attributed to the new producer/exporter. On the other hand, if the original subsidy recipient and the current producer/exporter are considered to be the same person, that person benefits from the original subsidies, and its exports are subject to countervailing duties to offset those subsidies. In other words, in the latter case, we will determine that a “financial contribution” has been made by a government and a “benefit” has been conferred upon the “person” that is the firm under investigation. Assuming that the original subsidy had not been fully amortized under the Department's normal allocation methodology as of the POR, the Department would continue to countervail the remaining benefits of that subsidy. See e.g. , the “Change in Ownership” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order (CVD) on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico—Calendar Year 1998 , 66 FR 14549 (March 12, 2001) ( 1998 Review of CTL Plate ).

In making the “same person” determination, where appropriate and applicable, we analyze factors such as (1) continuity of general business operations, including whether the successor holds itself out as the continuation of the previous enterprise, as may be indicated, for example, by use of the same name, (2) continuity of production facilities, (3) continuity of assets and liabilities, and (4) retention of personnel. No single factor will necessarily provide a dispositive indication of any change in the entity under analysis. Instead, the Department will generally consider the post-sale entity to be the same person as the pre-sale entity if, based on the totality of the factors considered, we determine that the entity sold in the change-in-ownership transaction can be considered a continuous business entity because it was operated in substantially the same manner before and after the change-in-ownership. Id .

In the previous segment of the proceeding, we found that the privatized AHMSA was essentially the same person as that which existed prior to the privatization as a separately-incorporated, GOM-owned steel producer of the same name. As a result of our analysis, we found the subsidies received by the pre-privatized AHMSA to be countervailable. See the “Application of Methodology” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted requiring us to reconsider our finding in this segment of the proceeding ( i.e. , calendar year 2001). Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that the privatized AHMSA is essentially the same person as that which existed prior to the privatization. We further preliminarily determine that allocable subsidies bestowed prior to AHMSA's privatization continue to benefit AHMSA, to the extent that the benefit stream extends into the POR of this segment of the proceeding. 3

In the underlying investigation, we determined, based on information from the GOM, that Mexico experienced significant inflation from 1983 through 1988. See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Steel Products from Mexico, 58 FR 37352 at 37355 (July 9, 1993) ( CTL Plate Investigation ). In accordance with past practice, because we found significant inflation in Mexico and because AHMSA adjusted for inflation in its financial statements, we made adjustments, where necessary, to account for inflation in the benefit calculations.

Because Mexico experienced significant inflation during only a portion of the 15-year allocation period, indexing for the entire period or converting the non-recurring benefits into U.S. dollars at the time of receipt ( i.e. , dollarization) for use in our calculations would have inflated certain allocable benefits by adjusting for inflationary as well as non-inflationary periods. Thus, in the underlying investigation, we used a loan-based methodology to reflect the effects of intermittent high inflation. See CTL Plate Investigation , 58 FR at 37355. The methodology we used in the underlying investigation assumed that, in the absence of a government equity infusion/grant, a company would have needed a 15-year loan that would be rolled over each year at the prevailing nominal interest rates, which for purposes of our calculations are the interest rates based on Costo Porcentual Promedio (CPP) discussed in the “Calculation of Discount Rate and Creditworthiness” section of this notice. The benefit in each year of the 15-year period would be equal to the principal plus the interest payments associated with the loan at the nominal interest rate prevailing in that year.

Because we assumed that an infusion/grant given was equivalent to a 15-year loan at the current rate in the first year, a 14-year loan at current rates in the second year and so on, the benefit after the 15-year period would be zero, as it would be under the Department's grant amortization methodology. Because nominal interest rates were used, the effects of inflation were already incorporated into the benefit. This methodology was upheld in British Steel plc v. United States , 127 F.3d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ( British Steel III ).

In Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 13368 (March 13, 2000) ( 1997 Review of CTL Plate ), we analyzed information provided by the GOM and found that Mexico, again, experienced significant, intermittent inflation during the period 1991 through 1997. See the “Inflation Methodology” section of the Decision Memorandum for the 1997 Review of CTL Plate . In addition, during the 1997 review of CTL Plate, we learned at verification that AHMSA had continued its practice of accounting for inflation in its financial statements. Id. Thus, in the 1997 Review of CTL Plate , we used the benefit calculation methodology from the CTL Plate Investigation , described above, for all non-recurring, peso-denominated grants received since the POI. Id.

No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented thus far in this review to warrant reconsideration of these findings. Thus, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we have continued to use the benefit calculation methodology from the CTL Plate Investigation for all non-recurring, peso-denominated grants received through 1997. 4

In these preliminary results, for those years in which AHMSA received non-recurring grants and equity infusions, we used as our long-term benchmark discount rate the CPP, which is the average cost of funds for banks in Mexico. 5 We note that we converted the CPP rate into a discount rate using the formula that has been used in past Mexican cases. 6 We further note that, for those years in which there were grants and equity infusions and for which the Department had calculated a benchmark interest rate in a prior case, we used the rates calculated in those cases.

As discussed in the “Background” section of this preliminary results notice, we initiated an investigation to determine whether AHMSA was creditworthy during calendar year 2000. As discussed in the “Facts Available” section of this notice, we have made our determination of AHMSA's uncreditworthiness using primary source information from AHMSA that was submitted onto the record of this review prior to our initiation of this inquiry. Upon review of the financial information for AHMSA that is available on the record of this review, we preliminarily find that AHMSA was uncreditworthy during calendar year 2000. For further discussion, see the Creditworthiness Memorandum . Thus, for year 2000, we constructed a discount rate for uncreditworthy companies using the methodology described in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii).

In the underlying investigation, we determined that the GOM made equity infusions into AHMSA during the years 1987, 1990 and 1991. 7 See CTL Plate Investigation , 58 FR at 37356. Shares of common stock were issued for all of these infusions. The GOM made these equity infusions annually as part of its budgetary process, in accordance with the Federal Law on State Companies. At the time of these infusions, AHMSA was almost entirely a government-owned company.

In the underlying investigation, we found AHMSA to be unequityworthy during the years 1987, and in 1990 and 1991. See CTL Plate Investigation 58 FR at 37356. Accordingly, we determined that the equity infusions by the GOM into AHMSA in these years were countervailable. In the 1998 review of CTL Plate, we continued to find this program countervailable. See the “Programs Conferring Subsidies” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of these findings. As a result, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that these equity infusions conferred a benefit and constituted a government financial contribution under sections 771(5)(E)(i) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, respectively. In addition, we continue to find that the equity infusions were specific to a single enterprise within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act.

To calculate the countervailable benefit in the POR, we used the grant allocation methodology for intermittent, significant inflation described above. We then divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the total consolidated sales of AHMSA during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 0.96 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

The Instituto Mexicano de Investigaciones Siderurgicas (IMIS), or the Mexican Institute of Steel Research, was a government-owned research and development organization that performed independent and joint venture research with the iron and steel industry.

In the underlying investigation, the Department found that IMIS's activities with AHMSA fell into two categories: joint venture activities and non-joint venture activities. See CTL Plate Investigation , 58 FR at 37359. We determined that IMIS's non-joint venture activities with AHMSA were not countervailable. However, the Department determined that joint venture activities were countervailable, and we treated IMIS's contributions to joint venture activities as non-recurring grants. Id. We used the same approach in the 1998 review of CTL Plate. AHMSA received grants under this program during the years 1987 through 1991. 8 No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented thus far in this review to warrant reconsideration of these findings. As a result, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that the IMIS grants conferred a benefit and constituted a government financial contribution under sections 771(5)(E) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, respectively. In addition, we continue to find that the IMIS grants were specific to the steel industry under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.

To calculate the countervailable benefit in the POR, we used the grant allocation methodology for intermittent, significant inflation described above. We then divided the benefit attributable to the POR by the total consolidated sales of AHMSA during the same period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 0.04 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

During the verification of the underlying investigation, the Department discovered that the GOM had loaned AHMSA money to cover the cost of personnel lay-offs which the GOM felt were necessary to make AHMSA more attractive to potential purchasers. This loan was made prior to AHMSA's privatization in 1991. The Department also learned that this loan did not accrue interest after September 30, 1991. Further, the Department learned that the GOM was allowing the privatized AHMSA to repay this loan with the transfer of AHMSA assets back to the GOM. The assets AHMSA was using to repay the loan were assets which the Grupo Acero del Norte (GAN), the purchaser of AHMSA, had not wished to purchase but which the GOM included in the sale package. See CTL Plate Investigation , 58 FR at 37360. These assets were characterized as “unnecessary assets” or assets not necessary to the production of steel.

Because the information about this financing and its repayment came to light only at verification of the questionnaire responses submitted during the investigation, we were unable to determine whether this loan relieved AHMSA of an obligation it would otherwise have borne with respect to the laid-off workers. Thus, in the underlying investigation, we calculated the benefit by treating the financing as an interest-free loan. See CTL Plate Investigation , 58 FR at 37361.

In the review covering calendar year 1997, AHMSA claimed that it had extinguished its lay-off financing debt with the transfer of the “unnecessary assets.” See 1997 Review of CTL Plate. See also, Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Mexico: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 64 FR 48796, 48801 (September 8, 1999) ( Preliminary Results of 1997 Review of CTL Plate ). In that review, we noted that the record of the investigation indicated that these assets were included by the GOM in the sale of AHMSA despite the fact that GAN, the purchaser of AHMSA, indicated that it did not wish to purchase those assets, and GAN's bid for AHMSA did not include any funds for those assets. See Preliminary Results of 1997 Review of CTL Plate , 64 FR at 48799. In the 1997 review of CTL Plate, we further noted that the record from the investigation indicated that the value of those assets was frozen in November 1991, and that, as of that date, the assets were neither depreciated nor revalued for inflation, both of which are standard accounting practices in Mexico. See id. 64 FR at 48801.

Although, in the 1997 review of CTL Plate, we noted that a loan that provides countervailable benefits normally ceases to do so once it has been fully repaid, we determined that the benefit to AHMSA with respect to the lay-off financing was essentially in the form of a grant. Specifically, in that review, we determined that AHMSA had repaid the loan with the transfer of assets which AHMSA's purchasers did not wish to purchase and for which they did not pay. See Preliminary Results of 1997 Review of CTL Plate , 64 FR 48801. Thus, in the review covering calendar year 1997, we determined that the GOM's acceptance of these “unnecessary assets” to repay this loan, assets which were effectively given to AHMSA free of charge, constituted debt forgiveness of this loan. Accordingly, we determined that the entire amount of the pre-privatization lay-off financing was a non-recurring grant within the meaning of section 771(5)(E) of the Act that was received in 1994, the time at which the pre-privatization loan was forgiven. We further found that this program constituted a government financial contribution and was specific to a single enterprise within the meaning of sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5A)((D)(iii)(I) of the Act, respectively. We continued to apply this approach in the 1998 review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances was presented in this review to warrant any reconsideration of these findings. Thus, for the purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that the entire amount of the pre-privatization lay-off financing constituted a non-recurring grant received in 1994, the point at which the loan was forgiven.

To calculate the countervailable benefit in this review, we used the grant allocation methodology for intermittent, significant inflation described above. We then divided the benefit from the pre-privatization lay-off financing attributable to the POR by the total consolidated sales of AHMSA during the same period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 0.52 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

As noted above in the “Change-in-Ownership” section, the GOM sold AHMSA to GAN in 1991. To sell the company, the GOM established a bid structure in which bids could be divided into two parts: A cash component and a committed investment component. Under these bidding rules, a potential purchaser of AHMSA could, in lieu of a cash payment to the GOM, agree to make future investments into AHMSA. GAN, the eventual purchaser of AHMSA, made a bid for the company which consisted of a cash payment to the GOM as well as a promise to invest a certain amount into AHMSA in the future. Another bid by a third party, which had a higher cash component, was rejected by the GOM in favor of GAN's bid.

In the 1998 review of CTL Plate, we found that, because the transaction in question involved only the sale of AHMSA, the actions of the GOM were specific to a single enterprise within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. See the “Committed Investment” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate . We further found that the record reflected that the GOM, in accepting GAN's bid, considered one-half of GAN's committed investment to be equivalent to the payment of cash. Therefore, we used this amount as a proxy for the amount of revenue foregone by the GOM in its sale of AHMSA, within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Id. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented thus far in this review to warrant any reconsideration of these findings. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that GAN's committed investment into AHMSA was specific and constituted a government financial contribution within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, we continue to find that this program conferred a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

Accordingly, we have treated this benefit as a non-recurring grant in the amount of the revenue foregone and allocated it over time using our standard grant formula. 9 We then converted the benefit attributable to the POR into pesos using the average annual peso/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POR. Finally, we divided the resulting peso-denominated benefit amount by AHMSA's total consolidated sales during the POR. On this basis, we determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 2.21 percent ad valorem.

In 1987, the GOM negotiated agreements with foreign creditors to restructure the debt of AHMSA. The GOM again negotiated on behalf of AHMSA debt restructuring agreements in 1988 and 1990. Under these agreements, the GOM purchased AHMSA's debts, which were denominated in several foreign currencies, from AHMSA's foreign creditors in exchange for GOM debt. The GOM thereby became the creditor for loans included in these agreements.

In the underlying investigation, the GOM claimed that AHMSA's principal repayment obligations remained the same after the debt restructuring. However, in that investigation, we could not confirm during verification that AHMSA's principal obligations on its debt had not been forgiven in the 1988 and 1990 debt restructuring agreements. Thus, based upon the facts available to the Department at the time of the investigation, we assumed that the principal had been forgiven and that this had been reflected in the amount of the discount the GOM had received when purchasing the debt from AHMSA's foreign creditors. Accordingly, we treated the forgiven principal as a non-recurring grant.

In the 1997 review of CTL Plate, AHMSA claimed that, in June 1996, it had repaid its restructured debt in the form of a discounted prepayment to the GOM, thereby extinguishing its financial obligations to the GOM. During verification of the questionnaire response submitted during that administrative review, we learned that, in order to determine the amount of the discounted prepayment that AHMSA was to make in June of 1996, the company and the GOM had created amortization tables for each of the foreign currency loans. Next, they had converted these payment streams into U.S. dollars and calculated the net present value for each payment stream. They had then summed the U.S. dollar denominated net present values to derive the amount of the discounted prepayment to be made in U.S. dollars.

In the 1997 review of CTL Plate, we determined that AHMSA's discounted prepayment of its 1988 and 1990 restructured debts constituted a countervailable benefit, in the form of debt forgiveness, because AHMSA's discounted prepayment had resulted in a reduction of the amount of principal owed by AHMSA on this debt. See Preliminary Results of 1997 Review of CTL Plate , 64 FR at 48799. On this basis, we determined in the 1997 review of CTL Plate that the difference between the principal outstanding on AHMSA's restructured debt and the amount of its discounted prepayment constituted debt forgiveness on the part of the GOM and, therefore, conferred a benefit and constituted a government financial contribution within the meaning of sections 771(5)(E) and 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, respectively. In addition, we determined that the benefit was conferred in 1996, the year in which the debt forgiveness took place. See id. Because the debt forgiveness was made to a single enterprise, we determined in the 1997 review of CTL Plate that it was specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act. We continued this approach in the 1998 review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented thus far in this review to warrant any reconsideration of these findings. Thus, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that the debt forgiveness under this program is a countervailable, non-recurring grant.

Because the principal forgiven was denominated in U.S. dollars and, thus, was unaffected by Mexico's intermittent significant inflation, we used the Department's standard non-recurring grant methodology to allocate the benefit to the POR. See 19 CFR 351.509. We used as our discount rate the weighted-average of AHMSA's fixed-rate, U.S. dollar loans that were received during the year of receipt when the debt forgiveness took place. We then converted the U.S. dollar denominated benefit into pesos using the average annual peso/U.S. dollar exchange rate for the POR. Finally, we divided the benefit attributable to the POR by AHMSA's total consolidated sales during the same period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 0.52 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

Under Article 51 of Mexico's tax law, companies may opt to take an immediate deduction on fixed assets purchased during the tax year, as opposed to taking regular straight line depreciation. The rates of depreciation under the immediate deduction vary according to industry. The Immediate Deduction program was established in 1987 and was subject to ongoing reforms until it was repealed in 1998. The program was subsequently reinstated in 2002. See the “Immediate Deduction” section of the GOM Verification Report. Tax credits earned under the Immediate Deduction program can be carried-forward for a period of 10 years. Id. Pursuant to this carry forward provision, AHMSA was able to apply tax credits, earned prior to and during 1998, to tax year 2000 even though the program was not active during the POR.

The immediate deduction mechanism was available only for certain fixed assets that had not been previously used in Mexico. The immediate deduction was not available for pre-operation expenses or for deferred expenses and costs. The GOM's stated purpose for the immediate deduction program was to promote investment by allowing companies to take an accelerated or immediate deduction set to an industry-specific rate, rather than using the standard straight-line depreciation method. GOM officials confirmed during verification that the immediate deduction option only applied to property used permanently within Mexico but outside the metropolitan areas of Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey. See the “Immediate Deduction” section of the GOM Verification Report. With respect to small firms ( i.e. , firms with a gross income of 7 million pesos or less), the location restriction did not apply. 10 An immediate deduction could be taken, at the election of the taxpayer, in the tax year in which the investments in qualifying fixed assets were made, in the year in which these assets were first used, or in the following year. No prior approval by the GOM was required to use the immediate deduction option.

In past reviews, our examination of this program was limited to whether AHMSA used tax credits earned under the Immediate Deduction program to reduce its income tax liability. See, e.g. , the “Immediate Deduction” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate. However, based on record evidence collected during this segment of the proceeding, we are preliminary revising this approach. Under Article 23 of the Mexican tax law, the GOM imposes an alternative minimum tax. Pursuant to this provision, companies are required to pay the lesser of either the income tax or the asset tax. The asset tax is equal to 1.8 percent of the value of a company's assets. During the POR, AHMSA was in a tax loss position. Therefore, it did not have any taxable income. However, pursuant to Article 23 of the Mexican tax law, it was liable for an asset tax equal to 1.8 percent of the value of its assets. Therefore, we are investigating the extent to which AHMSA may have used this program to reduce its asset tax burden.

In previous segments of this proceeding, we have found the Immediate Deduction program specific to a region, pursuant to section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act. We have further found that the program constituted a financial contribution, to the extent that the GOM is not collecting tax revenue that is otherwise due, and that it conferred a benefit under sections 771(5)(D)(ii) and 771(5)(E) of the Act, respectively. See, e.g. , the “Immediate Deduction” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of these findings. Thus, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.509, we have calculated the benefit under this program by determining the amount of asset tax that AHMSA would have paid, absent the program, in the tax return it filed during the POR. We note that the amount of asset tax that AHMSA would have paid absent the program was clearly indicated on the tax return that AHMSA filed during the POR. See Exhibit 1 of AHMSA's July 8, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response. We then divided the benefit by AHMSA's total consolidated sales. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy to be 2.57 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

The Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior, S.N.C. (Bancomext), also known as the National Bank of Foreign Trade, is a state-owned lending institution that offers financing to producers or trading companies engaged in export activities. Specifically, these U.S. dollar-denominated loans provide financing for working capital (pre-export loans), and export sales (export loans).

During the POR, AHMSA made interest payments on a Bancomext loan that it originally received from the Government bank in 1995. However, the terms of the loan were renegotiated in May of 2000 following AHMSA's entrance into an interest payment suspension. AHMSA had no other loans outstanding with Bancomext as of the end of 2001, the POR. As discussed in further detail below, this Bancomext loan was the only loan that was not covered by the interest payment suspension and, thus, was the only loan on which AHMSA paid interest during the POR.

In the underlying investigation, we determined that, because the loans issued by Bancomext are available only to exporters, this program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. We further found that loans under this program conferred a benefit and constituted a government financial contribution under sections 771(5)(E)(ii) and 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, respectively, to the extent that they are provided at rates below those prevailing on comparable commercial loans. See CTL Plate Investigation, 58 FR at 37357. We used the same approach in the previous segment of this proceeding. See the “Bancomext Export Loans” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this review to warrant reconsideration of these findings. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find that lending under this program constitutes a countervailable export subsidy.

As explained in the Creditworthiness Memorandum, on May 25, 1999, AHMSA entered into a court-sanctioned suspension of payments program. Under the suspension of payments program, all payments on AHMSA's commercial debt ( i.e. , non-government debt) were suspended from May 1999 through 2001, a period which includes the POR. However, during the POR, AHMSA made payments on its outstanding Bancomext loan, pursuant to a May 2, 2000 agreement established between Bancomext and AHMSA. Under this agreement, the terms of AHMSA's Bancomext loan were renegotiated. In particular, the two parties changed the repayment schedule, interest rates, and penalty payment terms. See, e.g. , Exhibit 13 of AHMSA's November 25, 2002 questionnaire response. 11

As stated above, while the Bancomext loan was originally issued in 1995, the terms of the loan were renegotiated in 2000. Thus, in keeping with the Department's practice, we find that, for purposes of these preliminary results, May 2000 was the effective issuance date of the Bancomext loan. See e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, 63 FR 40474, 40477 (July 29, 1998). As explained in the Creditworthiness Memorandum, we have preliminarily determined that AHMSA could not have obtained long-term loans from conventional commercial sources in 2000. Accordingly, in deriving the benchmark interest rate ( e.g. , a rate that would have been established in 2000 and remained applicable during the POR) we have used the benchmark methodology for uncreditworthy companies outlined in 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(iii).

To determine the benefit conferred under the Bancomext export loan program, we compared the interest rate charged on these loans during the POR to the uncreditworthy benchmark interest rate discussed above. As the interest amounts AHMSA paid in the 2001 POR were less than what AHMSA would have paid on a comparable commercial loan, as indicated by our benchmark interest rate, we preliminarily determine that this program conferred a countervailable benefit upon AHMSA in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.

We note that AHMSA was unable to make timely interest payments on several occasions during the 2001 POR, and, pursuant to the terms of its loan agreement, was forced to make penalty interest payments. During verification, we confirmed that the penalty interest rate established under the terms of the renegotiation was 25 percent lower than that established under the original terms of the Bancomext loans. During verification, we asked Bancomext officials why, in the midst of AHMSA's financial difficulties, they decided to lower the penalty interest rate that they charged AHMSA for late interest payments. Bancomext officials explained that the revised moratorium interest rate was the rate that was agreed to between the two parties during the renegotiation process.

For purposes of these preliminary results, we find that, given that AHMSA defaulted on its commercial debt in 1999, its uncreditworthy status at the time of the 2000 renegotiation process, and its history of failing to adhere to its contractual obligations with Bancomext, the terms of the renegotiated Bancomext loans did not reflect the amount of penalty interest that AHMSA would have paid on a comparable commercial loan. 12

We attempted to obtain information from AHMSA and the GOM regarding penalty interest rates charged in Mexico during 2000. AHMSA explained that, while it was late on several loans prior to 2000, it did not make any penalty interest payments to commercial institutions immediately prior to or during the 2001 POR. See page 11 of AHMSA's May 22, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response. In its supplemental questionnaire response, the GOM stated that it was, “* * * unable to provide such information * * *” on the grounds that, “* * * Mexican bank secrecy laws prohibit the disclosure of company-specific repayment information.” See page 1 of the GOM's May 21, 2003, questionnaire response. During verification, we attempted to meet with a commercial lending institution in Mexico to discuss, among other things, the typical practices of Mexican banks, as they apply to the establishment of penalty interest payments. However, the officials at the commercial lending institution refused to answer our questions. See the September 2, 2003, report entitled, “Meeting with Banking Officials from Banamex,” a public document on file in room B-099 of the CRU. Thus, in accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we are using as facts available the penalty interest rate that was established between Bancomext and AHMSA pursuant to the original terms of the 1995 Bancomext loan agreement. See Exhibit 4 of AHMSA's July 8, 2003, supplemental questionnaire response.

To determine the benefit attributable to AHMSA's reduced penalty interest payments, we subtracted the amount of penalty interest AHMSA actually paid during the 2001 POR from the amount of penalty interest the company would have paid during the POR pursuant to its initial 1995 loan agreement with Bancomext.

In their December 16, 2003, submission, petitioners alleged that the GOM forgave principal due on the Bancomext loans when AHMSA and Bancomext renegotiated the terms of the Bancomext loans in 2000. In our New Subsidy Memorandum, we determined that an examination of petitioners' allegations was warranted. See page 8 of the New Subsidy Memorandum. During this review, we have issued multiple supplemental questionnaires to AHMSA and the GOM concerning petitioners' allegation that the government forgave a portion of AHMSA's Bancomext debt. In addition, we thoroughly examined this issue during verification. For example, we reviewed source documents that indicated the balance of principal that AHMSA owed on the Bancomext loans before and after the 2000 loan renegotiation. See the “Bancomext Loans” section of the AHMSA Verification Report. Based on the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOM and AHMSA and on the source documents reviewed during verification, we preliminarily find that no debt was forgiven on AHMSA's Bancomext loans.

Because eligibility under this program is contingent upon exports, we divided the benefit ( i.e. , the difference between the benchmark interest/penalty payments and AHMSA's actual interest/penalty payments) by AHMSA's total export sales. We note that we have used an unconsolidated export sales figure because the program was contingent on AHMSA's export sale. Because AHMSA's total export sales were denominated in pesos, we converted the benefit AHMSA received under this program to pesos using the peso/U.S. dollar exchange rate that was outstanding on the date of the interest payments. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for this program to be 6.55 percent ad valorem for AHMSA.

Based on our New Subsidies Memorandum, we initiated an investigation into whether PEMEX sold natural gas to AHMSA for less than adequate remuneration during the POR. In particular, we examined a program under which the state-owned PEMEX agreed to provide a certain fixed quantity of natural gas for the price of US$4 per million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) to AHMSA for a period of three years beginning on February 8, 2001. This contract was applicable from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2003.

During verification, we met with officials from PEMEX and discussed the manner in which the program operated during the POR. In addition, we identified and examined the distribution of companies and industries that used the program during the POR. See the “PEMEX” section of the GOM Verification Report. During verification, we confirmed that, as the GOM had stated in its questionnaire responses, the program was provided to wide variety of industries and that neither AHMSA nor the Mexican steel industry was singled out or disproportionally represented in terms of usage. Thus, based on the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOM and on information collected during verification, we preliminarily determine that this program is not specific within the meaning of section 771(5A) of the Act and, therefore, is not countervailable.

In prior segments of this proceeding, we found that the Programa de Importacion Temporal Para Producir Productos Para Exportar (PITEX), also know as the Program for Temporary Importation to Produce Products for Export, provides countervailable export subsidies to the extent that the program offers duty exemptions on products not consumed in the production of the exported product. In its questionnaire responses, the GOM claimed that this aspect of the program was terminated pursuant to Article 303 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In particular, the GOM asserted that, after 2001, PITEX no longer offered duty-free exemptions on capital goods and machinery. See , e.g. , page II-44 of the GOM's November 25, 2002. During verification, we investigated the GOM's claims regarding PITEX. We found no information that contradicted the GOM's claims. See the “PITEX” section of the GOM Verification Report.

Because this change was implemented after the POR of this review, we reviewed the relevant source documentation of AHMSA and its affiliate Nacional de Acero, S.A (NASA) to confirm that these companies did not use PITEX during the 2001 POR. See the “PITEX (Temporary Import Items)” section of the AHMSA Verification Report. In particular, we reviewed annual reports that both companies submitted to the Ministry of Economy, the authority that administers PITEX. Id. These reports listed all temporary imports made by the AHMSA and NASA during the POR. 13 We noted that AHMSA reported no temporary imports during the POR. Id. NASA reported temporary imports; however, a review of its source documents indicated that it did not receive any duty exemptions on items that were not consumed in the production of exported products. Id .

Based on the questionnaire responses submitted by the GOM and AHMSA, as well as on information examined during verification, we find that PITEX did not confer a benefit on AHMSA or its affiliate, NASA, during the POR. Furthermore, we preliminarily determine that PITEX, as of 2002, is no longer countervailable because it no longer offers duty exemptions on products not consumed in the production of the exported product.

In the previous segment of this proceeding we found this program conferred countervailable subsidies. See the “1986 Assumption of AHMSA's Debt” section of the Decision Memorandum that accompanied the 1998 Review of CTL Plate in which we treated the debt forgiveness provided under this program as a non-recurring, allocable grant received in 1986. However, because we have allocated the debt forgiveness under this program using a 15-year AUL, the benefit stream was fully extinguished prior to the POR and, thus, no longer confers countervailable subsidies. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that this program is no longer countervailable.

In our New Subsidies Memorandum , we initiated an investigation into whether the state-run Nacional Financiera (NAFIN) and the Coahuila State Government (CGS) developed a rescue scheme in 1999 to address the lack of payment of AHMSA's debts to local suppliers. During verification, we thoroughly examined AHMSA's accounts payable, as well as other accounting documents related to its suppliers. During our review of these document, we found no evidence that AHMSA received any of the alleged benefits or that this alleged program exists. See the “NAFIN/Coahuila State Government Supplier Relief” section of the AHMSA Verification Report. Further, the GOM claimed that this program does not exist. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we find that this program does not exist.

Based on information reviewed during verification, we preliminarily determine that the following programs were not used during the POR:

1. FONEI Long-Term Financing.

2. Export Financing Restructuring.

3. Bancomext Trade Promotion Services and Technical Support.

4. Empresas de Comercio Exterior or Foreign Trade Companies Program.

5. Article 15 & 94 Loans.

6. NAFIN Long-Term Loans.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(I), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for AHMSA to be 13.37 percent ad valorem. If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct the BCBP to assess countervailing duties for AHMSA at 13.37 percent ad valorem of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from AHMSA, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

Because the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. A requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named. See 19 CFR 351.213(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(c), for all companies for which a review was not requested, duties must be assessed at the cash deposit rate, and cash deposits must continue to be collected, at the rate previously ordered. As such, the countervailing duty cash deposit rate applicable to a company can no longer change, except pursuant to a request for a review of that company. See Federal-Mogul Corporation and The Torrington Company v. United States , 822 F. Supp. 782 (CIT 1993) and Floral Trade Council v. United States , 822 F. Supp. 766 (CIT 1993) (interpreting 19 CFR 353.22(e), the pre-URAA antidumping regulation on automatic assessment, which was identical to 19 CFR 355.22(g)). Therefore, the cash deposit rates for all companies except those covered by this review will be unchanged by the results of this review.

We will instruct the BCBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order are those established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable. See CTL Plate Investigation, 58 FR 37352. These rates shall apply to all non-reviewed companies until a review of a company assigned these rates is requested. In addition, for the period January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by this order are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.

Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of arguments made in any case or rebuttal briefs.

This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).

The Sanctuary Advisory Council was established in August 1999 to provide advice and recommendations on management and protection of the Sanctuary. The Council, through its members, also serves as liaison to the community regarding Sanctuary issues and represents community interests, concerns, and management needs to the Sanctuary and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce). Gray's Reef NMS is one of the largest near shore live-bottom reefs off the Southeastern United States, encompassing approximately 17 square nautical miles. The area earned sanctuary designation in 1981.

The NWHI Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve is a new marine protected area designed to conserve and protect the coral reef ecosystem and related natural and cultural resources of the area. The Reserve was established by Executive Order pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Amendments Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-513). The NWHI Reserve was established by Executive Order 13178 (12/00), as finalized by Executive Order 13196 (1/01).

The Reserve encompasses an area of the marine waters and submerged lands of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, extending approximately 1200 nautical miles long and 100 nautical miles wide. The Reserve is adjacent to and seaward of the seaward boundary of Hawaii State waters and submerged lands and the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, and includes the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge to the extent that any such refuge waters extends beyond Hawaii State waters and submerged lands. The Reserve is managed by the Secretary of Commerce pursuant to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Executive Orders. The Secretary has also initiated the process to designate the Reserve as a National Marine Sanctuary. The management principles and implementation strategy and requirements for the Reserve are found in the enabling Executive Orders, which are part of the application kit and can be found on the Web site listed above.

In designating the Reserve, the Secretary of Commerce was directed to establish a Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve Advisory Council, pursuant to section 315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, to provide advice and recommendations on the development of the Reserve Operations Plan and the proposal to designate and manage a Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary by the Secretary.

The National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) has established the Reserve Advisory Council and is now accepting applications from interested individuals for a Council Representative for the following citizen/constituent position on the Council:

1. One (1) representative from the Native Hawaiian community with experience or knowledge regarding Native Hawaiian subsistence, cultural, religious, or other activities in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

Current Reserve Council Representatives and Alternates may apply for this vacant seat.

The Council consists of 25 members, 14 of which are non-government voting members (the State of Hawaii representative is a voting member) and 10 of which are government non-voting members. The voting members are representatives of the following constituencies: Conservation, Citizen-At-Large, Ocean-Related Tourism, Recreational Fishing, Research, Commercial Fishing, Education, State of Hawaii and Native Hawaiian. The government non-voting seats are represented by the following agencies: Department of Defense, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Marine Mammal Commission, NOAA's Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, National Science Foundation, U.S. Coast Guard, Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, and NOAA's National Ocean Service.

The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

File No. 704-1698: The University of Alaska Museum proposes to acquire, import and export specimen samples (whole carcasses; hard and soft parts) from all marine mammal species (pinnipeds and cetaceans) under NMFS jurisdiction. An unlimited number of samples would be taken from the following: 1) stranded marine mammal carcasses; 2) marine mammals taken by Alaskan Native subsistence hunters; and 3) specimens from permitted scientists in academic, federal, and state institutions involved in marine mammal research. Importation and exportation are requested in order to provide specimens to the international scientific community and bring legally acquired specimens from other museums and scientific donations. The objective of this application is to obtain authorization to archive specimens for future bona fide research at the University of Alaska and other institutions in the U.S. and world-wide. The applicant has requested a five-year permit.

File No. 1044-1706: TASSC proposes to receive parts and tissues from stranded marine mammals collected by coastal Alaska Native subsistence users and those from legally subsistence hunted Steller sea lions and other species. Authority to import and export samples is requested. Further, TASSC proposes to standardize Steller sea lion biological sampling techniques among Alaska Native subsistence users through a series of workshops with harvest communities. The objectives of this research are to promote Alaska Native participation in Steller sea lion conservation and management; assess the health and condition of Steller sea lions through biological data and tissue collection; educate and inform the public on the traditional and contemporary relationship between the Steller sea lion and Alaska Natives; and work with regulatory agencies toward the common goal of enhancing and protecting healthy Steller sea lion populations. The applicant has requested a five-year permit.

Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

On May 12, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 25349) that a request for a scientific research permit to take the species identified above had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).

This research project is designed to remotely investigate at-sea interactions between northern fur seals and ships, particularly the impact of commercial fishing vessels on the northern fur seals. Annually, ten lactating female northern fur seals from the Pribilof Islands in Alaska will be captured, measured, outfitted with datalogging instrumentation, and released. The individuals will be tracked and recaptured, the datalogger removed and the animals subsequently released. Additionally, Level B Harrassment of northern fur seals is authorized for 50 pups, 50 breeding females, 25 mature males, and 50 immature males, annually. These activities will be authorized over five years. The results of this research will provide important information for management decisions regarding northern fur seals.

Beginning in fiscal year 2003, funds from a $114.5 million High School Program Objective Memorandum (POM) are available to support the Quality High School Initiative developed at the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) High School Symposium held in October 2001. This money is made available through the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The High School POM runs from FY 2003-2008. The Quality High School Initiative will be evaluated to determine if quality educational programs are provided to all DoDEA high school students regardless of where the high school is located. The study entails the development of data collection methods and procedures, as well as the analysis of data, to document the use of resources and the impact on student achievement in grades 9-12. The study will use a telephonic interview technique to determine the success of the initiative in helping students prepare for educational experiences after leaving Department of Defense (DoD) schools either through graduation, permanent change of station of the sponsor, or for any other reason. Four surveys have been developed: One for all DoDEA sponsors and one for students who leave DoDEA for any reason other than graduation; one for DoDEA sponsors of graduates and one for students who graduate. These four telephone surveys include questions on transition, curriculum, courses, activities, counselors, teachers, administrators, and summary issues.

The objective of a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR), as discussed in part 44 of the FAR, is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. The review provides the administrative contracting officer a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor's purchasing system.

Number of Respondents: 1,580.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Total Responses: 1,580.

Average Burden Hours Per Response: 17.

Total Burden Hours: 26,860.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVA), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, in all correspondence.

Research and Development proposals and continuing projects requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program funds in excess of $1M will be reviewed.

This meeting is open to the public. Any interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted by the Board.

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

The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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

The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on August 27, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, ‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,’ dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

The U.S. Navy intends to move expeditiously to license these patents. All licensing application packages and commercialization plans must be returned to Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Business Development Office, Office of Research and Technology Applications, Bldg. 304; Rm. 107, 22541 Millstone Rd., Patuxent River, MD 20670.

The Navy, in its decision concerning the granting of licenses, will give special consideration to small business firms, and consortia involving small business firms.The Navy intends to insure that its licensed inventions are broadly commercialized throughout the United States.

Any license of Navy technology will require that material which embody the inventions licensed that are to be sold in the United States of America, will be manufactured substantially in the United States.

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

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, were submitted on August 27, 2003, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996, (61 FR 6427, February 20, 1996).

The DOE Office of Infrastructure Technologies is soliciting Applications for R&D projects that will focus primarily on technology development in the areas of Catalytic Oxidation, Distillation, Wood/Composites, Fiber Recycling, and New Forest-Based Materials. Other promising technology areas demonstrating energy efficiency in the chemical and forest products industries may be considered in addition to the areas identified above.

Organizations applying under this solicitation are required to develop collaborative project teams involving industry, university and/or national laboratory participants. A minimum of two chemical or forest products organizations must be involved in each application. Awards under this Solicitation will be either Grants or Cooperative Agreements, with a Project Period of three to five years beginning in CY2004. A minimum Cost Share of 30% of Total Project Costs from non-federal sources for applied research projects, and 50% of Total Project Costs from non-federal sources for projects involving commercial demonstration technologies, for each year of the projects, is required in order to be considered for an award.

The possible number of initial awards to be made will depend on the availability of funds in the Fiscal Year 2004 congressional appropriations. Continuation of funding for the full project period will be contingent upon the availability of funds beyond FY 2004. The anticipated level of available DOE funding is specified in the Introduction to and Appendix B of the Solicitation. DOE reserves the right to make no awards under this Solicitation or to reduce the requested DOE funding commitment on any potential award through negotiated reductions in work scope.

Environmental Defense alleges that EPA failed to promulgate BART regulations and guidelines by the Congressionally-enacted deadline.

Pursuant to sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act, EPA promulgated regulations on July 1, 1999 to protect visibility in Federal Class I areas. 64 FR 35714 (“regional haze rule”). In addition, pursuant to section 169A(b), EPA proposed to promulgate guidelines for the implementation of the BART requirements of the regional haze rule on July 20, 2001, 66 FR 38108, but has not published final guidelines. The regional haze rule was challenged, and on May 24, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) vacated and remanded to EPA the BART provisions of the regional haze rule. American Corn Growers Assoc. v. EPA , 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Section 169B(e) of the CAA provides that EPA must carry out its regulatory responsibilities under section 169A of the Act to promulgate regulations to protect visibility by December 10, 1997. 1 These regulations must require each applicable implementation plan to contain measures to assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal, including requirements that certain major stationary sources procure, install, and operate BART. CAA section 169A(b)(2). The CAA also requires EPA to provide guidelines to the States on the implementation of the visibility program, including guidelines for the determination of BART emission limits for fossil-fuel fired generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. CAA section 169A(b).

The Consent Decree provides that EPA will sign a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth its proposed BART regulations and guidelines no later than April 15, 2004. It further provides that EPA will submit the notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Federal Register no later than five days following signature. The Decree also provides that EPA shall sign a final notice of rulemaking setting forth its BART regulations and guidelines no later than April 15, 2005, and that EPA will submit the notice of final rulemaking to the Office of Federal Register no later than five days following signature.

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

On October 20, 1999, the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and a number of other organizations  1 petitioned EPA to regulate certain greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new motor vehicles and engines under section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, petitioners seek EPA regulation of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and hydrofluorocarbon (HFCs) emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. Petitioners claim these emissions are significantly contributing to global climate change.

EPA is authorized to regulate air pollutants from motor vehicles under title II of the CAA. In particular, section 202(a)(1) provides that “the Administrator [of EPA] shall by regulation prescribe * * * in accordance with the provisions of [section 202], standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle * * *, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

Petitioners contend the test for regulating motor vehicle emissions under CAA section 202(a)(1) has been met for CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O and HFCs. They claim statements made on EPA's Web site and in other documents constitute an Agency finding that the four GHGs may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. They also assert that motor vehicle emissions of the GHGs could be significantly reduced by increasing the fuel economy of vehicles, eliminating tailpipe emissions altogether, or using other current and developing technologies. Based on their analysis, they argue that EPA has a mandatory duty under section 202(a)(1) to regulate emissions of GHGs from motor vehicles.

Petitioners present their case for why EPA should, and even must, regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under section 202(a)(1) in four parts. First, they assert that anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, and HFCs meet the CAA section 302(g) definition of “air pollutant,” which is “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive * * * substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant * * *.” Citing international and national reports, petitioners contend that anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, and HFCs are accelerating global warming, and that motor vehicle emissions of these GHGs, particularly CO 2 , significantly contribute to the U.S. GHG inventory. Petitioners argue that the contribution of motor vehicle GHG emissions to global climate change qualify them as “air pollutants” under the CAA.

Petitioners also claim that EPA has already determined CO 2 to be an air pollutant. They cite an April 10, 1998, memorandum from Jonathan Z. Cannon, then General Counsel of EPA, to Carol Browner, then Administrator of EPA, entitled “EPA's Authority to Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation Sources” (hereinafter “Cannon Memorandum”). The memorandum states that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and CO 2 emitted from electric power generating units fall within the definition of “air pollutant” under CAA section 302(g). According to petitioners, it follows from the memorandum that the other three GHGs meet the CAA definition of “air pollutant,” too.

Second, petitioners argue that GHG emissions contribute to pollution that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” a key criterion for regulation under section 202(a)(1). Petitioners state that the CAA does not require proof of actual harm, but allows the Administrator to make a precautionary decision to regulate an air pollutant if it “may reasonably be anticipated” to endanger public health or welfare. The petitioners point to statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), EPA and others about the potential effects of global climate change on public health and welfare as establishing that global climate change “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” Based on these statements, the petitioners allege numerous threats to public health and welfare.

Third, petitioners argue that it is technically feasible to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines. In particular, they note that CO 2 emissions can be reduced by increasing the fuel economy of passenger cars and light trucks, and that a number of currently available gasoline-powered cars get significantly better fuel economy than the 27.5 mpg corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard currently applicable to cars under Federal law. They also point to a congressional report identifying other technologies for further improving the fuel economy of gasoline-powered cars that have yet to be fully employed. In addition, petitioners note that several foreign and domestic car manufacturers are already marketing or developing hybrid-electric vehicles that get significantly better fuel mileage than the most fuel-efficient gasoline-powered car. Looking ahead to the next generation of vehicle technology, petitioners describe the potential for electric and hydrogen-celled vehicles to eliminate tailpipe emissions altogether. Petitioners recommend that EPA set a “corporate average fuel-economy based standard” under CAA section 202 that would result in the rapid market introduction of more fuel-efficient and zero-emission vehicles.

Petitioners suggest other potential ways of reducing CO 2 emissions such as setting a declining fleet average NO X emission standard that would require manufacturers to add zero-emission vehicles to their fleets. They also note the availability of tire efficiency standards. Petitioners do not, however, address the potential for reducing motor vehicle emissions of the other three GHGs.

Finally, petitioners maintain that the Administrator has a mandatory duty to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under CAA section 202(a)(1). They contend that EPA has “already made formal findings” that motor vehicle GHG emissions “pose[] actual or potential harmful effects [on] the public health and welfare.” Noting that section 202(a)(1) provides the Administrator “shall” prescribe motor vehicle standards, petitioners argue that the use of “shall” creates a mandatory duty to promulgate standards when the requisite findings are made. They accordingly claim that the Administrator must establish motor vehicle standards for the four GHGs.

Petitioners further argue that “the precautionary purpose of the CAA supports” regulating these gases even if the Agency believes there is some scientific uncertainty regarding the actual impacts of global climate change. Petitioners cite several court cases recognizing the Administrator's authority to err on the side of caution in making decisions in areas of scientific uncertainty. They also assert that scientific uncertainty does not excuse a mandatory duty to regulate.

On January 23, 2001, EPA requested public comment on the petition ( see 66 FR 7486). The public comment period ended May 23, 2001.

EPA requested comment on all the issues raised in ICTA's petition. In particular, EPA requested comment on any scientific, technical, legal, economic or other aspect of these issues that may be relevant to EPA's consideration of the petition.

EPA received almost 50,000 comments on the petition. Most comments were relatively brief expressions of support for the petition sent by electronic mail; many were virtually identical. EPA also heard from a number of business and environmental groups. Most of the comments focused exclusively on CO 2 . This section describes the significant points and arguments made in the public comments.

Several commenters addressed the issue of whether the four GHGs—CO 2 , CH4, N20 and HFCs—are “air pollutants” under the CAA and thus potentially subject to regulation under the Act. Some of the commenters agreed with the petitioners that GHGs are air pollutants under the CAA. Like the petitioners, they noted that the definition of “air pollutant” in CAA section 302(g) is very broad and that the CAA itself refers to CO 2 as an “air pollutant” ( see CAA section 103(g)). These commenters also cited to and agreed with the Cannon Memorandum and statements by Gary Guzy, EPA's General Counsel following Mr. Cannon, that CO 2 falls within the CAA definition of air pollutant.

Other commenters argued that EPA has never formally determined that any GHGs are air pollutants and that the Cannon Memorandum is not such a finding. Some commenters also argued that CO 2 is not an air pollutant because it is a naturally-occurring substance in Earth's atmosphere and is critical to sustaining life. Other commenters pointed out that EPA already regulates as air pollutants substances that have natural as well as anthropogenic sources where human activities have increased the quantities present in the air to levels harmful to public health, welfare or the environment ( e.g. , sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter).

Another issue of concern to commenters was whether EPA has authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions of GHGs even if they meet the CAA definition of “air pollutant.” Commenters supportive of the petition noted the broad authority conferred by section 202(a)(1) to regulate motor vehicle emissions that cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. These commenters also noted that CAA section 302(h) defines “welfare” to include effects on weather and climate, as well as other aspects of the environment that may be affected by global climate change ( e.g. , soils, water, crops, vegetation, animals, visibility).

Other commenters argued that the CAA does not authorize regulations to address global climate change, including motor vehicle GHG emission standards. They noted that no CAA provision specifically authorizes global climate change regulations, a Senate committee's proposal for mandatory CO 2 standards for motor vehicles did not survive Senate consideration, and other contemporaneous legislative proposals for mandatory GHG emission reductions failed to pass. They also pointed out that the only CAA provision that specifically mentions CO 2 authorizes only “nonregulatory” measures and expressly precludes its use as authority for imposing mandatory controls. They cited another CAA provision that calls on EPA to determine the “global warming potential” of certain pollutants but expressly precludes regulation on that basis as further indication that Congress did not intend EPA to regulate GHGs under the CAA.

Looking at the CAA more broadly, several commenters argued that the key statutory mechanism for controlling pervasive “air pollutants”—establishing and implementing national ambient air quality standards under sections 108, 109 and 110—is unworkable for addressing an issue whose causes and effects are global in nature. Several commenters also pointed out that Congress addressed another global atmospheric issue, depletion of stratospheric ozone by man-made substances, explicitly and in discrete portions of the Act, specifically part B of title 1 prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990 and title VI following the 1990 amendments. Moreover, both incarnations of CAA stratospheric ozone authority included recognition of the international nature of the problem and provisions to facilitate and augment international cooperation in achieving a solution. These commenters argued that if Congress had intended EPA to address global climate change under the CAA, it would have made that clear by including analogous provisions.

Placing the CAA in a larger context, the commenters noted several other Federal statutes that specifically address global climate change and authorize only research and policy development, not regulation. Commenters also pointed out that Congress has expressed dissatisfaction with the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and requiring parties to the Protocol to reduce their GHG emissions by a specific amount. They further cited congressional actions taken since the 1990 CAA amendments to prevent EPA from implementing the Kyoto Protocol (the so-called Knollenberg amendments to the FY 1999 and 2000 VA-HUD and Independent Agency Appropriations Acts). Finally, they noted that Congress had rejected numerous legislative proposals mandating GHG reductions ( see, e.g. , S. 1224, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 5966, 101st Cong. (1990)) . According to the commenters, these actions clearly signal that Congress awaits further scientific information and other technological and international developments before authorizing any regulation to address global climate change.

Finally, several commenters pointed to the Supreme Court's decision in Food and Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 120 S.Ct. 1291 (2000), finding that the FDA lacks authority to regulate tobacco products despite a facially broad grant of authority. These commenters warned that a reviewing court would closely scrutinize and likely strike down an EPA assertion of CAA authority to regulate for global climate change purposes when Congress specifically addressed the issue of global climate change, not in the CAA, but in other Federal statutes that do not authorize regulation.

On the other hand, several commenters pointed to, and agreed with, a letter from then EPA General Counsel Guzy to a congressional committee explaining that explicit mention of a pollutant is not a necessary prerequisite to regulation under a statutory provision granting broad authority to regulate pollutants, provided that the statutory criteria for regulation are met. These commenters also echoed Mr. Guzy's view that a congressional decision not to require standards does not affect pre-existing discretionary authority to set standards where the applicable criteria are met.

Many commenters considered the issue of whether anthropogenic GHG emissions contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Several commenters pointed out, as petitioners did, that EPA's climate website and other national and international reports describe hazards to human health and welfare that may result from global climate change. Other commenters claimed that there is no basis at this time for EPA to conclude that GHG emissions from U.S. motor vehicles endanger public health or welfare. Some commenters questioned whether global warming was occurring or whether humans' impact on any global warming was significant. These commenters also suggested that global warming, if real, would have beneficial impacts ( e.g. , helping prevent another ice age, increasing agricultural production) that could outweigh any adverse effects. Several commenters argued that since the causes and effects of global climate change occur on a worldwide basis, regulation of only U.S. motor vehicles would be neither effective nor fair.

Commenters also addressed whether it is technologically feasible to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. Some commenters described categories of technologies that can substantially reduce CO 2 emissions from gasoline-powered passenger cars and light trucks, including vehicle load reduction, engine improvements, improved transmissions, integrated starter generators, and hybrid-electric drive trains. Vehicle load reduction strategies include reduced vehicle mass, reduced aerodynamic drag, reduced tire rolling resistance, and reduced accessory loads. Engine improvement strategies include improved specific power and gasoline direct injection. Improved transmission strategies include 5- and 6-speed automatic transmissions, 5-speed motorized manual gearshifts, and continuously variable transmissions. Other commenters asserted that EPA may not regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions by setting fuel economy standards inasmuch as Congress entrusted fuel economy standard-setting to the Department of Transportation (DOT) under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).

Finally, commenters considered whether EPA has a mandatory duty to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions. Some commenters agreed with petitioners that the Cannon Memorandum and EPA's website statements triggered an obligation under CAA section 202(a)(1) to set CO 2 standards. Other commenters countered that the Cannon Memorandum and EPA website statements are not formal EPA findings for the purposes of exercising statutory authority. They asserted that for findings to provide a sufficient legal basis for regulating under section 202(a)(1), they must be established through a public notice-and-comment process.

After careful consideration of petitioners' arguments and the public comments, EPA concludes that it cannot and should not regulate GHG emissions from U.S. motor vehicles under the CAA. Based on a thorough review of the CAA, its legislative history, other congressional action and Supreme Court precedent, EPA believes that the CAA does not authorize regulation  2 to address global climate change. Moreover, even if CO 2 were an air pollutant generally subject to regulation under the CAA, Congress has not authorized the Agency to regulate CO 2 emissions from motor vehicles to the extent such standards would effectively regulate car and light truck fuel economy, which is governed by a comprehensive statute administered by DOT.

In any event, EPA believes that setting GHG emission standards for motor vehicles is not appropriate at this time. President Bush has established a comprehensive global climate change policy designed to (1) answer questions about the causes, extent, timing and effects of global climate change that are critical to the formulation of an effective, efficient long-term policy, (2) encourage the development of advanced technologies that will enable dramatic reductions in GHG emissions, if needed, in the future, and (3) take sensible steps in the interim to reduce the risk of global climate change. The international nature of global climate change also has implications for foreign policy, which the President directs. In view of EPA's lack of CAA regulatory authority to address global climate change, DOT's authority to regulate fuel economy, the President's policy, and the potential foreign policy implications, EPA declines the petitioners' request to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles.

As summarized above, many commenters on the petition raised important legal issues regarding EPA's authority to issue global climate change regulations under the CAA. Two EPA General Counsels previously addressed the issue of EPA's authority to impose CO 2 emission control requirements. Both found that CO 2 meets the CAA definition of “air pollutant” and could therefore be subject to regulation under one or more of the CAA's regulatory provisions if the applicable statutory criteria for regulation were met. Both also noted, however, that the Agency had not made the requisite findings under any CAA provision for regulation of CO 2 emissions. Significantly, the past general counsels reached their conclusions prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown & Williamson , which cautions agencies against using broadly worded statutory authority to regulate in areas raising unusually significant economic and political issues when Congress has specifically addressed those areas in other statutes.

Because the petition seeks CAA regulation of GHG emissions from motor vehicles to reduce the risk of global climate change, EPA has examined the fundamental issue of whether the CAA authorizes the imposition of control requirements for that purpose. As part of that examination, EPA's General Counsel, Robert E. Fabricant, reviewed his predecessors' memorandum and statements, as well as the public comments raising legal authority issues. The General Counsel considered the text and history of the CAA in the context of other congressional actions specifically addressing global climate change and in light of the Supreme Court's admonition in Brown & Williamson to “be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such * * * magnitude to an administrative agency.” In a memorandum to the Acting Administrator dated August 29, 2003, the General Counsel concluded that the CAA does not authorize EPA to regulate for global climate change purposes, and accordingly that CO 2 and other GHGs cannot be considered “air pollutants” subject to the CAA's regulatory provisions for any contribution they may make to global climate change. Accordingly, he withdrew the Cannon memorandum and statements by Mr. Guzy as no longer expressing the views of EPA's General Counsel. The General Counsel's opinion is adopted as the position of the Agency for purposes of deciding this petition and for all other relevant purposes under the CAA.

As summarized above, commenters supporting the petition claim that section 202 of the CAA provides EPA with broad authority to set standards for motor vehicle emissions of CO 2 and other GHGs to the extent those emissions cause or contribute to global climate change. At the same time, other commenters correctly note that (1) no CAA provision specifically authorizes global climate change regulation, (2) the only CAA provision specifically mentioning CO 2 authorizes only “nonregulatory” measures, (3) the codified CAA provisions related to global climate change expressly preclude the use of those provisions to authorize regulation, (4) a Senate committee proposal to include motor vehicle CO 2 standards in the 1990 CAA amendments failed, (5) Federal statutes expressly addressing global climate change do not authorize regulation, and (6) numerous congressional actions suggest that Congress has yet to decide that such regulation is warranted. These indicia of congressional intent raise the issue of whether the CAA is properly interpreted to authorize regulation to address global climate change.

Congress was well aware of the global climate change issue when it last comprehensively amended the CAA in 1990. During the 1980s, scientific discussions about the possibility of global climate change led to public concern both in the U.S. and abroad. In response, the U.S. and other nations developed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). President George H. W. Bush signed, and the U.S. Senate approved, the UNFCCC in 1992, and the UNFCCC took effect in 1994.

The UNFCCC established the “ultimate objective” of “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (Article 2 of the UNFCCC). All parties to the UNFCCC agreed on the need for further research to determine the level at which GHG concentrations should be stabilized, acknowledging that “there are many uncertainties in predictions of climate change, particularly with regard to the timing, magnitude and regional patterns thereof” (findings section of UNFCCC).

Shortly before the UNFCCC was adopted in May 1992, Congress developed the 1990 CAA amendments. A central issue for the UNFCCC—whether binding emission limitations should be set—was also considered in the context of the CAA amendments. As several commenters noted, a Senate committee included in its bill to amend the CAA a provision requiring EPA to set CO 2 emission standards for motor vehicles. However, that provision was removed from the bill on which the full Senate voted, and the bill eventually enacted was silent with regard to motor vehicle CO 2 emission standards. During this same time period, other legislative proposals were made to control GHG emissions, some in the context of national energy policy, but none were passed ( see, e.g. , S. 324, 101st Cong. (1989); S. 1224, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 5966, 101st Cong. (1990)).

In the CAA Amendments of 1990 as enacted, Congress called on EPA to develop information concerning global climate change and “nonregulatory” strategies for reducing CO 2 emissions. Specifically, uncodified section 821 of the CAA Amendments requires measurement of CO 2 emissions from utilities subject to permitting under title V of the CAA. New section 602 of the CAA directs EPA to determine the “global warming potential” of substances that deplete stratospheric ozone. And new section 103(g) calls on EPA to develop “nonregulatory” measures for the prevention of multiple air pollutants and lists several air pollutants and CO 2 for that purpose.

Notably, none of these provisions authorizes the imposition of mandatory requirements, and two of them expressly preclude their use for regulatory purposes (sections 103(g) and 602). Only the research and development provision of the CAA—section 103—specifically mentions CO 2 , and the legislative history of that section indicates that Congress was focused on seeking a sound scientific basis on which to make future decisions on global climate change, not regulation under the CAA as it was being amended. Representatives Roe and Smith, two of the principal authors of section 103 as amended, explained that EPA's “science mandate” needed updating to deal with new, more complex issues, including “global warming” (A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 103 Cong., 1st Sess., S. Prt. 103-38, Vol. 2, pp. 2776 and 2778). They expressed concern that EPA's research budget had been too heavily focused on supporting existing regulatory actions when the Agency also needed to conduct long-term research to “enhance EPA's ability to predict the need for future action” ( id. at 2777).

In providing EPA with expanded research and development authority, however, Congress did not provide commensurate regulatory authority. In section 103(g), Congress directed EPA to establish a “basic engineering research and technology program to develop, evaluate and demonstrate” strategies and technologies for air pollution prevention and specifically called for improvements in such measures for preventing CO 2 as well as several specified air pollutants. But it expressly provided that nothing in the subsection “shall be construed to authorize the imposition on any person of air pollution control requirements.” As if to drive home the point, section 103(g) was revised in conference to include the term “nonregulatory” to describe the “strategies and technologies” the subsection was intended to promote. In its treatment of the global climate change issue in the CAA amendments, Congress made clear that it awaited further information before making decisions on the need for regulation.

Beyond Congress' specific CAA references to CO 2 and global warming, another aspect of the Act cautions against construing its provisions to authorize regulation of emissions that may contribute to global climate change. The CAA provisions addressing stratospheric ozone depletion demonstrate that Congress has understood the need for specially tailored solutions to global atmospheric issues, and has expressly granted regulatory authority when it has concluded that controls may be needed as part of those solutions. Like global climate change, the causes and effects of stratospheric ozone depletion are global in nature. Anthropogenic substances that deplete stratospheric ozone are emitted around the world and are very long-lived; their depleting effects and the consequences of those effects occur on a global scale. In the CAA prior to its amendment in 1990, Congress specifically addressed the problem in a separate portion of the statute (part B of title I) that recognized the global nature of the problem and called for negotiation of international agreements to ensure world-wide participation in research and any control of stratospheric ozone-depleting substances. In the 1990 CAA amendments, Congress again addressed the issue in a discrete portion of the statute (title VI) that similarly provides for coordination with the international community. Moreover, both incarnations of the CAA's stratospheric ozone provisions contain express authorization for EPA to regulate as scientific information warrants. In light of this CAA treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion, it would be anomalous to conclude that Congress intended EPA to address global climate change under the CAA's general regulatory provisions, with no provision recognizing the international dimension of the issue and any solution, and no express authorization to regulate.

EPA's prior use of the CAA's general regulatory provisions provides an important context. Since the inception of the Act, EPA has used these provisions to address air pollution problems that occur primarily at ground level or near the surface of the earth. For example, national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) established under CAA section 109 address concentrations of substances in the ambient air and the related public health and welfare problems. This has meant setting NAAQS for concentrations of ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other substances in the air near the surface of the earth, not higher in the atmosphere. Concentrations of these substances generally vary from place to place as a result of differences in local or regional emissions and other factors ( e.g. , topography), although long range transport may also contribute to local concentrations in some cases. CO 2 , by contrast, is fairly consistent in concentration throughout the world's atmosphere up to approximately the lower stratosphere. Problems associated with atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 are much more like the kind of global problem Congress addressed through adoption of the specific provisions of Title VI.

In assessing the availability of CAA authority to address global climate change, it is also useful to consider whether the NAAQS system—a key CAA regulatory mechanism—could be used to effectively address the issue. Unique and basic aspects of the presence of key GHGs in the atmosphere make the NAAQS system fundamentally ill-suited to addressing these gases in relation to global climate change. Many GHGs reside in the earth's atmosphere for very long periods of time. CO 2 , by far the most pervasive of anthropogenic GHGs, has a residence time of roughly 50-200 years. This long lifetime along with atmospheric dynamics means that CO 2 is well mixed throughout the atmosphere, up to approximately the lower stratosphere. The result is a vast global atmospheric pool of CO 2 that is fairly consistent in concentration, everywhere along the surface of the earth and vertically throughout this area of mixing.

While atmospheric concentrations of CO 2 are fairly consistent globally, the potential for either adverse or beneficial effects in the U.S. from these concentrations depends on complicated interactions of many variables on the land, in the oceans, and in the atmosphere, occurring around the world and over long periods of time. Characterization and assessment of such effects and the relation of such effects to atmospheric concentration of CO 2 in the U.S. would present scientific issues of unprecedented complexity in the NAAQS context. The long-lived nature of the CO 2 global pool would also make it extremely difficult to evaluate the extent over time to which effects in the U.S. would be related to anthropogenic emissions in the U.S. Finally, the nature of the global pool would mean that any CO 2 standard that might be established would in effect be a worldwide ambient air quality standard, not a national standard—the entire world would be either in compliance or out of compliance.

Such a situation would be inconsistent with a basic underlying premise of the CAA regime for implementation of a NAAQS—that actions taken by individual states and by EPA can generally bring all areas of the U.S. into attainment of a NAAQS. The statutory NAAQS implementation regime is fundamentally inadequate when it comes to a substance like CO 2 , which is emitted globally and has relatively homogenous concentrations around the world. A NAAQS for CO 2 , unlike any pollutant for which a NAAQS has been established, could not be attained by any area of the U.S. until such a standard were attained by the entire world as a result of emission controls implemented in countries around the world. The limited flexibility provided in the Act to address the impacts of foreign pollution transported to the U.S. was not designed to address the challenges presented by long-lived global atmospheric pools such as exists for CO 2 . The globally-pervasive nature of CO 2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations presents a unique problem that fundamentally differs from the kind of environmental problem that the NAAQS system was intended to address and is capable of solving.

Other congressional actions confirm that Congress did not authorize regulation under the CAA to address global climate change. Starting in 1978, Congress passed several pieces of legislation specifically addressing global climate change. With the National Climate Program Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. 2901 et seq. , Congress established a “national climate program” to improve understanding of “climate processes, natural and man induced, and the social, economic, and political implications of global climate change” through research, data collection, assessments, information dissemination, and international cooperation. In the Global Climate Protection Act of 1987, 22 U.S.C. 2651 note, Congress directed the Secretary of State to coordinate U.S. negotiations concerning global climate change, and EPA to develop and propose to Congress a coordinated national policy on the issue. Three years later, Congress passed the Global Change Research Act of 1990, 15 U.S.C. 2931 et seq. , establishing a Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences to coordinate a 10-year research program. That statute was enacted one day after the CAA Amendments of 1990 was signed into law. Also in 1990, Congress passed Title XXIV of the Food and Agriculture Act, creating a Global Climate Change Program to research global climate agricultural issues (section 2401 of Pub. L. 101-624).

With these statutes, Congress sought to develop a foundation for considering whether future legislative action on global climate change was warranted and, if so, what that action should be. From Federal agencies, it sought recommendations for national policy and further advances in scientific understanding and possible technological responses. It did not authorize any Federal agency to take any regulatory action in response to those recommendations and advances. In fact, Congress declined to adopt other legislative proposals, contemporaneous with the bills to amend the CAA in 1989 and 1990, to require GHG emissions reductions from stationary and mobile sources (see, e.g. , S. 1224, 101st Cong. (1989); H.R. 5966, 101st Cong. (1990)). While Congress did not expressly preclude agencies from taking regulatory action under other statutes, its actions strongly indicate that when Congress was amending the CAA in 1990, it was awaiting further information before deciding itself whether regulation to address global climate change is warranted and, if so, what form it should take.

Since 1990, Congress has taken other actions consistent with the view that Congress did not authorize CAA regulation for global climate change purposes. In the 1992 Energy Policy Act, Congress called on the Secretary of Energy to assess various GHG control options and report back to Congress, and to establish a registry for reporting voluntary GHG emissions. Following ratification of the UNFCCC, nations party to the Convention negotiated the Kyoto Protocol calling for mandatory reductions in developed nations' GHG emissions. While the Kyoto Protocol was being negotiated, the Senate in 1997 adopted by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which stated that the U.S. should not be a signatory to any protocol that would result in serious harm to the economy of the U.S. or that would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce U.S. GHG emissions unless the Protocol also mandated new, specific, scheduled commitments to limit or reduce GHG emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period. Although the Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, it did not submit it to the Senate for ratification out of concern that the Senate would reject the treaty. Congress also attached language to appropriations bills that barred EPA from implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Senate ratification ( see, e.g. , Knollenberg amendments to the FY 1999 and 2000 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Acts). Since enactment of the 1990 CAA amendments, numerous bills to control GHG emissions from mobile and stationary sources have failed to win passage (see, e.g. , H.R. 2993, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 137 Cong. Rec. H4611 (daily ed. 1991)).

Against this backdrop of consistent congressional action to learn more about the global climate change issue before specifically authorizing regulation to address it, the CAA cannot be interpreted to authorize such regulation in the absence of any direct or even indirect indication of congressional intent to provide such authority. EPA is urged on in this view by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown & Williamson, which struck down FDA's assertion of authority to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). That statute contains a broadly worded grant of authority for FDA to regulate “drugs” and “devices,” terms which the statute also broadly defines. However, the FDCA does not specifically address tobacco products while other Federal laws expressly govern the marketing of those products.

Notwithstanding the FDCA's facially broad grant of authority, the Supreme Court explained that “[i]n extraordinary cases, * * * there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” The Court noted that FDA was “assert[ing] jurisdiction to regulate an industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy,” despite the fact that “tobacco has its own unique political history” that had led Congress to create a distinct regulatory scheme for tobacco products. The Court concluded that FDA's assertion of authority to regulate tobacco was “hardly an ordinary case.” The Court analyzed FDA's authority in light of the language, structure and history of the FDCA and other federal legislation and congressional action specifically addressing tobacco regulation, including failed legislative attempts to confer authority of the type FDA was asserting. Based on that analysis, it determined that Congress did not “intend[] to delegate a decision of such economic and political significance * * * in so cryptic a fashion.”

It is hard to imagine any issue in the environmental area having greater “economic and political significance” than regulation of activities that might lead to global climate change. Virtually every sector of the U.S. economy is either directly or indirectly a source of GHG emissions, and the countries of the world are involved in scientific, technical, and political-level discussions about climate change. We believe, in fact, that an effort to impose controls on U.S. GHG emissions would have far greater economic and political implications than FDA's attempt to regulate tobacco.

The most abundant anthropogenic GHG, CO 2 , is emitted whenever fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas are used to produce energy. The production and use of fossil fuel-based energy undergirds almost every aspect of the U.S. economy. For example, approximately 70 percent of the electric energy used in this country is generated from fossil fuel, and the U.S. transportation sector is almost entirely dependent on oil.

Proposals to reduce CO 2 emissions from these sectors have focused on four major approaches: (1) Improve fuel efficiency; (2) capture and sequester CO 2 ; (3) switch to alternative non-fossil fuel sources; and (4) reduce vehicle usage by switching to alternative forms of transportation. Congress has already addressed the first approach in other statutes—not the CAA—by giving other Departments and agencies—not EPA—regulatory authority to deal with fuel and energy efficiency. For example, Congress has authorized DOT to set fuel economy standards for motor vehicles and the Department of Energy to set efficiency standards for products such as air conditioners and appliances that consume electricity.

The other approaches for reducing CO 2 emissions all have substantial economic implications. While it may eventually be possible to achieve widespread capture and sequester CO 2 emissions from power plants, such an approach would require a new generation of power plants and would be very costly, even if implemented over many years. As for the use of alternative fuels, governments and private companies around the world are investing billions of dollars to explore the possibility of using non-fossil fuels for power generation and transportation. Any widespread effort to switch away from fossil fuels in either sector would likewise require a wholesale transformation of our methods for producing power and transporting goods and people. As for alternative modes of transportation, Congress and many states have already adopted measures to encourage public transportation, car pooling, bike usage, and land-use planning designed to minimize commuting distances. EPA supports these measures and believes that they provide many environmental benefits. However, widespread substitution of alternative forms of transportation for transportation based on fossil fuel energy would also require a wholesale remaking of this sector. It is hard to overstate the economic significance of making these kinds of fundamental and widespread changes in basic methods of producing and using energy.

The issue of global climate change also has enormous political significance. It has been discussed extensively during the last three Presidential campaigns; it is the subject of debate and negotiation in several international bodies; and numerous bills have been introduced in Congress over the last 15 years to address the issue.

In light of Congress' attention to the issue of global climate change, and the absence of any direct or even indirect indication that Congress intended to authorize regulation under the CAA to address global climate change, it is unreasonable to conclude that the CAA provides the Agency with such authority. An administrative agency properly awaits congressional direction before addressing a fundamental policy issue such as global climate change, instead of searching for authority in an existing statute that was not designed or enacted to deal with the issue. We thus conclude that the CAA does not authorize regulation to address concerns about global climate change.

It follows from this conclusion, that GHGs, as such, are not air pollutants under the CAA's regulatory provisions, including sections 108, 109, 111, 112 and 202. CAA authorization to regulate is generally based on a finding that an air pollutant causes or contributes to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. CAA section 302(g) defines “air pollutant” as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive * * * substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant[.]” The root of the definition indicates that for a substance to be an “air pollutant,” it must be an “agent” of “air pollution.” Because EPA lacks CAA regulatory authority to address global climate change, the term “air pollution” as used in the regulatory provisions cannot be interpreted to encompass global climate change. Thus, CO 2 and other GHGs are not “agents” of air pollution and do not satisfy the CAA section 302(g) definition of “air pollutant” for purposes of those provisions. We reserve judgment on whether GHGs would meet the CAA definition of “air pollutant” for regulatory purposes were they subject to regulation under the CAA for global climate change purposes. 3

Even if GHGs were air pollutants generally subject to regulation under the CAA, Congress has not authorized the Agency to regulate CO 2 emissions from motor vehicles to the extent such standards would effectively regulate the fuel economy of passenger cars and light duty trucks. No technology currently exists or is under development that can capture and destroy or reduce emissions of CO 2 , unlike other emissions from motor vehicle tailpipes. At present, the only practical way to reduce tailpipe emissions of CO 2 is to improve fuel economy. Congress has already created a detailed set of mandatory standards governing the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks, and has authorized DOT—not EPA—to implement those standards. The only way for EPA to proceed with CO 2 emissions standards without upsetting this statutory scheme would be to set a standard less stringent than CAFE for cars and light duty trucks. But such an approach would be meaningless in terms of reducing GHG emissions from the U.S. motor vehicle fleet. 4

Congress' care in designing the CAFE program makes clear that EPCA is the only statutory vehicle for regulating the fuel economy of cars and light duty trucks. Under EPCA, DOT may set only “corporate average” standards that automakers meet on a fleetwide basis. Automakers thus have flexibility to design different vehicle models having different fuel economy so long as the average of the vehicles sold by the automaker in a given model year and class meets the CAFE standard for that year. In fact, EPCA offers automakers additional flexibility by allowing them to meet the CAFE standard for a given model year by “carrying back” or “carrying forward” the excess fuel economy performance of their fleets for the three years before or after the applicable model year.

EPCA also builds in an opportunity for congressional oversight of CAFE standard-setting that reinforces the notion that Congress intended fuel economy to be governed by EPCA alone. The statute specifies a CAFE standard of 27.5 miles per gallon for passenger cars in model years 1984 and beyond (49 U.S.C. 32902(b)), but authorizes DOT to amend the standard to the “maximum feasible average fuel economy level” for the relevant model year. However, to the extent DOT raises or lowers the standards beyond specified levels, EPCA provides an automatic opportunity for Congress to disapprove and effectively void the amended standard (49 U.S.C. 32902(c)). Given that the only practical way of reducing tailpipe CO 2 emissions is by improving fuel economy, any EPA effort to set CO 2 tailpipe standards under the CAA would either abrogate EPCA's regime (if the standards were effectively more stringent than the applicable CAFE standard) or be meaningless (if they were effectively less stringent).

As explained above, in light of the language, history, structure and context of the CAA and Congress' decision to give DOT authority to regulate fuel economy under EPCA, it is clear that EPA does not have authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions of CO 2 and other GHGs under the CAA. In any event, the CAA provision authorizing regulation of motor vehicle emissions does not impose a mandatory duty on the Administrator to exercise her judgment. Instead, section 202(a)(1) provides the Administrator with discretionary authority to address emissions in addition to those addressed by other section 202 provisions ( see, e.g. , sections 202(a)(3) and (b)). While section 202(a)(1) uses the word “shall,” it does not require the Administrator to act by a specified deadline and it conditions authority to act on a discretionary exercise of the Administrator's judgment regarding whether motor vehicle emissions cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

The Web site statements, legal memorandum and other documents cited by petitioners and commenters in support of the petition are not sufficient to satisfy the criteria for setting standards under section 202(a)(1). Exercise of section 202(a)(1) authority turns on the judgment made by the Administrator, and CAA section 301 does not permit the Administrator to delegate her standard-setting authority under section 202(a)(1). None of the statements petitioners claim constitute the requisite endangerment finding for GHGs under section 202(a)(1) were made, or subsequently adopted, by the Administrator. As the Cannon memorandum stated in 1998, no Administrator had made a finding under any of the CAA's regulatory provisions that CO 2 meets the applicable statutory criteria for regulation. (Notably, the Web site statements on which the petitioners partly rely were in existence at the time Mr. Cannon issued his memorandum.) That statement remains true today—no Administrator has made any finding that satisfies the criteria for setting CO 2 standards for motor vehicles or any other emission source. In any event, for such findings to suffice for standard-setting purposes, they must be established through a notice-and-comment process.

EPA also disagrees with the premise of the petitioners' claim—that if the Administrator were to find that GHGs, in general, may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, she must necessarily regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles. Depending on the particular problem, motor vehicles may contribute more or less or not at all. An important issue before the Administrator is whether, given motor vehicles' relative contribution to a problem, it makes sense to regulate them. In the case of some types of air pollution, motor vehicles may be one of many contributors, and it may make sense to control other contributors instead of, or in tandem with, motor vehicles. The discretionary nature of the Administrator's section 202(a)(1) authority allows her to consider these important policy issues and decide to regulate motor vehicle emissions as appropriate to the air pollution problem being addressed. Accordingly, even were the Administrator to make a formal finding regarding the potential health and welfare effects of GHGs in general, section 202(a)(1) would not require her to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles.

Beyond issues of authority and interference with fuel economy standards, EPA disagrees with the regulatory approach urged by petitioners. We agree with the President that “we must address the issue of global climate change” (February 14, 2002). We do not believe, however, that it would be either effective or appropriate for EPA to establish GHG standards for motor vehicles at this time. As described in detail below, the President has laid out a comprehensive approach to climate change that calls for near-term voluntary actions and incentives along with programs aimed at reducing scientific uncertainties and encouraging technological development so that the government may effectively and efficiently address the climate change issue over the long term.

Petitioners cited numerous studies and other sources of information in contending that anthropogenic emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, and HFCs are accelerating global climate change and that emission of these compounds from motor vehicles contribute to the problem. Numerous commenters agreed with petitioners and a few cited additional information or studies as further support. See “Summary of Climate Petition Comments on Science” in the docket for this action. Other commenters disagreed with petitioners' contentions, citing different data and studies or in some cases interpreting the same data and studies differently or emphasizing different aspects of the information provided. Id. We reviewed the information submitted by petitioners and commenters and concluded that all of the information was widely available and in the public domain at the time we solicited comments on the petition. The information submitted does not add significantly to the body of information available to the National Research Council (NRC) when it prepared its 2001 report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. We rely in this decision on NRC's objective and independent assessment of the relevant science. The comments submitted to the record do not include information that causes us to question the validity of the NRC's conclusions.

As the NRC noted in its report, concentrations of GHGs are increasing in the atmosphere as a result of human activities (pp. 9-12). It also noted that “[a] diverse array of evidence points to a warming of global surface air temperatures'' (p. 16). The report goes on to state, however, that “[b]ecause of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a casual linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale” (p. 17).

The NRC also observed that “there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of [GHGs] and aerosols'' (p. 1). As a result of that uncertainty, the NRC cautioned that “current estimate of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).” Id. It further advised that “[r]educing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of [GHGs] and aerosols and (2) the so-called ‘feedbacks’ that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in [GHGs].” Id.

The science of climate change is extraordinarily complex and still evolving. Although there have been substantial advances in climate change science, there continue to be important uncertainties in our understanding of the factors that may affect future climate change and how it should be addressed. As the NRC explained, predicting future climate change necessarily involves a complex web of economic and physical factors including: Our ability to predict future global anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and aerosols; the fate of these emissions once they enter the atmosphere ( e.g. , what percentage are absorbed by vegetation or are taken up by the oceans); the impact of those emissions that remain in the atmosphere on the radiative properties of the atmosphere; changes in critically important climate feedbacks ( e.g. , changes in cloud cover and ocean circulation); changes in temperature characteristics ( e.g. , average temperatures, shifts in daytime and evening temperatures); changes in other climatic parameters ( e.g. , shifts in precipitation, storms); and ultimately the impact of such changes on human health and welfare ( e.g. , increases or decreases in agricultural productivity, human health impacts). The NRC noted, in particular, that “[t]he understanding of the relationships between weather/climate and human health is in its infancy and therefore the health consequences of climate change are poorly understood” (p. 20). Substantial scientific uncertainties limit our ability to assess each of these factors and to separate out those changes resulting from natural variability from those that are directly the result of increases in anthropogenic GHGs.

Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions will require major advances in understanding and modeling of the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and the processes that determine the sensitivity of the climate system. Specifically, this will involve reducing uncertainty regarding:

• The future global use of fossil fuels and future global emissions of methane,

• The fraction of fossil fuel carbon that will remain in the atmosphere and contribute to radiative forcing versus exchange with the oceans or with the land biosphere,

• The impacts (either positive or negative) of climate change on regional and local systems,

• The nature and causes of the natural variability of climate and its interactions with human-induced changes, and

• The direct and indirect effects of the changing distribution of aerosols.

Knowledge of the climate system and of projections about the future climate is derived from fundamental physics, chemistry and observations. Data are then incorporated in global circulation models. However, model projections are limited by the paucity of data available to evaluate the ability of coupled models to simulate important aspects of climate. The U.S. and other countries are attempting to overcome these limitations by developing a more comprehensive long-term observation system, by making more extensive regional measurements of greenhouse gases, and by increasing the computing power required to handle these expanded data sets.

A central component of the President's policy is to reduce key uncertainties that exist in our understanding of global climate change. Important efforts are underway to address these uncertainties. In particular, the Federal Government has expanded scientific research efforts through its Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). President Bush announced this new initiative in June 2001 and called for it “to study areas of uncertainty and identify priority areas where investments can make a difference.” The CCRI recently issued its final “Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Research Program” to ensure that scientific efforts are focused where they are most critical and that the key scientific uncertainties identified are addressed in a timely and effective manner for decision makers.

The President has also stated, however, that “while scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change” (June 11, 2001). Thus, along with stepped-up efforts to reduce scientific uncertainties, the President's policy calls for public-private partnerships to develop break-through technologies that could dramatically reduce the economy's reliance on fossil fuels without slowing its growth. Large-scale shifts away from traditional energy sources, however, will require not only the development of abundant, cost-effective alternative fuels, but potentially wholesale changes in the way industrial processes and consumer products use fuel. Such momentous shifts do not take place quickly. As the President has explained, “[a]ddressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations' ( www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html).

By contrast, establishing GHG emission standards for U.S. motor vehicles at this time would require EPA to make scientific and technical judgments without the benefit of the studies being developed to reduce uncertainties and advance technologies. It would also result in an inefficient, piecemeal approach to addressing the climate change issue. The U.S. motor vehicle fleet is one of many sources of GHG emissions both here and abroad, and different GHG emission sources face different technological and financial challenges in reducing emissions. A sensible regulatory scheme would require that all significant sources and sinks of GHG emissions be considered in deciding how best to achieve any needed emission reductions.

Unilateral EPA regulation of motor vehicle GHG emissions could also weaken U.S. efforts to persuade key developing countries to reduce the GHG intensity of their economies. Considering the large populations and growing economies of some developing countries, increases in their GHG emissions could quickly overwhelm the effects of GHG reduction measures in developed countries. Any potential benefit of EPA regulation could be lost to the extent other nations decided to let their emissions significantly increase in view of U.S. emission reductions. 5 Unavoidably, climate change raises important foreign policy issues, and it is the President's prerogative to address them.

In light of the considerations discussed above, EPA would decline the petitioners' request to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions even if it had authority to promulgate such regulations. Until more is understood about the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it, EPA believes it is inappropriate to regulate GHG emissions from motor vehicles.

In any event, the President's policy includes efforts to reduce motor vehicle petroleum consumption through increases in motor vehicle fuel economy. As noted previously, petitioners specifically suggested that EPA set a “corporate average fuel economy-based standard,” but only DOT is authorized to set motor vehicle fuel economy standards. DOT considered increasing fuel economy standards and recently promulgated a final rule increasing the CAFE standards for light trucks, including sports utility vehicles, by 1.5 miles per gallon over a three-year period beginning with model year 2005. The new standards are projected to result in savings of approximately 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline over the lifetime of the affected vehicles, with the corresponding avoidance of 31 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. For the longer term, the President has established a new public-private partnership with the nation's automobile manufacturers to promote the development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks, with the goal of building a commercially viable zero-emissions hydrogen-powered vehicle. In the near-term, the President has sought $3 billion in tax credits over 11 years for consumers to purchase fuel cell and hybrid vehicles.

Aside from fuel economy-based standards, petitioners only other suggestions for reducing CO 2 from motor vehicles are tire efficiency standards and a declining fleet-averaged NO X standard to force the introduction of zero-emitting vehicles. In the case of tire efficiency standards, it is questionable whether such standards would qualify as “standards applicable to the emission ” of an air pollutant from a motor vehicle under section 202(a)(1), since such standards would presumably apply to the vehicle's tires, not its CO 2 emissions (emphasis added). As for zero emission vehicles, further technological developments are needed before they could be a practical choice for most consumers.

With respect to the other GHGs—CH4, N20, and HFCs—petitioners make no suggestion as to how those emissions might be reduced from motor vehicles. GHG emissions from motor vehicles primarily consist of CO 2 from fuel combustion. In 1999, N20 represented 4 percent, HFCs 1 percent, and CH4 less than 1 percent of transportation GHG emissions. As byproducts of combustion, there is a direct proportional relationship between CO 2 emissions and fuel economy levels. EPA believes parameters other than fuel economy are more relevant to N2O and HFC formation. HFCs come from mobile air conditioners, while N2O is influenced by catalytic converter design. CH4 is a byproduct of combustion, like CO 2 , but can also be affected by catalytic converter design. As noted above, N20, HFCs, and CH4 represent a very small percentage of total U.S. transportation GHG emissions. As such, they would not be an effective or efficient target for regulation in the absence of regulation of CO 2 emissions.

Lack of CAA authority to impose GHG control requirements does not leave the Federal Government powerless to take sensible measured steps to address the global climate change issue. As described in this notice, the President has laid out a comprehensive approach to global climate change that calls for near-term voluntary actions and incentives along with programs aimed at reducing scientific uncertainties and encouraging technological development so that the government may effectively and efficiently address the global climate change issue over the long term. The CAA and other Federal statutes provide the Federal Government with ample authority to conduct the research necessary to better understand the nature, extent and effects of any human-induced global climate change and to develop technologies that will help achieve GHG emission reductions to the extent they prove necessary. The CAA and other statutes also authorize, and EPA and other agencies have established, nonregulatory programs that provide effective and appropriate means of addressing global climate change while scientific uncertainties are addressed.

As part of that effort, the President in February 2002 called for voluntary reductions in GHG intensity, including through fuel economy improvements. GHG intensity is the ratio of GHG emissions to economic output. The President's goal is to lower the U.S. rate of emissions from an estimated 183 metric tons per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2002 to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in 2012. Meeting this commitment will prevent GHG emissions of over 500 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) from entering the atmosphere cumulatively over the next ten years, and is equivalent to taking 70 million (or one out of three) cars off the road.

The “Climate VISION” (Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now) program, a Presidential initiative launched by the Department of Energy (DOE) in February 2003, is a voluntary public-private partnership designed to pursue cost-effective strategies to reduce the growth of GHG emissions, especially by energy-intensive industries. Working with trade associations and other groups, the program assists industry in its efforts to accelerate the transition to energy technologies and manufacturing processes that are cleaner, more efficient, and capable of capturing or sequestering GHGs. Climate VISION links these objectives with technology development and deployment activities primarily at DOE, but also at other participating agencies. Since Climate VISION was launched, 14 industry groups have become program partners with DOE.

EPA is also pursuing a number of nonregulatory approaches to reducing GHG emissions. In February 2002, EPA launched EPA's Climate Leaders program, a new voluntary partnership program between government and industry. Through Climate Leaders, companies will work with EPA to evaluate their GHG emissions, set aggressive reduction goals, and report their progress toward meeting those goals. To date, more than 40 companies from almost all of the most energy-intensive industry sectors have joined Climate Leaders.

EPA's Energy Star program is another example of voluntary actions that have substantially reduced GHG emissions. Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program that provides critical information to businesses and consumers about the energy efficiency of the products they purchase. Over the past decade more than 750 million Energy Star products have been purchased across more than 30 product categories ( e.g. , computers, microwaves, washing machines). Reductions in GHG emissions from Energy Star purchases were equivalent to removing 10 million cars from the road last year. Businesses and consumers not only reduced their GHG emissions, but also saved $5 billion last year through their use of Energy Star products.

EPA is also working to encourage voluntary GHG emission reductions from the transportation sector. The key elements of this effort are the SmartWay Transport Partnership and the Best Workplaces for Commuters program. The SmartWay Transport Partnership works with the trucking and railroad industry to develop and deploy more fuel-efficient technologies and practices to achieve substantial fuel savings and emission reductions. The goal of Best Workplaces for Commuters is to offer innovative solutions to commuting challenges faced by U.S. employers and employees by promoting outstanding commuter benefits that reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled. EPA estimates that these voluntary programs have the potential to reduce GHG emissions by 9 MMTCE annually by 2010.

EPA has voluntary programs aimed specifically at reducing methane emissions from a variety of sources. For example, the Agency has partnerships with natural gas companies to reduce emissions from leaky pipelines and distribution equipment, solid waste landfill facilities to capture and reuse emissions from landfills, and coal mining companies to capture and reuse methane escaping from mines. Together, these programs are projected to reduce methane emissions to below 1990 levels through 2010.

In addition, EPA has extensive partnerships with industries responsible for emissions of the most potent industrial GHG ( e.g. , sulfur hexafluoride, per fluorocarbons and HFCs). Through partnerships with EPA, the aluminum sector has exceeded their goal of reducing PFC emissions by 45% from 1990 levels by 2000 and is now in discussions about a new, more aggressive goal. The semiconductor manufacturing sector has agreed to reduce their emissions by 10% below 1995 levels by 2010. This year, a new agreement was reached with the magnesium sector under which they have agreed to completely phase-out their SF6 emissions by 2010.

The Federal Government's voluntary climate programs are already achieving significant emission reductions. In 2000 alone, reductions in GHG emissions totaled 66 MMTCE when compared to emissions in the absence of these programs.

Importantly, the President's initiative will improve our ability to accurately measure and verify GHG emissions through an enhanced national GHG registry system. The U.S. will improve the voluntary registry's accuracy, reliability, and verifiability, taking into account emerging domestic and international approaches. Organizations participating in the new registry will be provided with transferable credits for achieving voluntary emissions reductions. These credits will be available for use under any future incentive-based or mandatory programs. We believe the enhanced standards for the new registry will strengthen the current voluntary trading systems.

The President's 2003 budget also seeks $4.5 billion for global climate change-related programs, a $700 million increase over 2002. This includes $1.7 billion for science research under the Climate Change Research Initiative, and $1.3 billion for climate change technologies under the National Climate Change Technology initiative. This commitment is unmatched in the world. The 2003 budget seeks $555 million in clean energy incentives to spur investments in solar, wind, and biomass energy, co-generation, and landfill gas conversion.

New and expanded international policies will complement our domestic policies, including tripled funding for the “Debt-for-Nature” Tropical Forest Conservation Program, fully funding the Global Environment Facility for its third four-year replenishment, enhanced support for climate observation systems and climate technology assistance in developing countries, and sustained level funding for USAID climate programs, including technology transfer and capacity building in developing countries.

In the transportation sector, the Administration's global climate change plan includes promoting the development of fuel-efficient motor vehicles and trucks, researching options for producing cleaner fuels, and implementing programs to improve energy efficiency. The plan calls for expanding Federal research partnerships with industry, providing market-based incentives, and updating current regulatory programs that advance our progress in this area. This commitment includes expanding fuel cell research, in particular through the “FreedomCAR” initiative.

FreedomCAR is a new public-private partnership with the nation's automobile manufacturers. It seeks to promote the development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks, with the goal of building a commercially viable zero-emissions hydrogen-powered vehicle. FreedomCAR focuses on technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen- powered fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen-supply infrastructure to support them.

Developing new technologies to improve the energy efficiency of transportation in the U.S. will be a key element in achieving future reductions in GHG emissions. The President's 2003 budget seeks more than $3 billion in tax credits over 11 years for consumers to purchase fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. The Administration's global climate change plan supports increasing automobile fuel economy and encouraging new technologies that reduce our dependence on imported oil, while protecting passenger safety and jobs.

EPA will play an important role in efforts to develop advanced motor vehicle technologies that improve fuel economy and reduce emissions. The Agency's Clean Automotive Technology (CAT) program is working to develop advanced clean and fuel-efficient automotive technology. Under the program, EPA's goal is to develop technology by the end of the decade that will satisfy stringent emissions requirements and achieve up to a doubling of fuel efficiency in personal vehicles such as SUVs, pickups, and urban delivery vehicles—while simultaneously meeting the more demanding size, performance, durability, and power requirements of these vehicles. EPA will also play a leadership role in advancing fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen fuel technologies and influencing the direction of technological and policy progress in support of U.S. environmental, energy, and national security goals.

To address GHG emissions from the electric utility sector, DOE in February of this year announced FutureGen, a $1 billion government/industry partnership to design, build and operate a nearly emission-free, coal-fired electric and hydrogen production plant. The 275-megawatt prototype plant will serve as a large scale engineering laboratory for testing new clean power, carbon capture, and coal-to-hydrogen technologies. It will be the cleanest fossil fuel-fired power plant in the world. The project is a direct response to the President's Climate Change and Hydrogen Fuels Initiatives.

In all, the President's global climate change policy sets the U.S. on a path to slow the growth of GHG emissions and, as the science justifies, to stop and then reverse that growth. This policy supports vital global climate change research and lays the groundwork for future action by investing in science, technology, and institutions. In addition, the President's policy emphasizes international cooperation and promotes working with other nations to develop an efficient and coordinated response to global climate change. In taking prudent environmental action at home and abroad, the U.S. is advancing a realistic and effective long-term approach to the global climate change issue.

For the reasons discussed above, and after considering the ICTA petition, public comment, EPA's legal authority, and other relevant information, EPA hereby denies the ICTA petition requesting that EPA regulate certain GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines under CAA section 202(a)(1).

1. Docket. The EPA has established an official docket for this action under Docket ID Number 2003-0083. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the OAR Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OAR Docket is (202) 566-1742.

2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Intranet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstrl.

We have placed the two documents described below in Docket No. A-99-05:

1. USEPA, “AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results.” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; EPA Report No. EPA-454/R-03-003, July 2003.

2. USEPA, “Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations: AERMOD vs. ISCST3, CTDMPLUS, ISD-PRIME.” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; EPA Report No. EPA-454/R-03-002, July 2003.

These reports are also available on our modeling Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/scram001 ) and provide technical details on AERMOD revisions since it was proposed in the Federal Register (65 FR 21506) on April 21, 2000. On April 15, 2003 (68 FR 18440), we promulgated proposed changes and additions to the Guideline (Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51) that were supported by public comments and that we deemed ready to finalize. Components of the proposal that we did not act on include: (1) Adopting AERMOD to replace ISCST3 in many assessments, (2) revising ISCST3 by incorporating a new downwash algorithm (PRIME) and renaming the model ISC-PRIME, and (3) updating the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS 3.1) in appendix A of the Guideline.

Nearly every commenter on the April 2000 proposal urged us to integrate the aerodynamic downwash PRIME algorithm into AERMOD ( i.e. , not to require two models for some analyses), and no comments were received which contradicted these requests. In response to our request that this comment be addressed, AERMIC (the American Meteorological Society (AMS)/EPA Regulatory Model Improvement Committee) successfully revised AERMOD (version 02222), incorporating the PRIME algorithm and making other incidental modifications to respond to public comments and issues identified by beta testers of the code. Documentation of AERMOD (02222) and its computer code has since been available on our Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt26.htm#aermod ).

Also proposed in April 2000 was an EDMS upgrade to version 3.1. Since that proposal, the model developer—Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—decided to further upgrade EDMS to incorporate AERMOD in a version 4.0. Performance evaluation and adequate documentation was requested in public comments (A-99-05), and in our April 15, 2003, notice we said that this new information would be forthcoming. Recently, however, FAA has decided to withdraw EDMS from the Guideline's appendix A. No new information is therefore provided in this action; we support this removal from appendix A and will address the details more fully in a future promulgation of the Guideline.

The most significant changes made to AERMOD in response to public comments include the following:

• addition of the PRIME downwash algorithms;

• modifications of the complex terrain algorithms to make AERMOD less sensitive to the selection of the domain of the study area;

• modification of (a) urban dispersion for low-level emission sources, such as area sources, to produce more realistic urban dispersion and (b) minimum mixing layer depths used to calculate the effective dispersion parameters for all dispersion settings;

• addition of plume meander to all stable and unstable conditions; and

• upgrades of AERMOD to include all the newest features that exist in the latest version of ISCST3 such as FORTRAN 90 compliance, allocatable arrays, EVENTS processing, and the TOXICS option.

The effect of these changes is now documented in the two reports cited above.

The performance analysis of model accuracy is summarized in: “AERMOD: Latest Features and Evaluation Results.” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA Report No. EPA-454/R-03-003, July 2003. That analysis provides comparisons of model estimates with measured air quality concentrations for a variety of source types and locations. Based on this analysis, we have concluded that (1) the performance of the revised version of AERMOD (02222) is slightly better than the April 2000 proposal and both versions of AERMOD significantly outperform ISCST3 and (2) AERMOD (02222) with PRIME performs slightly better than ISC-PRIME for aerodynamic downwash cases.

The consequence analysis of effects on design concentrations is summarized in: “Comparison of Regulatory Design Concentrations: AERMOD vs. ISCST3, CTDMPLUS, ISD-PRIME.” Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, EPA Report No. EPA-454/R-03-002, July 2003. That analysis provides comparisons of design concentrations (on which emission control limits might be based) for a wide variety of source configurations and settings. The analysis indicates that:

• for non-downwash settings, the revised version of AERMOD (02222), on average, tends to predict concentrations closer to ISCST3 with somewhat smaller variations than the April 2000 proposal of AERMOD;

• where downwash is a significant factor in the air dispersion analysis, the revised version of AERMOD predicts maximum concentrations that are very similar to ISC-PRIME;

• for those source scenarios where maximum 1-hour cavity concentrations are calculated, the average AERMOD predicted cavity concentration tends to be about the same as the average ISC-PRIME cavity concentrations; and

• in general, the consequences of using the revised AERMOD, instead of the older model ISCST3, in complex terrain remained essentially unchanged, although they varied in individual circumstances.

Based on evaluations of the revisions described above, it appears that the modified AERMOD is ready to be incorporated into the Guideline, and we intend to promulgate the modified AERMOD (02222). This Notice of Data Availability concerning performance studies of the modified model is being provided to inform the public about the model performance and range of impacts which the improved version of AERMOD could have on estimated air quality concentrations. We invite public comment on the new studies (see DATES ). Comments on the documents noticed today should be sent to the Docket Office (see ADDRESSES ), and should clearly reference this Notice of Data Availability and Docket No. A-99-05.

This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2003-0053. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

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

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

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

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number and specific PMN number or TME number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2003-0053. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0053 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2003-0053 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.

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

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

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from August 1, 2003 to August 15, 2003, consists of the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

This status report identifies the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available.

In Table I of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.

In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:

The Commission solicits public comment to enable it to:

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

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

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

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

Collection Title: Local Union Report (EEO-3).

OMB Number: 3046-0006.

Frequency of Report: Biennial.

Type of Respondent: Referral local unions with 100 or more members.

Description of Affected Public: Referral local unions and independent or unaffiliated referral unions and similar labor organizations.

Responses: 3,000.

Reporting Hours: 3,000 (4,500 including recordkeeping).

Cost to Respondents: $67,500.

Federal Cost: $50,000 (Annualized).

Number of Forms: 1.

Abstract: Section 709(c) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(c), requires employers to make and keep records relevant to a determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed and to make reports therefrom as required by the EEOC. Accordingly, the EEOC has issued regulations which set forth the reporting requirements for various kinds of labor organizations—Referral local unions with 100 or more members have been required to submit EEO-3 reports since 1967 (biennially since 1986). The individual reports are confidential.

EEO-3 data are used by the EEOC to investigate charges of discrimination against referral local unions. In addition, the data are used to support EEOC decisions and conciliations, and for research. Pursuant to section 709(d) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, EEO-3 data are also shared with 86 State and Local Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and other government agencies.

Burden Statement: The respondent burden for this information collection is minimal. The estimated number of respondents included in the biennial EEO-3 survey is 3,000 referral unions. Since each union files one EEO-3 report, the number of responses is 3,000. The biennial reporting is estimated to take 3,000 hours, and total biennial reporting and recordkeeping is 4,500 hours.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0441.

Title: Section 90.621(b)(4), Selection and Assignment of Frequencies.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 250.

Estimated Time Per Response: .5 hours for respondents who choose to contract out the requirement; 1.5 hours for respondents who will employ in-house staff.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 188 hours.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $19,000.

Needs and Uses: This rule section requires Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) applicants who wish to locate co-channel systems less than 70 miles from an existing system operating on the same channel may do so upon a specific request. If the requested distance falls within the parameters of a table provided in the rules, the applicant must provide certain information about the co-channel stations, but no waiver of the short spacing rule is required. If the request is for distances less than those prescribed in the table, a waiver of the short spacing rule is required. Incumbent licensees seeking to utilize an 18 dBMU signal strength interference contour, and that are unsuccessful in obtaining the consent of affected co-channel incumbents, may submit to any certified frequency coordinator of 800 MHz band channels an engineering study showing that interference will not occur, together with proof that the incumbent licensee has sought consent. The incumbent may then provide to the Commission in their modified applications a statement from a certified frequency coordinator that no harmful interference will occur to a co-channel licensee. The Commission will submit this information collection to the OMB after the requisite 60 day comment period as an extension (no change) to obtain the full three year clearance.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0716.

Title: Blanketing Interference.

From Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 21,000.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 to 2 hours.

Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 41,000 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: Under 47 CFR 72.88 (AM), 73.318 (FM), and 73.685(d) (TV), the licensee is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference within one year of program test authority when certain conditions are met. After the first year, a licensee is only required to provide technical assistance to determine the cause of the interference. The FCC has an outstanding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MM Docket No. 96-62, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 73 of the Commission's Rules to More Effectively Resolve Broadcast Blanketing Interference, Including Interference to Consumer Electronics and Other Communications Devices. The NPRM has proposed to provide detailed clarification of the AM, FM, and TV licensee's responsibilities in resolving/eliminating blanketing interference caused by their individual stations. The NPRM has also proposed to consolidate all blanketing interference rules under a new section 47 CFR 73.1630, “Blanketing Interference.” This new rule has been designed to facilitate the resolution of broadcast interference problems and set forth all responsibilities of the licensee/permittee of a broadcast station. To date, final rules have not been adopted.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0581.

Title: Section 76.503, National Subscriber Limits.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 10.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour (multiple responses annually).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements.

Total annual burden: 20 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 76.503 requires that prior to acquiring additional multichannel video-programming providers (MVPD), any cable operator that serves 20 per cent or more of the MPVP subscribers nationwide shall certify to the FCC, concurrent with its application to the FCC for transfer of license at issue in the acquisition, that no violation of the national subscriber limits prescribes in this section will occur as a result of such acquisition. The FCC uses the certification filings to ensure that cable operators do not violate the 30 percent share rule in their acquisitions of additional multi-channel programming providers. The FCC uses 47 CFR 76.503, Note 1, certification filings to verify that limited partners who so certify are not involved in management or operations of the media-related activities of the partnership.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0924.

Title: Report and Order in MM Docket No. 99-25 Creation of Low Power Radio Service.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Not-for-profit entities; and State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents: 1,200 (multiple responses).

Estimated Time Per Response: 0.0025 to 12 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 27,354 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $23,850.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in MM Docket No. 99-25, Report and Order, will ensure that the integrity of the FM spectrum is not compromised. It will also ensure that unacceptable interference will not be caused to existing radio services and that the statutory requirements are met. These rules will ensure that the stations are operated in the public interest.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0055.

Title: Application for Cable Television Relay Service Station (CARS) Authorization, FCC Form 327.

Form Number: FCC 327.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities; and Not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 973.

Estimated Time per Response: 3.166 hours (avg.).

Frequency of Response: On occasion and/or every five years reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 3,081 hours.

Total Annual Costs: $214,060.

Needs and Uses: On March 13, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order (R&O), Amendment of the Commission's Rules for Implementation of its Cable Operations and Licensing System (COALS) to Allow for Electronic Filing of Licensing Applications, Forms, Registrations and Notifications in the Multichannel Video and Cable Television Service and the Cable Television Relay Service, FCC 03-55. This R&O provided for electronic filing and standardized information collections. Under 47 CFR Sections 78.11-78.40 of FCC Rules, an applicant files FCC Form 327 to obtain an initial license or modification, transfer, assignment, or renewal of an existing Cable television Relay Service (CARS) microwave radio license. Franchised cable systems and other eligible services use the 12 GHz and 18 GHz CARS bands for microwave relays pursuant to 47 CFR part 78 of the Commission's Rules. CARS is principally a video transmission service used for intermediate links in a distribution network, i.e. , CARS stations relay broadcast television, low power television, AM, FM, and cablecasting video and audio signal transmissions for and supply program material to these various broadcast transmission systems using point-to-point and point-to-multipoint transmissions. The Commission has restructured FCC Form 327 primarily to make it conform to the online filing system.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0647.

Title: Annual Survey of Cable Industry Prices.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

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

Number of Respondents: 720.

Estimated Time per Response: 7 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirements.

Total annual burden: 5,040 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: Section 623(k) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 requires the Commission to publish an annual statistical report on average rates for basic cable service, cable programming and equipment. The report must compare the prices charged by cable systems subject to effective competition and those not subject to effective competition. The annual Price Survey is intended to collect data needed to prepare this report.