OMB Number: OMB 0412-0012.

Form Number: 282.

Title: Supplier's Certificate Agreement with the U.S. Agency for International Development Invoice-and-Contract Abstract.

Type of Submission: Renewal of information collection.

Purpose: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) finances goods and related services under its Commodity Import Program which are contracted for by public and private entities in the countries receiving the USAID Assistance. Since USAID is not a party to these contracts, USAID needs some means to collect information directly from the suppliers of the goods and related services and to enable USAID to take an appropriate action against them in the event they do not comply with the applicable regulations. USAID does this by securing from the suppliers, as a condition for the disbursement of funds a certificate and agreement with USAID which contains appropriate representations by the suppliers.

Annual Reporting Burden:

Respondents: 800.

Total annual responses: 2,400.

Total annual hours requested: 1,200 hours ( 1/2 hour per response).

Agency: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.

Title: Sheep and Goat Industry Grant Initiative.

Type: Initial announcement for funding availability.

Catolog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 10.774.

Dates: Applications must be received by October 15, 2004, for projects that will be completed on or before September 30, 2006.

The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (NSIIC) is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2008j. NSIIC is a fund established in the Treasury, without fiscal year limitation, to provide seed-money for a revolving fund that will provide financial assistance through a variety of mechanisms for the enhancement and marketing of sheep or goat products in the United States with an emphasis on infrastructure development. The NSIIC is a unique pilot program with the management vested in a Board of Directors that is appointed by, and reports to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Board of Directors consists of 7 voting members chosen from the sheep and goat industries. The respective Under Secretaries for Rural Development (RD) and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) also serve as non-voting members of the Board of Directors. The mission of the NSIIC is “To assist the U.S. Sheep and Goat Industries by strengthening and enhancing the production and marketing of sheep, goats, and their products in the United States.” The NSIIC Board of Directors has made low interest loans available through an intermediary arrangement with the National Livestock Producers Association since 2000 and has conducted the National Sheep Industry Grant Initiative in each of the past fiscal years since Fiscal Year (FY) 2002. The Board is making this grant initiative of up to $300,000 available for FY 2005.

Projects that are submitted in the proposals should be completed in a timely fashion as provided in the proposal, with a final completion date on or before September 30, 2006. The primary objective of the Sheep and Goat Industry Grant Initiative (SGIGI) is to fund a number of diverse projects that will benefit the U.S. sheep or goat industries through product or business development, producer information or education, marketing and promotion for sheep or goats or their products, genetic retention and animal health at the regional, national or international level. Examples of previously funded projects can be found at www.nsiic.org/grants.htm .

The total amount of funds available for grants in FY 2005 is approximately $300,000. It is anticipated that all funds will be awarded in FY 2005 for projects that will be completed by September 30, 2006. It is expected that there will be proposals submitted that address a variety of needs related to the U.S. sheep and goat industries. Awards may be classified so that a variety of needs will be addressed by the funded proposals. The actual number of grants funded will depend on the quality of proposals received and the amount of funding requested. A proposal may be partially funded or funded in its entirety. The maximum amount of Federal funds through this grant initiative awarded for any one proposal will be $50,000.

The primary objective of the Sheep and Goat Industry Grant Initiative (SGIGI) is to fund a number of diverse projects that will benefit the U.S. sheep or goat industries through product or business development, producer information or education, marketing and promotion for sheep or goats or their products, genetic retention or animal health at the regional, national or international level.

Funds may not be used to: (a) Pay costs of preparing the application package; (b) pay costs incurred prior to the effective date of the grant; (c) conduct duplicative research; or (d) fund political activities.

Eligible applicants—An eligible entity is one that promotes the betterment of the United States sheep or goat industries and includes: (a) A public, private, or cooperative organization; (b) an association, including a corporation not operated for profit; (c) a federally recognized Indian Tribe; or (d) a public or quasi-public agency. Eligible entities must be domestic with at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence.

Ineligible applicants—Individuals, Organizations under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and organizations described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(4)) which engages in lobbying activities. Applications from Ineligible applicants will be returned without review or consideration.

Cost Sharing or Matching—Cost sharing or matching funds are not required but preference may be given to proposals that have over 50 percent of the project costs in matching funds, including in kind contributions (See the Review and Selection Process). Overhead costs cannot exceed 25 percent.

Other—There is no limit on the number of applications that an entity may submit for this announcement. If an entity is found to be in violation of 7 CFR part 3017 they are ineligible.

Address to Request Application Package—Forms can be found at http://www.nsiic.org. They can also be obtained by: e-mailing a request to info@nsiic.org; writing National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026-3483; Faxing a request to 202-720-1053 or calling 202-690-0632.

Content and Form of Application Submission—A proposal should contain the following:

1. Form SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance.” This serves as the cover page and no other cover page should be included.

2. Form SF-424A “Budget Information-Non Construction Programs.”

3. Form SF-424B “Assurances-Non Construction Programs.”

4. Project Summary: The proposal must contain a project summary of 1 page or less on a separate page. This page must include the title of the project, the names of the primary project contacts, the applicant entity, followed by the summary. The summary should be self-contained and should describe the overall goals and relevance of the project. The summary should also contain a listing of all organizations involved in the project. The Project Summary should immediately follow the Form SF-424B.

5. Project Narrative—The project narrative is limited to 10 pages and the pages should be numbered, beginning with page 1 on the first page of the narrative. The narrative portion of the Project Proposal should contain the following:

a. Introduction—Substantiate the need for the proposed project. Describe the project's specific relationship to the segment of sheep or goat industry issue, product or market being addressed.

b. Potential Industry Impact—Discuss the specific objectives to be accomplished under the project. Describe the proposed project and demonstrate how it will stimulate the U.S. sheep or goat industries. Provide a detailed analysis of the sheep or goat industry issue that is being addressed by the proposal by including the: (a) Product or group that will be impacted by the proposal (b) geographic area affected (c) target audience or end user; (d) and expected results.

c. Industry Commitment—Describe the commitment of the producers, processor, end-users or other involved parties in participating in the proposed project. This may include, but is not limited to, individual producers, producer groups, processors, seminar participants, local organizations, local or state governments or trade associations.

d. Business Soundness— Discuss the specific goals and objectives to be accomplished under the project. Provide a timetable and objectives along with a quantifiable benchmark and expected results.

e. Financial Feasibility—Provide a well-defined budget for the proposal and describe how the budget specifically relates to the completion of each goal or objective. This requirement may be accomplished, in whole or in part, by the required completion of SF-424B.

f. Management Ability—Identify the management team needed to complete the proposal objectives and describe their qualifications. Describe how the project will be coordinated among various participants and the nature of the collaborations. Describe plans for management of the project to ensure its proper and efficient administration.

What to Submit—An original which must bear an original signature and 10 additional copies must be submitted. Each copy must be stapled in the upper left-hand corner, do not bind. All copies of the proposal must be submitted in one package. The proposal must be submitted on standard 8.5″ x 11″ paper with typing on one side of the page only. In addition, margins must be at least 1″, type must be 12 characters per inch (12 pitch or 10 point) or larger, no more than 6 lines per inch, and there should be no page reductions.

Proposals are limited to the information requested. Do Not: Exceed the narrative limit; include organizational brochures, promotional materials, slides, films, clips, books, videos, product samples, letters of support (they should be summarized in the narrative) or any other additional materials. Proposals that contain more than the requested information will be returned without review or consideration.

Information that successful applicants must submit—Successful applicants will receive a letter of intent from NSIIC at which time they will be required to provide evidence to satisfy the “Insurance and Bonding” requirement and complete forms: AD-1047 “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions”; AD-1048 “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions”; AD-1049 “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)”; RD-400-1 “Equal Opportunity Agreement”; “Certification Regarding Lobbying-Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreement”; SF-270 “Request for Advance for Reimbursement” and SF-269 “Financial Status Report” which is filed with the semi annual reports.

Submission Dates and Times—Applications shall be considered as meeting the announced deadline if they are received on or before 5 p.m. e.s.t., October 15, 2004. Submissions should be sent to: USDA—National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, P.O. Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026 if you are using the U.S. Postal Service or USDA—National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, South Building, Room 2117, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250, if using any other courier or delivery service. Proposals received after that time and date will be returned without review or consideration. We strongly recommend you do not wait until the deadline date for submissions.

Funding Restrictions—Each application is limited to $50,000. Applicants will not be allowed reimbursement of pre-award costs.

Selection Criteria—The proposal will initially be reviewed to determine whether the entity submitting the proposal meets the eligibility requirements and whether the proposal application contains the information required. After this initial evaluation, the following criteria will be used to rate and rank proposals received in response to this notice of funding availability. Failure to address any one of the criteria will disqualify the proposal and the proposal will be returned without review or consideration. Equal weight shall be given to each of the criterion listed below and points will be awarded on a scale of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. A score of 5 indicates that the proposal was judged to be highly relevant to the criterion and a score of 1 indicates that the proposal was judged not to sufficiently address the criterion.

Each proposal will be evaluated and judged using the following criteria:

1. Potential Industry Impact—Describe the proposed project and demonstrate how it will stimulate the U.S. sheep or goat industries. Provide a detailed analysis of the sheep or goat industry issue that is being addressed by the proposal by including the: (a) Product or group that will be impacted by the proposal (b) geographic area affected (c) target audience or end user; (d) and expected results. The NSIIC will evaluate whether the industry issue and need are well-defined and the proposed project provides an effective and efficient approach to resolving the identified need.

2. Industry Commitment—Describe the commitment of the producers, processor, end-users or other involved parties in participating in the proposed project. This may include, but is not limited to, individual producers, producer groups, processors, seminar participants, local organizations, local or state governments or trade associations. The NSIIC will evaluate whether there is a commitment from all who are expected to participate and benefit from the proposed project.

3. Business Soundness—Provide a timetable and objectives along with a quantifiable benchmark and expected results. The NSIIC will evaluate whether the proposal includes (a) A clear objective; (b) well-defined tasks that will accomplish the objectives; (c) realistic benchmarks; and (d) a realistic timetable for the completion of the proposed tasks and whether a business strategy has been adequately developed.

4. Financial Feasibility—Provide a well-defined budget for the proposal. The NSIIC will evaluate whether the funding requirements and budget for the project are well defined, financially feasible and the matching funds or other resources that will be used to leverage the requested funds are identified.

5. Management Ability—Identify the management team needed to complete the proposal objectives and describe their qualifications. The NSIIC will evaluate whether the management team is identified and capable of implementing the proposal.

Review and Selection Process—The NSIIC Board of Directors will evaluate proposal applications. Applications will be evaluated competitively and points awarded as specified in the Selection Criteria section of this Notice. Grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to eligible entities. A proposal may be partially funded. After assigning points based upon the selection criteria, applications will be funded in rank order until all available funds have been expended. The Board of Directors reserves the right to award up to five additional points in order to provide a diversity of projects targeting various (1) situations, (2) geographic areas, or subjects, or for proposals with over 50 percent in matching funds. Projects that are approved for further processing will be subject to the grant terms that are negotiated between the applicant and the Board of Directors including, but not limited to, the amount to be funded, project goals, timetables, completion date or other terms as deemed necessary.

Award Administration Information: All applicants will receive notification of the outcome no later than January 31, 2005. Notifications will be sent to the contact person identified on the SF-424 by traceable carrier or USPS certified, return receipt mail.

Award Notices—Successful applicants can expect notification no later than January 31, 2005. A letter of intent will be sent to the contact person identified on the SF-424. The letter of intent will be followed by a letter of conditions, the requirements described in the “Information that Successful applicants must submit” section. When those are competed the grant agreement will be executed.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements—Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to grants awarded by USDA. These include, but are not limited to:

The terms of the above parts will be incorporated in the grant agreement.

Reporting—In addition to any other required reports, awardees will be required to submit written project performance reports on a semi-annual basis and a final report at the completion of the project. The project performance report and final report shall include, but need not be limited to: (a) SF-269 “Financial Status Report”; (b) A comparison of timeline, tasks and objectives outlined in the proposal as compared to the actual accomplishments; (c) If report varies from the stated objectives or they were not met, the reasons why established objectives were not met; (d) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will materially affect attainment of planned project objectives; (e) Objectives established for the next reporting period; and (f) Status of compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.

Web site—Forms, previous recipients and other information can be found at www.nsiic.org; e-mail info@nsiic.org; USPS at NSIIC, P.O. Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026-3483; other carriers at Room 2117, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) 690-0632 or (207) 236-6567 or FAX (202) 720-1053.

Low interest loans: For information on NSIIC intermediary low interest loan program, visit National Livestock Producers Association at http://www.nlpa.org.

The NSIIC Board of Directors reserves the right to award more, or less than the funds described in this announcement. In the absence of worthy application, the Board may decide not to make an award if deemed in the best interest of the Government.

The meetings are open to the public. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee.

Federal Agency: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).

Funding Opportunity Title: 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach Initiative.

Announcement Type: Initial Announcement.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 10-856.

Key Dates: Cooperative agreement applications must be received by 4 p.m. July 26, 2004. Proposals received after July 26, 2004, will not be considered for funding.

Executive Summary: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) announces the availability of approximately $1.5 million in competitive cooperative agreement funds allocated from fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget. RBS hereby requests proposals from the 1890 Land Grant Universities and Tuskegee University (1890 Institutions) interested in applying for competitively awarded cooperative agreements for support of RBS mission goals and objectives of outreach to small rural communities and to develop programs that will develop future entrepreneurs and businesses, including cooperatives, in rural America in those communities that have the most economic need. These programs must provide sustainable development that is in keeping with the needs of the community and designed to help overcome currently identified economic problems. The initiative seeks to create a working partnership between the 1890 Institutions and RBS through cooperative agreements.

Awards will be made for proposals found to be meritorious by a peer review panel of USDA's employees knowledgeable of the subject matter. Awards will be made to the extent that funds are available. However, there is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards.

Eligible applicants must provide matching funds in support of this project. Matching funds must equal at least 25 percent of the amount provided by RBS in the cooperative agreement. This Notice lists the information needed to submit an application for these funds.

This solicitation is issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2204b(b)(4). Also, this solicitation is issued pursuant to Executive Order 13256 (February 12, 2002), “President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

RBS was established under the authority of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. The mission of RBS is to enhance the quality of life for rural Americans by providing leadership in building competitive businesses including sustainable cooperatives that can prosper in the global marketplace. RBS meets these goals by: Investing financial resources and providing technical assistance to businesses and cooperatives located in rural communities; establishing strategic alliances and partnerships that leverage public, private, and cooperative resources to create jobs and stimulate rural economic activity.

The primary purpose of the 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach Initiative is to have 1890 Institutions promote Rural Development programs, provide outreach and technical assistance, to new and existing cooperatives, and encourage and assist underserved rural community residents to participate in the USDA-Rural Development programs, especially those administrated by RBS. This outreach initiative is also designed to develop programs that will develop future entrepreneurs and businesses, including cooperatives, in rural America in those communities that have the most economic need. These programs must provide sustainable development that is in keeping with the needs of the community and are designed to help overcome currently identified economic problems. Proposals in both traditional and nontraditional business enterprises are encouraged. The initiative seeks to create a working partnership through cooperative agreements between 1890 Institutions and RBS, to develop programs to assist future entrepreneurs, cooperatives and other businesses.

RBS plans to use cooperative agreements with the 1890 Institutions to strengthen the capacity of these communities to undertake innovative, comprehensive, citizen led, long-term strategies for community and economic development. The cooperative agreements will be for an outreach effort to promote Rural Development-RBS programs in targeted underserved rural communities and shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) Developing a business startup program including technical assistance, to assist new cooperatives and other businesses with new business development, business planning, franchise startup and consulting, business expansion studies, marketing analysis, cashflow management, and seminars and workshops for cooperatives and small businesses;

(b) Developing management and technical assistance plans that will:

(1) Assess cooperative and small business alternatives to traditional agricultural and other natural resource based industries;

(2) Assist in the development of business plans or loan packages, marketing, or bookkeeping;

(3) Assist and train cooperatives and small businesses in customer relations, product development, or business planning and development.

(c) Assessing and conducting feasibility studies of local community weaknesses and strengths, feasible alternatives to agricultural production, and the necessary infrastructure to expand or develop new or existing businesses;

(d) Providing community leaders with advice and recommendations regarding best practices in community economic development stimulus programs for their communities;

(e) Conducting seminars to disseminate information to stimulate business and economic development in selected rural communities; and

(f) Developing computer technology outreach and establishing and maintaining a computer network system, linking community leaders and residents to available economic development information.

Funds may not be used to: (a) Pay costs of preparing the application package; (b) fund political activities; (c) pay costs prior to the effective date of the cooperative agreement; (d) provide for revolving funds; (e) do construction; (f) conduct any activities where there is or may appear to be a conflict of interest; or (g) purchase real estate.

This is a cooperative agreement award instrument. The total amount of funds available in FY 2004 for support of this program is approximately $1.5 million. Applicants should request a budget commensurate with the project proposed. Total funds to be awarded will be distributed to the 1890 Institutions, competitively, for the purpose of conducting outreach and providing technical assistance to targeted small rural communities. This outreach initiative includes, but is not limited to, technical assistance in cooperative, economic, and community development, feasibility studies, research, market development, loan packaging, conducting workshops and seminars in the area of cooperative, business, and economic development, and developing and providing access to computer technology and web sites development to the targeted population and communities.

The actual number of cooperative agreements funded will depend on the quality of proposals received and the amount of funding requested. Maximum amount of Federal funds awarded for any one proposal will be $150,000. It is anticipated that a typical award would range from $75,000 to $150,000. A larger award may be granted at the Administrator's discretion.

In the event that the applicant is to receive an award that is less than the amount requested, the applicant will be required to modify the application to conform to the reduced amount before execution of the cooperative agreement. RBS reserves the right to reduce or de-obligate any award if acceptable modifications are not submitted by the awardees within 10 working days from the date the application is returned to the applicant. Any modification must be within the scope of the original application.

Awards will be made for proposals found to be meritorious by a peer review panel of USDA's employees knowledgeable of the subject matter. Awards will be made to the extent that funds are available. However, there is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards.

Eligible applicants must provide matching funds in support of this project. Matching funds must equal at least 25 percent of the amount provided by RBS in the cooperative agreement. This Notice lists the information needed to submit an application for these funds.

Throughout the project period, Rural Development/RBS' commitment to the continuation of awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in certified acceptable quarterly progress and financial reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best interest of the U.S. Government.

A cooperative agreement award instrument requires substantial involvement of the agency in carrying out the objectives of the project. Information on the agency involvement can be found in the award administration information in Section VI.

Eligible applicants are 1890 Institutions which are: Alabama A&M University; University of Arkansas—Pine Bluff; Delaware State University; Florida A&M University; Fort Valley State University; Kentucky State University; Southern University and A&M College; University of Maryland—Eastern Shore; Alcorn State University; Langston University; North Carolina A&T State University; Lincoln University (MO); South Carolina State University; Tennessee State University; Prairie View A&M University; Virginia State University; and West Virginia State College; also including Tuskegee University. For this program, the agency will accept only one application per institution. In the event that more than one application is submitted, the 1890 Institution's president will determine the official application for consideration.

The applicant and assigned personnel must have expertise and experience in providing the recommended assistance. Applicants should also have a previous record of successful implementation of similar projects and must have the expertise in the use of electronic network technologies and/or a business information system network Web site.

Eligible beneficiaries must be located in a rural area as defined in 7 U.S.C. 1991(a)(13)(A) with a demonstrated economic need. Economic need can be demonstrated by the methods delineated in the evaluation section of this Notice. Location in an Empowerment Zone, Enterprise Community, Champion Community, federally-recognized Indian reservation or other federally declared economic depressed or disaster area is sufficient indication of economic need. Eligible beneficiaries must also be located in communities that show significant community support for the proposal. Preference will be given for projects that operate in a multi-county service area.

Award recipients may subcontract to organizations not eligible to apply provided such organizations are necessary for the conduct of the project. However, the subcontracted amount may not exceed one-third of the total Federal award.

Eligible applicants must provide matching funds in support of this project. Matching funds must equal at least 25 percent of the amount provided by RBS in the cooperative agreement. Applicants' contributions may be in cash or in-kind contributions and must be from non-Federal funds.

To obtain application instructions and all required forms, please contact the RBS Cooperative Services Program at (202) 690-3407 or FAX (202) 690-2723. The application forms and instructions may also be requested via e-mail by sending a message with your name, mailing address, and phone number to edgar.lewis@usda.gov. The application forms and instructions will be mailed to you as quickly as possible. When calling or e-mailing Cooperative Services, please indicate that you are requesting application forms and instructions for FY 2004 1890 Land Grant Institutions Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach Initiative. The application forms may also be located at Rural Business-Cooperative Service Web site: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/oa/1890.htm.

An original and two copies of the complete application are required. The original and 2 copies must include all required forms, certifications, assurances, and appendices, be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization, have original signatures, and be submitted unbound.

All Federal grant applicants must provide a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number when applying for Federal grants and cooperative agreements. The DUNS number is required whether an applicant is submitting a paper application or using the government-wide electronic portal ( http://www.Grants.gov ). A DUNS number is required for every application for a new award or renewal/continuation of an award, including applications or plans under formula, entitlement and block grant programs, submitted on or after October 1, 2003. Please ensure that your organization has a DUNS number. You may acquire a DUNS number at no cost by calling the dedicated toll-free DUNS number request line on 1-866-705-5711 or you may request a number on-line at http://www.dnd.com.

If your application form does not have a DUNS number field, please write your DUNS number at the top of the first page of your application, and/or include your DUNS number in your application cover letter.

Your proposal should contain each of the following:

(a) Completed Forms.

(1) Form SF-424, “Application for Federal Assistance.” Please complete SF-424, including items 10 and 14 (voting District, Congressman and Senator).

(2) Form SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.”

(3) Form SF-424B, “Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.”

(4) Form AD-1047, “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.”

(5) Form AD-1049, “Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements.”

(b) A letter of support from your Rural Development/RBS State office.

(c) Table of Contents: For ease of locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents immediately following the required forms. The Table of Contents should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the Table of Contents.

(d) Project Executive Summary: A summary of the Project Proposal, not to exceed one page.

(e) Project Proposal: The application must contain a narrative statement describing the nature of the proposed outreach initiative. The proposal must include at least the following:

(1) Project Title Page. The Title Page must include the following: title of the project, names of principal investigators, and applicant organization.

(2) Introduction. A concisely worded justification or rationale for the outreach initiative must be presented. Included should be a summarization of social and economical statistical data (income, population, employment rate, poverty rate, education attainment, etc.), of the target area which substantiates the need for the outreach initiative. Note in this section if the target area includes an Employment Zone/Enterprise Community, Champion Community, Federally-recognized Indian reservation or other federally declared economic disaster area. Please discuss the “Economic Need of Community” evaluation criterion in this section.

(3) Workplan. Discuss the approach (strategy) to be used in carrying out the proposed outreach initiative and accomplishing the objectives. Please discuss the “Statement of Work” evaluation criterion in this section. A description of any subcontracting arrangements to be used in carrying out the project must be included. Also, the workplan must include:

(i) Overview of the project objectives and goals: Identify and discuss the specific goals and objectives of the project and the impact of the outreach initiative on end-users;

(ii) Timeframe: Develop a tentative schedule for conducting the major steps of the outreach initiative;

(iii) Milestones: Describe and quantify the expected outcome of the specific outreach objective, including jobs created or assisted, conferences and seminars conducted and number of participants, loans packaged, etc.;

(iv) Recipient involvement: Identify the person(s) who will be performing the activities; and

(v) RBS involvement: Identify RBS staff responsible for assisting and monitoring the activities.

(4) Estimated Budget. You must provide a detailed budget justification including matching funds.

(5) Leveraging Funds. Other institutional support of this outreach initiative project. Please discuss the “Matching Fund/Leveraging” evaluation criterion in this section.

(6) Coordination and Management Plan. Describe how the project will be coordinated among various participants, the nature of the collaborations and benefits to participants, the communities, the applicant, and RBS. Describe your plans for the management of the project to ensure its proper and efficient administration. Describe the scope of RBS's involvement in the project. Please discuss the “Coordination and Management of the Project” evaluation criterion in this section.

(7) Technology Outreach. The proposal must address the applicant's ability to deliver computer technology to the targeted rural communities and implement and maintain a computer network system linking community leaders and residents to available economic development information. Please discuss the “Digital Technology Outreach” evaluation criterion in this section.

(8) Key Personnel Support. The proposal must include curriculum vitae for the key personnel used to carry out the goals and objectives of the proposal.

(9) Facilities or Equipment. Your proposal must identify where the project will be located (housed) and what other equipment is needed or already available to carry out the specific objectives of the project.

(10) Previous Accomplishments. Summarize previous accomplishments of outreach work funded by RBS or similar outreach experiences. This is especially important for first time applicants. Please discuss the “Previous Accomplishments” evaluation criterion in this section.

(11) Local and Rural Development/RBS State Office Support. Letters of support from the local community such as businesses, educational institutions, local governments, community-based organizations, etc. One letter must be from the respective Rural Development/RBS State Office. Letters of support (other than from Rural Development/RBS) should show support with commitment for tangible resources and or assistance. A letter from Rural Development/RBS is evidence that the State office had an opportunity for input in your proposal and can meet the cooperative agreement requirements for RBS. Please discuss the “Local Support” evaluation criterion in this section.

(12) Any other information necessary for RBS to approve and show support with commitment for tangible resources and or rank your proposal.

Additionally you are encouraged to provide any strategic plan that has been developed to assist cooperative and business development or entrepreneurship for the targeted communities.

Dates:

Cooperative agreement proposals must be received in the RBS National Office by 4 p.m. July 26, 2004.

Proposals received after July 26, 2004, will not be considered for funding. The applicant assumes the risk of any delay in proposal delivery. Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed applications via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by RBS. Receipt of all applications will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide accurate e-mail addresses. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 7 work days of the submission deadline, please contact the program manager (see item IV, 6). If RBS receives your application after closing due to:

(a) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the package with guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or

(b) Significant weather delays or natural disaster, you will be given the opportunity to document these problems. RBS will consider the application as having been received by the deadline if your documentation meets these requirements and verifies the delay was beyond your control. However, applications submitted via facsimile or e-mail will not be accepted.

Executive Order 12372 does apply to this program.

Based on Section 708 Title 7 Consolidated Appropriations-Act 2004, (Pub. L. 108-199) “No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements or similar arrangements between the United States Department of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 percent of the total cost of the agreement when the purpose of such cooperative arrangement is to carry out programs of mutual interest between the two parties.” Other funding restrictions are identified in the “Eligibility Information” section 2.

Send proposals and other required materials by mail or express delivery service to: Mr. Edgar L. Lewis, Program Manager, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, Stop 3252, Room 4221, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-3252.

Applications may not be submitted electronically at this time.

Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to cooperative agreements awarded. These include, but are not limited to:

7 CFR part 15, subpart A—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture “ Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

7 CFR part 3015—Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations,

7 CFR part 3017—Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grant),

7 CFR part 3018—New Restrictions on Lobbying,

7 CFR part 3019—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations,

7 CFR Part 3052—Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.

1. Criteria —Proposals will be evaluated using the following seven criteria. Each criterion is given the weight value shown with total points equal to 100. The points assigned provide an indication of the relative importance of each section and will be used by the reviewers in evaluating the proposals. Points do not have to be awarded by RBS for each criterion. After all proposals have been evaluated, the Administrator may award an additional 10 discretionary points to any proposal to obtain the broadest geographic distribution of the funds, insure a broad diversity of project proposals, or insure a broad diversity in the size of the awards.

(a) Support of Local Community (Up to 10 points)—Proposals should have the support of local government, educational, community, and business groups. Higher points will be awarded for proposals demonstrating broad support from all components of the communities served, particularly cooperative groups. Broad support is demonstrated by tangible contributions, such as providing volunteers, computers, or transportation or co-sponsoring workshops and conferences. Points will be awarded based on the level of tangible contribution in comparison to the size of the award. Tangible support must be stated in letters from supporting entities.

(b) Matching Funds/Leveraging (Up to 15 points)—This criteria relates to the extent to which the institution has the capacity to support the project with matching funds and leveraging additional funds and resources to carry out this outreach initiative.

A maximum of 10 points will be awarded based upon the amount the proposal exceeds the minimum 25 percent matching requirement. Applicants will be required to provide matching funds or equivalent in-kind in support of this project. Evidence of matching funds availability must be provided. Funds or equivalent in-kind must be available at the time the cooperative agreement is entered into. Matching funds points will be awarded as listed below.

Up to 5 additional points may be awarded based on the applicant's capacity to leverage additional funds and resources from other private and nonprivate sources to support this outreach initiative. Applicants must provide sufficient information on the amount and sources of your leveraging activities for the evaluation panel to properly rate this criterion.

(c) Economic Need of Community (Up to 15 points)—This criterion will be evaluated based on the economic need of the targeted communities.

A maximum of 5 points will automatically be awarded to proposals with one or more of the following entities in a targeted community(s): Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Champion Communities, Federally-recognized Indian reservations, and other federally declared economic depressed or disaster areas. Applicants must provide sufficient information for the panel to properly rate this part of the above criterion. The proposals must state the name and location of the declared economic depressed area.

Rural underserved targeted counties/communities must be an area other than a city or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants and the urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to such a city or town, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census using the latest decennial census of the United States.

Also, for this criterion, a maximum of 7 points will be awarded for demonstrated economic need based on the currently available poverty rate of the targeted local community(s). Applicants may use targeted county or community poverty rates if available. When multi-community proposals are submitted, the over-all weighted average for all counties or communities will be used. Applicants must use current (2000 Census) poverty data for each targeted county or community. Points will be awarded based on the differences in the targeted county or community's average poverty from the respective State poverty rate (average targeted county or community poverty rate minus the respective State poverty rate). Percents will be rounded to the next whole number.

Up to 3 additional points may be awarded for this criterion based on the applicant's ability to demonstrate or identify other economic needs of the targeted communities, such as, but not limited to, unemployment rates, education levels, and job availability. Applicants must provide sufficient information for the panel to properly rate this part of the above criterion.

(d) Previous Accomplishments (Up to 10 points)—This criterion will be evaluated based on the applicant's previous accomplishments with this outreach initiative and/or demonstrative capacity to conduct similar outreach work.

A point will be awarded to those institutions for each year they have been awarded a cooperative agreement under this program up to 5 years. Applicants must provide evidence of satisfactorily completing the agreement for each year that they claim for credit.

Up to five additional points may be awarded based on the applicant's ability to document the positive impact of their project upon the targeted underserved rural communities. It is incumbent upon the applicant to provide information as to the type of services delivered and names of rural communities.

Applicants with zero or less than 5 recent years of awards in this program may receive up to the maximum 10 points by highlighting the applicant's commitment and previous performance on this project or projects with cooperative development outreach objectives. The applicant should discuss the potential impact of their project upon the targeted underserved rural communities, as well as describing previous similar outreach work.

(e) Statement of Work (up to 30 Points)—This criterion relates to the degree to which the proposed project addresses the major purposes for the “1890 Land Grant Institutions: Rural Entrepreneurial Program Outreach Initiative.” Points will be awarded according to the degree to which the statement of work reflects innovative strategies for providing outreach and assistance to the targeted underserved rural entrepreneurs, cooperatives, businesses and communities, and the potential for achieving project objectives. To receive up to 20 points, proposals must have a clearly and concisely stated work plan showing objectives, goals, timetables, expected results, measurable outcomes, a commitment to cooperative development and who will be performing various activities, including RBS involvement. All proposals must integrate substantial RBS involvement. An extra 10 points will be awarded for this criterion for those proposals that reflect innovation and commitment in working with new and existing cooperatives.

(f) Digital Technology Outreach (Up to 10 points)—This criterion is meant to evaluate the applicant's level of outreach and capacity to provide innovative and effective computer technology outreach to the underserved targeted rural communities.

A maximum of 5 points will be awarded based on the applicant's demonstrated capacity to promote innovations and improvements in the delivery of computer technology benefits to underserved rural communities whose share in these benefits is disproportionably low. Examples of innovations and improvements in this needed area include, but are not limited to; computer-based decision support systems to assist entrepreneurs and rural community governments in taking advantage of relevant technologies or effective delivery systems for business information or resource management assistance for rural underserved entrepreneurs and local governments and providing a business information systems network.

Up to 5 additional points may be awarded based on the qualification and subject skill level of the individuals directly conducting the technology outreach activities. Applicants must provide sufficient information for the evaluation panels to properly rate this technology criterion.

(g) Coordination and Management of the Project (Up to 10 points)—This criterion will be evaluated based on the applicant's demonstrated capacity to coordinate and manage this type of outreach initiative among the various stakeholders.

A maximum of 5 points will be awarded for the coordination plan. Applicants will need to describe the role and coordination mechanisms among various participants, including communities, the applicant, the USDA Rural Development State Office and RBS National Office. The nature of the collaborations and benefits to participants must also be described.

By definition, a cooperative agreement requires substantial involvement by the funding agent in carrying out the project objectives in the project. Therefore, up to 5 additional points may be awarded for this criterion based on demonstration of broad involvement and collaboration with each applicant's respective USDA Rural Development State Office as related to the outreach project. This involvement and collaboration should include, but not be limited to: (1) Rural Development State Office input and review of applicant's proposal, (2) invitations to attend and participate in workshops and conferences when needed, (3) on-going monitoring of the outreach project, and (4) directing applicants to the Rural Development State Office when applicable.

2. Review and Selection Process —Each application will be evaluated in a two-part process. First, each application will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative requirements as set forth in the Request for Proposals. Second, a number of expert reviewers will conduct a merit review based on the “Evaluation Criteria and Weights” section of this notice. The review of the individual reviewers will be used by RBS to determine which application will be recommended to the Administrator for funding. Evaluated applications will be ranked based on merit. The RBS Administrator will make final approval for those applications recommended for an award. If there is a tie score after the proposals have been rated and ranked, the tie will be resolved by the proposal with the largest matching funds as a percent of the Federal amount of the award.

1. Award Notices —This is a competitive cooperative agreement. In August, successful applicants will receive notice of award from RBS National Office stating that their university has been selected to receive an award to provide technical assistance and business development information to the targeted rural communities. Upon final approval of the award, based on an expert panel review and ranking process, as well as the Office of the General Counsel's review and clearance of your proposal by USDA's Under Secretary for Rural Development, an official cooperative agreement document will be sent to the successful applicant for signing by the institution's president or designee. The document will become binding after signing by the USDA official.

Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of the application review by mail.

In compliance with USDA's Management Control Review and RBS recommendations, the State Office representative will be conducting semiannual on-site reviews of your project, as well as any additional reviews deemed necessary by the National Office.

Upon final approval of the award, and as stated in the cooperative agreement, a copy of your quarterly progress and annual report are to be forwarded to the National and State Offices. In addition, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement” (SF-270), “Financial Status Report” (SF-269 or 269A) and quarterly progress reports are to be submitted contemporaneously to the National Office.

During the term of the negotiated agreements, the recipients will deliver quarterly reports of progress of the work to RBS and prepare and deliver a final report detailing all work done and results accomplished. In addition, all reports forwarded to RBS National Office must be forwarded to the USDA Rural Development State Office. Also, upon request by RBS, the recipient will deliver manuscripts, videotapes, software, or other media, as may be identified in approved proposals. RBS retains those rights delineated in 7 CFR 3019.36. Also, the recipients will deliver project outreach success stories and other project related information requested by RBS for use on the Web site ( http://bisnet.sus.edu ), or other Web sites designated by USDA-RBS.

2. Administrative and National Policy: Institutions that are awarded a cooperative agreement will be responsible for the following:

(a) Completing the objectives as defined in the approved proposal.

(b) Keeping up-to-date records on the project during the term of the agreement, making quarterly reports of the progress of the work to RBS on or prior to January 31, April 29, July 29, and October 31, 2005, and preparing a final report detailing all work done and results accomplished. Submitting a final report to RBS National Office and to the USDA Rural Development State Office within 90 days of the project's completion.

(c) Submitting to RBS, on a quarterly basis, (SF-270), “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”

(d) Keeping an account of expenditures of the Federal dollars and matching fund dollars and providing to RBS, (SF-269), “Financial Status Report,” with each SF-270 submitted, and a final SF-269 within 90 days of the project's completion.

(e) Immediately refunding to RBS, at the end of the agreement, any balance of unobligated funds received from RBS.

(f) Providing matching funds or equivalent in-kind in support of the project, at least to the level agreed to in the accepted proposal.

(g) Conducting seminars to disseminate Rural Development program information to stimulate business and economic development in selected rural communities.

(h) Participating in the RBS Entrepreneurship and Information Annual or Bi-annual Conferences/Workshops when planned.

(i) In cooperation with local businesses, developing a program of cooperative and business startup and technical assistance that will assist with new company development, business planning, new enterprise, franchise startup and consulting, business expansion studies, marketing analysis, cashflow management, and seminars and workshops for cooperatives and small businesses.

(j) Providing office space, equipment, and supplies for all personnel assigned to the project.

(k) Developing management and technical assistance plans in cooperation with USDA Rural Development State Office that will:

(1) assess cooperative and small business alternatives to traditional, nontraditional, agricultural, and other natural resources-based industries;

(2) assist in the development of business plans and loan packages, marketing, bookkeeping assistance, and organizational sustainability; and

(3) in cooperation with USDA Rural Development State Office, provide technical assistance and training in customer relations, product development, and business planning and development.

(l) Assessing the need for and, if necessary, conducting a feasibility study of local community weaknesses and strengths, feasible alternatives to agriculture production, and the needed infrastructure to expand or develop new or existing businesses. The plans for any such studies must be submitted for approval prior to the study being conducted.

(m) In cooperation with the USDA Rural Development State Office, providing community leaders with advice and recommendations regarding best practices in community economic development stimulus programs for their communities.

(n) Developing digital technology outreach and establish and maintaining a Business Information Network System web site, linking community leaders and residents to available economic development information.

(o) Assuring and certifying that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the agreement with, all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, and other generally applicable requirements, including those set out in 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3019.

(p) Using Federal funds to only pay meeting related travel expenses when the employees are performing a service of direct benefit to the Government directly in furtherance of the objectives of the proposed agreement. Federal funds cannot be used to pay non-Federal employees to attend meetings.

(q) Not commingling or using program funds for administrative expenses to operate an intermediary relending program (IRP).

(r) Collaborating with the RBS National and USDA Rural Development State Offices in performing the tasks in the agreement as needed and providing the RBS National Office with the necessary information for RBS to:

(1) Monitor the program as it is being implemented and operated, including monitoring of financial information to ensure that there is no commingling or use of program funds for administrative expenses to operate an IRP or other unapproved items.

(2) Halt activity, after written notice, if tasks are not met.

(3) Review and approve changes to key personnel.

(4) Provide guidance in the evaluation process and other technical assistance as needed.

(5) Approve the final plans for the community business workshops, cooperative, business, and economic development sessions, and training workshops to be conducted by the applicant.

(6) Provide reference assistance as needed to the applicant for technical assistance given on a one-on-one basis to entrepreneurs and startup businesses.

(7) Review and comment upon strategic plans developed by the applicant for targeted areas.

(8) Review economic assessments made by the applicant for targeted counties so that RBS can indicate which of its programs may be beneficial.

(9) Carefully screen the project to prevent First Amendment violations.

(10) Monitor the program to ensure that a Business Information System Network web-site link is established and maintained.

(11) Provide assistance and training to the Business Information System Network Hub-sites and Wide Area Network (WAN) Team Members at the universities in preparing economic development information for posting on the Internet.

(12) Allow the USDA Rural Development State Office to conduct a semi-annual on-site review and submit written reports to the National Office.

(13) Participate in program workshops, seminars and conferences as required or by invitations.

(14) Sponsor annual or bi-annual Entrepreneurship and Information workshops for 1890 participants and Rural Development/RBS 1890 representatives.

Title: 7 CFR 1902-A, Supervised Bank Accounts.

OMB Number: 0575-0158.

Expiration Date of Approval: January 31, 2005.

Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The Agencies extend financial assistance to applicants that do not qualify for loans under commercial rates and terms.

The Agencies use SBAs as a temporary mechanism to (1) ensure correct disbursement and expenditure of all funds designated for a project; (2) help a borrower properly manage its financial affairs; and (3) ensure that the Government's security is protected adequately from fraud, waste, and abuse.

SBAs are mandatory for Multi-Family Housing (MFH) reserve accounts. The MFH funds must be kept in the SBA for the full term of a loan. Any funds withdrawn for disbursement for an authorized purpose require a countersignature from an Agency official.

This regulation prescribes the policies and responsibilities for the use of SBAs. In carrying out their mission as a supervised credit Agency, this regulation authorizes the use of supervised accounts for the disbursement of funds. The use may be necessitated to disburse Government funds consistent with the various stages of any development (construction) work actually achieved. On limited occasions, a supervised account is used to provide temporary credit counseling and oversight of those being assisted who demonstrate an inability to handle their financial affairs responsibly. Another use is for depositing multi-housing reserve account funds in a manner requiring Agency co-signature for withdrawals. Multi-housing reserve account funds are held in a sinking fund for the future capital improvement needs for apartment projects. Supervised accounts are established to ensure Government security is adequately protected against fraud, waste, and abuse.

The legislative authority for requiring the use of supervised accounts is contained in section 339 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CON ACT), as amended (7 U.S.C. 1989), and section 510 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1480). These provisions authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties the Government is charged with administering.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average .42 hours per response.

Respondents: The primary respondents are small businesses.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 20,000.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.1.

Estimated Number of Responses: 62,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 26,260 hours.

Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Tracy Givelekian, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0039.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agencies, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of Agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Tracy Givelekian, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, STOP 0742, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20250. 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.

Since the publication of the preliminary results of this review ( see Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the Republic of Korea, 68 FR 68331 (December 8, 2003) (“ Preliminary Results ”)), the following events have occurred:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) issued verification reports for Husteel Co., Ltd. (“Husteel”), SeAH Steel (“SeAH”), and Hyundai HYSCO (“HYSCO”) in November and December 2003. See Memoranda to the File, “Verification Report of the Sales and Cost Responses of Husteel in the 2001/2002 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Circular Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea,” dated December 8, 2003; “CEP Sales Verification Report—SeAH Steel,” dated December 10, 2003; “CEP Sales Verification Report—Hyundai HYSCO,” dated December 29, 2003; “Home-Market Sales and Cost Verification Report—Hyundai HYSCO,” dated December 30, 2003. These reports are on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”).

On December 17, 2003, we notified the parties that the briefing schedule was extended, with case briefs due on January 26, 2004, and rebuttal briefs due on February 2, 2004. On January 8, 2004, we granted a request submitted by Husteel and SeAH for an extension to file rebuttal briefs until February 5, 2004. Case briefs were submitted by Husteel, SeAH, and HYSCO (collectively, “the respondents”) on January 26, 2004. Allied Tube and Conduit Corporation and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, the “domestic interested parties”) submitted a case brief on January 28, 2004. Rebuttal briefs were submitted by the respondents on February 5, 2004. The domestic interested parties submitted a rebuttal brief on February 6, 2004.

On February 19, 2004, we published in the Federal Register an extension of the time limit for the completion of the final results of the review to no later than June 1, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). See Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe From Korea: Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 7724 (February 19, 2004).

Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Tuesday, June, 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the deadline for these final results by one day to June 2, 2004.

The merchandise subject to this review is circular welded non-alloy steel pipe and tube, of circular cross-section, not more than 406.4 mm (16 inches) in outside diameter, regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (black, galvanized, or painted), or end finish (plain end, beveled end, threaded, or threaded and coupled). These pipes and tubes are generally known as standard pipes and tubes and are intended for the low-pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air, and other liquids and gases in plumbing and heating systems, air-conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipe may also be used for light load-bearing applications, such as for fence tubing, and as structural pipe tubing used for framing and as support members for reconstruction or load-bearing purposes in the construction, shipbuilding, trucking, farm equipment, and other related industries. Unfinished conduit pipe is also included in this order.

All carbon-steel pipes and tubes within the physical description outlined above are included within the scope of this review except line pipe, oil-country tubular goods, boiler tubing, mechanical tubing, pipe and tube hollows for redraws, finished scaffolding, and finished conduit. In accordance with the Department's Final Negative Determination of Scope Inquiry on Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe and Tube from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Venezuela, 61 FR 11608 (March 21, 1996), pipe certified to the API 5L line-pipe specification and pipe certified to both the API 5L line-pipe specifications and the less-stringent ASTM A-53 standard-pipe specifications, which falls within the physical parameters as outlined above, and entered as line pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines is outside of the scope of the antidumping duty order.

Imports of these products are currently classifiable under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 7306.30.10.00, 7306.30.50.25, 7306.30.50.32, 7306.30.50.40, 7306.30.50.55, 7306.30.50.85, and 7306.30.50.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The period of review (“POR”) is November 1, 2001, through October 31, 2002.

As stated in the Preliminary Results and provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information submitted by the respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' facilities and examination of the relevant sales, cost, and financial records.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” from Jeffrey May, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Import Administration to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary, Import Administration, dated June 2, 2004 (“ Decision Memorandum ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Department's CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

We calculated export price (“EP”), constructed export price (“CEP”), normal value (“NV”), cost of production (“COP”), and constructed value (“CV”) based on the same methodologies used in the Preliminary Results with the following exception:

• We recalculated HYSCO's COP, CV, and CEP profit rate using the reported combined costs for self-produced and further manufactured pipe. ( See Final Results Calculation Memorandum for Hyundai HYSCO dated June 2, 2004, and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6).

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices less than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in “substantial quantities.” Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product during the 12-month period were at prices less than the COP, we determined such sales to have been made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In such cases, we also determined that such below-cost sales were not made at prices which would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(1)(B) of the Act.

We found that for each of the respondents, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of the home market sales within an extended period of time were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales and used the remaining sales, if any, as the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

HYSCO had U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade ( e.g., sales that passed the cost test). We compared those sales to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

We made currency conversions in accordance with section 773A of the Act in the same manner as in the Preliminary Results.

We determine that the following percentage margins exist for the period November 1, 2001, through October 31, 2002:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate was greater than de minimis, we calculated a per unit assessment rate by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).

The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

The following antidumping duty deposits will be required on all shipments of circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates listed above (except no cash deposit will be required if a company's weighted-average margin is de minimis , i.e. , less than 0.5 percent); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, the previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate shall be 4.80 percent, the “all others” rate established in the less than fair value investigation. See Notice of Antidumping Orders: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Venezuela, and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea , 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992).

These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

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

The products covered by this order are natural honey, artificial honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, preparations of natural honey containing more than 50 percent natural honey by weight, and flavored honey. The subject merchandise includes all grades and colors of honey whether in liquid, creamed, comb, cut comb, or chunk form, and whether packaged for retail or in bulk form.

The merchandise subject to this review is currently classifiable under subheadings 0409.00.00, 1702.90.90, and 2106.90.99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under order is dispositive.

Zhejiang alleged that the Department did not calculate a raw honey value representative of the POR, as it intended to do, in calculating Zhejiang's final ad valorem margin. Specifically, Zhejiang alleged that the Department: (1) Incorrectly double-counted for the December 2001 raw honey surrogate value, adjusted for inflation, in its calculation of a POR average value and (2) failed to inflate the raw honey surrogate value by an average rate of inflation for the period February 2001 through November 2001, which was inconsistent with its calculation of inflation for the period June 2002 through November 2002. Additionally, Zhejiang noted that the Department incorrectly described the denominator used to calculate inflation for the period June 2002 through November 2002.

We agree in part with Zhejiang. The Act, as well as the Department's regulations, define a ministerial error as one involving “addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” See section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f) of the Department's regulations. We agree with Zhejiang's claim that we inadvertently failed to inflate the raw honey surrogate value by an average rate of inflation for the period February 2001 through November 2001. Therefore, we have corrected Zhejiang's final margin program accordingly. However, the Department disagrees with Zhejiang's other claim that the Department double-counted the December 2001 raw honey surrogate value in its calculations. In fact, the Department only represented the December 2001 raw honey surrogate value (adjusted for inflation) once in its calculation. See Memorandum to the File regarding Final Results of the First Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Honey from the People's Republic of China; Factors of Production Valuation (April 28, 2004) (Final FOP Memo) at Attachment 2, in which the Department notes that it calculated an average raw honey surrogate value for the period January 2002 through May 2002. Therefore, since the Department did not commit an error with respect to the December 2001 surrogate value, we are not making any adjustments in regard to our use of the December 2001 raw honey surrogate value in our final calculation of the final POR average value. See the June 1, 2004, memorandum to James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group III (Amended Final Memo) at Attachment 1.

With respect to Zhejiang's comment that the Department incorrectly described the denominator that yielded its Inflator 2 calculation, we have updated the description to accurately reflect the variable used by the Department. See Amended Final Memo at Attachment 3.

As a result of our corrections, for the period February 10, 2001, through November 30, 2002, Zhejiang's antidumping duty margin decreased from 68.35 percent to 67.70 percent ad valorem .

The Department will instruct the CBP to assess antidumping duties, as indicated above, on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue liquidation instructions directly to the CBP. The amended cash deposit requirement is effective for all shipments of subject merchandise from Zhejiang entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice and shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

These amended final results are issued and published in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224 of the Department's regulations.

On September 30, 2003, pursuant to a request by the petitioner, 1 we published the notice of initiation of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe from Mexico with respect to TAMSA. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Request for Revocation in Part and Deferral of Administrative Review, 68 FR 56262 (September 30, 2003). On December 9, 2003, TAMSA submitted a letter, certifying that during the period of review (POR) neither it, nor its U.S. affiliate, Siderca Corporation, entered subject merchandise for consumption, or sold, exported, or shipped subject merchandise for entry for consumption, in the United States.

On May 4, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of its preliminary intent to rescind this administrative review and invited parties to comment. See Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line, and Pressure Pipe From Mexico; Intent To Rescind Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 24569 (Notice of Preliminary Intent to Rescind). No interested party submitted comments, a case brief, or requested a hearing.

The products covered by this order are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.

The seamless pipes subject to this order are currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.30, 7304.10.10.45, 7304.10.10.60, 7304.10.50.50, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.36, 7304.39.00.40, 7304.39.00.44, 7304.39.00.48, 7304.39.00.52, 7304.39.00.56, 7304.39.00.62, 7304.39.00.68, 7304.39.00.72, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.30, 7304.59.80.35, 7304.59.80.40, 7304.59.80.45, 7304.59.80.50, 7304.59.80.55, 7304.59.80.60, 7304.59.80.65, and 7304.59.80.70 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas, and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A333 or ASTM A334 specifications.

Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A106, ASTM A53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.

For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A161, ASTM A192, ASTM A210, ASTM A252, ASTM A501, ASTM A523, ASTM A524, and ASTM A618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this order.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:

A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications.

B. Finished and unfinished oil country tubular goods (OCTG), if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.

C. Products produced to the A335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A53, ASTM A106, ASTM A333, ASTM A334, ASTM A589, ASTM A795, and API 5L specifications.

D. Line and riser pipe for deepwater application, i.e. , line and riser pipe that is (1) used in a deepwater application, which means for use in water depths of 1,500 feet or more; (2) intended for use in and is actually used for a specific deepwater project; (3) rated for a specified minimum yield strength of not less than 60,000 psi; and (4) not identified or certified through the use of a monogram, stencil, or otherwise marked with an API specification ( e.g. , API 5L).

With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being utilized in a covered application. If such information is provided, the Department will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or specification(s)) for which evidence is provided that such products are being used in a covered application as described above. For example, if, based on evidence provided by the petitioner, the Department finds a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that seamless pipe produced to the A-335 specification is being used in an A-106 application, it will require end-use certifications for imports of that specification. Normally the Department will require only the importer of record to certify to the end-use of the imported merchandise. If it later proves necessary for adequate implementation, the Department may also require producers who export such products to the United States to provide such certification on invoices accompanying shipments to the United States.

Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to this order is dispositive.

On May 4, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register its intent to rescind the administrative review. See Notice of Preliminary Intent to Rescind. In this notice we stated that, based on our shipment data query and examination of entry documents (see Memorandum to Michael S. Craig from Gary Taverman: Request for U.S. Entry Documents—Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico (A-201-827) (March 4, 2004) and Memorandum to the File: Customs Entry Documents—Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico (A-201-827) (April 30, 2004)), we should treat TAMSA as a non-shipper and, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, rescind this review. We invited interested parties to comment on our intent to rescind the administrative review. No comments were submitted.

Consequently, the Department continues to treat TAMSA as a non-shipper for the purpose of this review. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, and consistent with our practice, we rescind this review because TAMSA is the sole respondent and a non-shipper. See, e.g., Polychloroprene Rubber from Japan: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 45005 (August 27, 2001).

We are issuing this notice is in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and section 351.213(d) of the Department's regulations.

On September 7, 2001, the Department issued an antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People's Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 2, 2003, the Department issued a notice of opportunity to request the second administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 68 FR 52181 (September 2, 2003). On September 17, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), Liepajas Metalurgs requested an administrative review. On September 30, 2003, also in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the petitioners  1 requested an administrative review of Liepajas Metalurgs. On October 24, 2003, the Department published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review, covering the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003 (the POR). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 68 FR 60910 (October 24, 2003).

On November 7, 2003, the Department issued its antidumping questionnaire to Liepajas Metalurgs, specifying that the responses to Section A and Sections B-D would be due on November 28, 2003, and December 14, 2003, respectively. 2 We received timely responses to Sections A-C of the initial antidumping questionnaire and associated supplemental questionnaires. We initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of Liepajas Metalurgs on April 23, 2004. The company submitted timely responses to Section D of the antidumping questionnaire, as well as to supplemental questionnaires.

Due to the unexpected emergency closure of the main Commerce building on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, the Department has tolled the deadline for these preliminary results by one day to June 2, 2004.

For purposes of this review, the product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 7214.20.00 or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds ( i.e. , non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

We compared the EP to the NV, as described in the Export Price and Normal Value sections of this notice. We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and comparison market that are identical with respect to the matching characteristics. Pursuant to section 771(16) of the Act, all products produced by the respondent that fit the definition of the scope of the order and were sold in the comparison market during the POR fall within the definition of the foreign like product. We have relied on three criteria to match U.S. sales of subject merchandise to comparison market sales of the foreign like product: type of steel, yield strength, and size. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar foreign like product on the basis of the characteristics listed above.

We calculated an EP for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' sales because the merchandise was sold directly by Liepajas Metalurgs to the first unaffiliated purchaser for delivery to the United States, and constructed export price (CEP) was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. We made deductions from the starting price for movement expenses in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included inland freight and domestic brokerage and handling expenses.

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs that NV be based on the price at which the foreign like product is sold in the home market, provided that the merchandise is sold in sufficient quantities (or value, if quantity is inappropriate); that the time of the sales reasonably corresponds to the time of the sale used to determine EP; and that there is no particular market situation that prevents a proper comparison with the EP. The statute contemplates that quantities (or value) will normally be considered insufficient if they are less than five percent of the aggregate quantity (or value) of sales of the subject merchandise to the United States.

We found that Liepajas Metalurgs had a viable home market for rebar. As such, Liepajas Metalurgs submitted home market sales data for purposes of the calculation of NV.

In deriving NV, we made adjustments as detailed in the Calculation of Normal Value Based on Home Market Prices section below.

Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the first administrative review, we have reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Liepajas Metalurgs have been made at prices below the COP during the period of the second review. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation of sales made by Liepajas Metalurgs. See Memorandum From Daniel O'Brien, International Trade Compliance Analyst, to Gary Taverman, Director, Office 5, Re: Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs, dated April 23, 2004.

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of materials, fabrication, and general and administrative (G&A) expenses. We relied on Liepajas Metalurgs' submitted COP. See Memorandum from Daniel O'Brien and Jim Kemp, International Trade Compliance Analysts, to Constance Handley, Program Manager, Re: Analysis Memorandum for Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs, dated June 2, 2004 (the Analysis Memorandum).

We compared the weighted-average COPs for Liepajas Metalurgs to its home-market sales prices of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time ( i.e. , a period of one year) in substantial quantities and whether such prices were sufficient to permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time.

On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to the home market prices, less any applicable movement charges, discounts, rebates, and direct and indirect selling expenses.

We disregarded below-cost sales where (1) 20 percent or more of Liepajas Metalurgs' sales of a given product during the POR were made at prices below the COP, because such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on comparisons of price to weighted-average COPs for the POR, we determined that the below-cost sales of the product were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that Liepajas Metalurgs made sales below cost and we disregarded such sales where appropriate.

We determined NV for Liepajas Metalurgs as follows. We made adjustments for any differences in packing and deducted home market movement expenses pursuant to sections 773(a)(6)(A) and 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. In addition, we made adjustments for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We made COS adjustments for Liepajas Metalurgs's EP transactions by deducting direct selling expenses incurred for home market sales (credit expenses) and adding U.S. direct selling expenses (credit expenses). We note that Liepajas Metalurgs reported freight revenue on some sales, but failed to provide the corresponding freight expenses. For the purposes of this preliminary results, we have not added freight revenue to normal value. We will request the correct freight information from Liepajas Metalurgs prior to the deadline for case briefs being due.

In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade as the EP transaction. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For EP sales, the U.S. level of trade is also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from exporter to importer.

To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than EP transactions, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.

In implementing these principles in this administrative review, we obtained information from Liepajas Metalurgs about the marketing stages involved in the reported U.S. and home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by the respondent for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for EP and home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the starting price before any adjustments.

In conducting our level-of-trade analysis for Liepajas Metalurgs, we examined the specific types of customers, the channels of distribution, and the selling practices of the respondent. Generally, if the reported levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party reports levels of trade that are different for different categories of sales, the functions and activities may be dissimilar. We found the following.

Liepajas Metalurgs reported two channels of distribution in the home market: (1) Direct sales by Liepajas Metalurgs; and (2) sales by Liepajas Metalurgs' affiliated reseller Armaturas Servisa Centrs (ASC). 3 In the U.S. market, Liepajas Metalurgs reported one channel of distribution: direct sales by Liepajas Metalurgs. The company reported three customer categories in the home market: (1) Traders; (2) end users; and (3) service centers. We found that the selling functions performed by Liepajas Metalurgs differed significantly for home market customers depending on the channel of distribution. The activities performed by ASC were in greater number and more advanced than those provided by Liepajas Metalurgs on direct sales. ASC provided selling functions such as customer negotiation, warehousing, sorting, repacking, and freight delivery, while Liepajas Metalurgs only negotiated with customers and arranged delivery of the product. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that sales through ASC are at a more advanced level of trade than Liepajas Metalurgs' direct sales in the home market.

Liepajas Metalurgs has reported one customer category in the U.S. market: traders. In comparing EP sales to the direct sales in the home market, we found that the selling functions performed by Liepajas Metalurgs were very similar in the U.S. and Latvian markets. For U.S. sales, Liepajas Metalurgs conducts negotiations with the traders and arranges delivery to the port. Therefore, we concluded that the EP and home market direct sales were made at the same level of trade. Since Liepajas Metalurgs' direct home market and U.S. sales are at the same level of trade, and ASC's home market sales are at a more advanced level of trade and a pattern of consistent price differences exists, we have preliminarily determined that a level of trade adjustment is warranted when we based NV on sales made through ASC. We have calculated a level of trade adjustment based on the difference in price between the two levels of trade in the home market for U.S. sales that match to sales made through ASC.

We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period September 1, 2002, through August 31, 2003:

The Department will disclose calculations performed in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, the parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results.

Upon completion of this administrative review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will calculate an assessment rate on all appropriate entries. We will calculate importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Since the delivery terms for all of Liepajas Metalurgs' U.S. sales were FOB Latvian seaport, we will calculate entered value using the gross unit price reported in the U.S. sales database. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer.

The following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate listed above for Liepajas Metalurgs will be the rate established in the final results of this review, except if a rate is less than 0.5 percent, and therefore de minimis , the cash deposit will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the following are the names and titles of DCAA career executives appointed to serve as members of the DCAA Performance Review Boards. Appointees will serve one-year terms, effective upon publication of this notice.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Characteristics of High-Performing Local Adult Education Programs.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions (primary), State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 384. Burden Hours: 552.

Abstract: The primary purpose is to understand the characteristics of high-performing adult education programs. Site visits to 24 programs will be conducted to develop an understanding of service delivery and instructional practices that allow these programs to achieve positive student outcomes, and to investigate whether the structure of the program affects student performance.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2497. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: New.

Title: National Educational Technology Trends Study.

Frequency: Monthly.

Affected Public:

State, local, or tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household, Not-for-profit institutions Federal Government.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Abstract: The study is designed to evaluate implementation of the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) program, inform program management, and enable ED to respond to GPRA reporting requirements for this program. The EETT program funds initiatives designed to integrate technology into classrooms in ways that improve academic achievement of students. Respondents for this study will include state administrators, district administrators, principals, and teachers.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2561. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to (202) 245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

1. On February 20, 2004, in Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. FERC , 1 the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) vacated the Commission's decisions in Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. 2 The Commission's decisions addressed Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company's (Williston) filing to comply with Order Nos. 637, 587-G and 587-L. The Court found that the Commission had failed to present an adequate explanation for its ruling directing Williston to adopt the policy set forth by the Commission in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. (CIG) 3 concerning shippers' ability to retain their primary point discounts when they or a replacement shipper use secondary points.

2. The Court's decision raises questions concerning the Commission's discount policy on a generic basis, as well as the effect of the policy on individual pipelines. In order to better resolve the issues raised in this proceeding, the Commission is requesting additional comments on its policy concerning a shipper's retention of its discounted rates when a secondary point is used, as that policy has been modified by the decisions in Colorado Interstate Gas Co. (CIG)   4 and Granite State Transmission Co. 5 ( Granite State ). The Commission recognizes that the resolution of the issues in this proceeding will have implications for other pipelines. Therefore, the Commission will permit late intervention in this proceeding to permit comments from all interested parties.

3. As part of Order No. 436, which commenced the transition to open-access transportation, the Commission adopted regulations permitting pipelines to engage in selective discounting based on the varying demand elasticities of the pipeline's customers. 6 The Commission explained that these selective discounts would benefit all customers, including customers that did not receive the discounts, because the discounts allow the pipeline to maximize throughput and thus spread its fixed costs across more units of service. 7 The Commission's adoption of these regulations was upheld in Associated Gas Distributors v. FERC (AGD I) . 8

4. In the Rate Design Policy Statement  9 and a number of section 4 rate cases, 10 the Commission held that if a pipeline grants a discount in order to meet competition, the pipeline is not required in its next rate case to design its rates based on the assumption that the discounted volumes would flow at the maximum rate. As the Commission explained, if the pipeline must assume in the next rate case that volumes it has transported at discounted rates would still be transported if the maximum rate were charged, the pipeline might be unable to recover its cost of service. 11 Therefore, in order to avoid a disincentive to discounting, the Commission has stated that, in the next rate case after giving discounts, the pipeline is permitted to reduce the discounted volumes used to design its rates so that, assuming market conditions require it to continue giving the same level discounts that it gave during the test period when the new rates are in effect, the pipeline will be able to recover 100 percent of its cost of service.

5. In Order No. 636, requiring the unbundling of the pipeline's sales and transportation services, the Commission adopted significant changes to the structure of the services provided by natural gas pipelines in order to foster greater competition in natural gas markets. As part of these changes, the Commission adopted the capacity release program that permits holders of firm transportation rights on a pipeline to resell those rights to other shippers. As the Commission explained in Order No. 636-A, the capacity release mechanism is intended to create a robust secondary market for capacity where the pipeline's direct sale of its capacity must compete with its firm shippers' offers to release their capacity. The Commission stated that this competition would help ensure that customers pay only the competitive price for the available capacity. 12 In UDC v. FERC , 13 the Court recognized that capacity release is intended to develop an active secondary market with holders of unutilized firm capacity rights reselling those rights in competition with capacity offered directly by the pipeline. In addition to promoting competition, capacity release was a means for firm capacity holders to mitigate the shift to the SFV rate design.

6. Order No. 636 also adopted a policy giving firm shippers the right to use, on a secondary basis, receipt and delivery points other than the primary points listed in their contracts. This permits them to receive and deliver gas to any point within the firm capacity rights for which they pay. As the Court recognized in INGAA v. FERC , 14 Order No. 636's establishment of flexible point rights, as well as segmentation, was intended to enhance the value of firm capacity and promote competition in the secondary market between firm shippers releasing capacity and pipelines, as well as between releasing shippers themselves.

7. In the individual pipeline restructuring proceedings to comply with Order No. 636, the question arose whether a releasing shipper paying a discounted rate may retain that discount if its replacement shipper uses points other than the releasing shipper's primary points. In El Paso Natural Gas Co. , 15 the Commission held that if the pipeline's contract with the releasing shipper limited its discount to its primary points, the pipeline could require the releasing shipper to pay the maximum rate whenever its replacement shipper used a different point. The Commission explained that it permits, but does not require, pipelines to offer discounts below the maximum rate, and therefore the pipeline could limit a discount to a shipper's primary point. The releasing shipper, rather than the replacement shipper, would be responsible for paying any difference between the maximum rate and the replacement shipper's rate, because the replacement shipper's reservation charge is established through the bidding or other procedures set forth in the pipeline's tariff. The Commission also stated that the releasing shipper could protect itself by putting a condition in the release preventing the use of alternate points.

8. In Order No. 637, the Commission took additional actions to enhance flexibility and competition in the secondary market. Among other things, Order No. 637 revised the Part 284 regulations to require pipelines to permit a firm shipper to segment its capacity either for its own use or for the purpose of capacity release, where operationally possible. While Order No. 637 did not change the Commission's policy on selective discounting, the Commission stated that the policy of permitting a pipeline to limit a shipper's discount to its primary point needed to be reexamined in the compliance filings, as part of the examination of restrictions on capacity release and segmentation. The Commission explained in Order No. 637-B  16 that it was concerned that requiring a releasing shipper with a discounted rate to pay the maximum rate in order to effectuate a segmented or release transaction could interfere with the competition created by capacity release.

9. CIG was the first Order No. 637 compliance proceeding where the Commission addressed how to resolve the tension between the Commission's selective discounting policy and the Commission's goal in adopting its segmentation and flexible point right policies of enhancing competition. The Commission explained that if a shipper always loses its primary point discount and is always required to pay the maximum rate when it uses a secondary point or segments its capacity, the shipper will be less likely to engage in these activities and competition will be restricted. On the other hand, the Commission recognized that if a shipper always retains its discount when it utilizes secondary points, discounts could be allowed at non-competitive points. Therefore, the Commission refined its discount policy to provide that if a pipeline is discounting its primary capacity at a point, a shipper that segments to that point or uses that point on a secondary basis should also receive that discount if it is similarly situated to the shipper receiving the discount. In Granite State , the Commission amended its holding in CIG to require pipelines to process shipper requests to retain discounts in no longer than two hours from the time the request is submitted.

10. In Williston's Order No. 637 compliance filing, the Commission required Williston to implement the discount policies set forth in CIG/Granite State . On rehearing, Williston argued that the CIG/Granite State discount policy undercuts its ability to target firm discounts to specific points in order to encourage the shipper to flow gas in a manner that will permit Williston to maximize the capacity of its reticulated system. Williston also argued that the policy would allow a firm shipper to obtain a long-term discount for an underutilized portion of its system and then engage in short-term discounted transactions at different receipt and delivery points. Williston asserted that this could reduce interruptible throughput in heavily utilized portions of its system while failing to increase flow at the point where the discount was originally given and where additional throughput was needed. Williston also argued that the policy is harmful because it limits its ability to grant discounts to obtain long-term firm service commitments and that application of the policy is not appropriate on its reticulated system.

11. The Commission concluded that shippers could not misuse the discounts in the manner described by Williston because, under the CIG/Granite State policy, the firm shipper changing points would pay the greater of its own discounted rate or the prevailing discount at the alternate point. Thus, the Commission stated, the shipper on the less utilized portion of the system could not shift its deeper discount to the more heavily utilized portion of the system. The Commission acknowledged that this new policy may require changes in long-term contracting, but stated that the policy change was nevertheless necessary to resolve the conflict between enhancing competition by adopting segmentation and flexible point rights and continuing to permit pipelines to restrict discounts to specific shippers at specific points.

12. The Court vacated the Commission's decisions in Williston on essentially two grounds. First, the Court held that the Commission had not adequately addressed whether the application of the CIG/Granite State policy in this case was appropriate in light of Williston's individual circumstances, particularly the reticulated nature of its system. The Court found that the Commission had not addressed Williston's contention that the policy could adversely affect its ability to use targeted discounts to manage gas flows across its system, in order to maximize its capacity and system utilization. Second, the Court held that the Commission had not adequately justified the general policy established in CIG/Granite State concerning retention of discounts when secondary points are used. The Court observed that the purpose of selective discounting is to increase throughput by allowing price discrimination in favor of demand-elastic customers, but a pipeline is unlikely to be able to increase throughput by selective discounting if capacity at secondary points can be transferred readily among shippers through resale at a discounted rate. The Court stated that “economic theory tells us price discrimination, of which selective discounting is a species, is least practical where arbitrage is possible “ that is, where a low-price buyer can resell to a high price buyer. . . . Yet this is precisely what the Commission's policy would appear not only to allow but to encourage.” 358 F.3d at 50. Therefore, the Court was concerned that the CIG/Granite State policy undermines the benefits of selective discounting.

13. This case raises important issues concerning the relationship between the Commission's discounting policy and its policies concerning capacity release, segmentation, and flexible point rights. As explained above, the Commission's regulations permitting selective discounting were first adopted as part of the Commission's regulatory policies as set forth in Order No. 436 and the Rate Design Policy Statement. Since that time, in Order Nos. 636 and 637, the Commission has moved toward a more competitive model, using a blend of approaches to approximate the results of a competitive market. The Commission has sought to create choice and competition where incentives and lack of market power allow for it, and to retain a cost-based approach where market power is too strong to allow a more market-oriented approach. Capacity release, segmentation, and flexible point rights are features of the Commission's more competitive model, while selective discounting is an outgrowth of the regulatory model.

14. Because the policies were developed at different times under different regulatory and economic models, selective discounting may not always be entirely compatible with the competitive measures adopted in Order Nos. 636 and 637. For example, the value of selective discounting to the captive customer has been to some extent replaced by the captive customer's ability to receive discounted capacity on the secondary market. The purpose of capacity release and flexible point rights is to encourage competition between the sale of the pipeline's own capacity and capacity release. The availability of capacity in the secondary market reduces the pipeline's sale of interruptible service, and may cause a reallocation of costs to firm customers in the next rate case. Thus, capacity release itself has undercut the ability of pipelines to use selective discounting both to obtain increased throughput from shippers with competitive alternatives and to maximize the revenue it obtains from each unit of throughput at the expense of inelastic or captive customers. However, capacity release gives firm customers a more direct way to reduce their costs. By releasing capacity in the secondary market, the firm shipper, including a captive customer, receives immediate payment for unused capacity, rather than waiting for the pipeline to file a new rate case to reflect throughput it has received through discounts. 17

15. Thus, as the Commission recognized in CIG , there is a tension between the policy of permitting pipelines to restrict discounts to specific shippers at specific points and the goal of enhancing competition through segmentation and flexible point rights. Placing restrictions on discounted transactions could interfere with competition created through released capacity. A shipper that uses flexible point rights to move to a secondary point or segments its capacity will require the use of different points than the primary points contained in the contract. Replacement shippers frequently need to use points different from those of the releasing shippers, and neither the releasing shipper nor the replacement shipper may be willing to absorb the differential between the discounted and maximum rate. If the releasing and/or replacement shipper is always required to pay the maximum rate when a secondary point is needed, competition will be restricted, but if the Commission requires the discount to apply to all points along the path, discounts may be given for other than competitive reasons.

16. In the CIG decision, the Commission attempted to strike a balance between these two extremes, so that a replacement or segmenting shipper could retain a discount if it was moving to a point where a discount was being given to a similarly situated shipper. Therefore, the Commission adopted a rebuttable presumption that a shipper segmenting, releasing, or utilizing specific points on a secondary basis will receive a discount at those points only if the pipeline is already granting discounts to those points under other firm or interruptible service agreements. The Commission intended that this balancing would address pipeline concerns that a discount necessary to meet competition at one point would not be appropriate or necessary at another point where conditions were different.

17. In view of these concerns, and the issues raised by the Court's decision in Williston, the Commission has determined in this proceeding to reexamine both (1) the general policy established in CIG/Granite State concerning retention of discounts when secondary points are used and (2) the application of that policy in the specific circumstances of Williston's reticulated system. Because the Commission will be using this proceeding to consider general policy matters applicable in other proceedings, the Commission will permit any interested party to intervene in this proceeding. To assist the Commission in this reevaluation, the Commission seeks responses from interested parties on the following issues.

18. Parties should state their views on whether the Commission should reaffirm the general policy established in CIG/Granite State concerning retention of discounts when secondary points are used, return to its previous policy as set forth in El Paso Natural Gas Co. , 18 or adopt some other alternative policy. One alternative policy, for example, could permit a releasing shipper to retain its discount if the release is for one month or less. This alternative would permit the releasing shipper to release capacity in competition with the pipeline's sale of interruptible and short-term firm capacity, without allowing the shifting of a long-term firm discount to another point on a long-term basis. The Commission seeks comments on this alternative.

19. Further, the Commission is interested in comments on the extent to which the CIG/Granite State policy does, in fact, undercut the benefits of selective discounting for captive customers, and seeks comments on the following issues within 60 days of the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register . Parties may also file reply comments within 80 days of the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register .

(A) The Court was concerned that “a pipeline is unlikely to be able to increase throughput by selective discounting * * * if capacity at secondary points can be transferred readily among shippers through resale at the discounted rate.” 358 F.3d at 50. Under the CIG/Granite State policy, the pipeline need only permit a releasing shipper with a discount at its primary point to retain that discount in connection with its replacement shipper's transaction at a secondary point, if (1) the pipeline has given another shipper at the secondary point a discount due to its competitive alternatives, and (2) the replacement shipper is similarly situated, i.e. , also has competitive alternatives. Given these limitations on the right of the releasing shipper to retain its discount, does the CIG/Granite State policy significantly increase the opportunities for arbitrage?

(B) Is there less of an incentive under the CIG/Granite State policy for pipelines to offer discounts to attract additional throughput? Pipeline commenters should explain how the policy has affected their discounting practices, and provide detailed information concerning how many discounts were given prior to adoption of the policy and after its adoption, and how many discount firm contracts are in effect on their systems. Specifically, pipeline commenters should provide information concerning the term of the agreement, the total CD involved, and the receipt and delivery points for each discount given in the year prior to the adoption of the CIG/Granite State policy, and that same information for the year after adoption of the policy. In addition, pipeline commenters should state how many requests they have received from shippers, pursuant their tariff provisions implementing the CIG/Granite State discount policy, seeking to retain discounts when a different point is used, and how many such requests have been granted. For those requests for discounts that were denied, pipeline commenters should supply the reasoning used and whether the transaction was consummated without a discount. Pipeline commenters should also provide information on how selective discounts were used for system management prior to the adoption of the policy and whether their ability to use selective discounts for this purpose has been harmed by the policy. Provide examples.

(C) Shipper commenters should explain how the CIG/Granite State policy has affected their release of capacity, and provide information concerning release of discounted capacity prior to adoption of the policy and after its adoption. Shipper commenters should explain whether and why they were discouraged from engaging in capacity release as a result of the previous policy and the extent to which the CIG/Granite State policy has reduced such disincentives.

(D) Explain whether the impact of the CIG/Granite State policy is different on reticulated systems than on long line systems.

20. Williston has asserted that the application of the CIG/Granite State policy to its system is not appropriate because of the reticulated nature of its system. Therefore, if the Commission upholds the policy on a generic basis, it will also consider whether the nature of Williston's system supports applying the policy to Williston on a modified basis.

(A) In order to aid the Commission in that determination, the Commission directs Williston to provide the following information within 60 days of the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register:

1. For the year before implementation of the CIG/Granite State policy on your system, list each discount that you granted to firm shippers. Provide information concerning the term of the agreement, the total CD involved, and the receipt and delivery points. Explain the benefits to system management that resulted from each discount. To the extent that any of these discounts were intended to increase flows on particular parts of the system, identify each discount and explain on what parts of the system the discount was intended to increase flow.

2. Provide this same information for the year following implementation of the CIG/Granite State policy on the system. Explain how any transfer of discounts to secondary points that occurred pursuant to the CIG/Granite State policy harmed system management. Explain how shippers were able to use the discounts granted on less heavily utilized portions of the system to displace volumes of gas moving on other more heavily utilized portions of the system. Explain how this could occur in view of the fact that the Commission's policy requires that a discount be granted at another point only if a discount has already been granted to a similarly situated shipper at that point, i.e. , the point has already been designated by the pipeline as a point where competition requires a discount.

3. For the year before and the year after Williston implemented the CIG/Granite State policy, list each discount you gave to interruptible shippers, including the term of each agreement and the receipt and delivery points.

4. In the Williston decision, the Court referred to Williston's concern that under the CIG/Granite State policy, a shipper with a long-term discount to an underutilized portion of the system could use the discount instead either to reduce its own shipments or displace those of other shippers on more heavily utilized portions of the system. Provide specific examples of how this would occur and indicate whether this has in fact ever occurred. If it has in fact occurred, be specific as to the customer(s), the term of the agreement, the discount rate, and the CD involved.

5. Provide information on all instances, after implementation of the CIG/Granite State policy, where Williston refused to grant a firm shipper a discount based on the concern that the shipper would be able to shift the discount to another point, thereby causing Williston to lose business.

(B) Within 80 days of the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register , other interested parties may reply to the information submitted by Williston regarding how the CIG/ Granite State policy should be applied to Williston.

21. As discussed above, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should reaffirm the general policy established in CIG/Granite State concerning retention of discounts when secondary points are used, return to its previous policy as set forth in El Paso Natural Gas Co., or adopt some other policy. In order to make a determination the Commission seeks specific information from pipelines on their discounting practices. Because the Commission is asking identical questions to obtain information from ten or more respondents, it is seeking approval of this data request from the Office of Management and Budget.

22. The collection of information set forth below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 19 OMB's regulations require OMB to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. 20 The Commission identifies the information provided for under this order as FERC-605, Discount Practice Reports.

Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the cost to comply with this data request. It has projected the average annualized cost of all respondents to be: $15,459. (300 hrs. ÷ 2,080 hours × $107,185) or 300 @ $52.00 an hour.

23. OMB's regulations require it to approve certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rule. The Commission is submitting a copy of this order to OMB.

Title: Discount Practice Reports.

Action: Proposed collection.

OMB Control No: To be determined.

Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Necessity of Information: The information is needed so that the Commission can prepare an order in response to the Court's determination in Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. FERC and assess its current policies. The Commission must ascertain the effects of its generic discount policy on pipeline operations and the relationship with other Commission policies, specifically, capacity release, segmentation and flexible point rights. The Commission will use responses to this inquiry to formulate its response in other proceedings on whether to maintain the current policy or adopt an alternative policy.

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the data request and has determined that the information is necessary in order to reevaluate both the general policy established in CIG/Granite State concerning the retention of discounts when secondary points are used and the application of that policy in the specific circumstances of Williston's reticulated system. This information conforms to the Commission's plan for efficient information collection, communication and management within the natural gas industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with the information/data request.

24. Interested persons may obtain information on the information request by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, Phone (202) 502-8415, fax: (202) 273-0873, e-mail: michael.miller@ferc.gov .]

25. For submitting comments concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimates, please send your comments to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-7856, fax: (202) 395-7285.

The Commission orders:

Parties may submit comments on the issues set forth above within 60 days of the date of the publication of this order in the Federal Register , and may file reply comments within 80 days of the date of the publication of this order in the Federal Register .

EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID number RCRA-2004-0007, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA within 60 days of this notice. EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/epadocket.

Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are rulemaking petitioners under 40 CFR 260.20(b), 260.21 and 260.22; owners or operators of facilities requesting variances from classification as a solid waste or for classification as a boiler under 40 CFR 260.30-260.33; generating facilities seeking a hazardous waste exclusion for certain types of wastes under 40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4, including zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials; and generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities requesting exemptions from listing as F037 and F038 wastes under 40 CFR 261.31(b)(2)(ii).

Title: Identification, Listing, and Rulemaking Petitions ICR Number 1189.14, expires November 30, 2007.

Abstract: Under 40 CFR 260.20(b), all rulemaking petitioners must submit basic information with their demonstrations, including name, address, and statement of interest in the proposed action. Under § 260.21, all petitioners for equivalent testing or analytical methods must include specific information in their petitions and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the proposed method is equal to, or superior to, the corresponding method in terms of its sensitivity, accuracy, and reproducibility. Under § 260.22, petitions to amend Part 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility (more simply, to delist a waste) must meet extensive informational requirements. When a petition is submitted, the Agency reviews materials, deliberates, publishes its tentative decision in the Federal Register , and requests public comment. EPA also may hold informal public hearings (if requested by an interested person or at the discretion of the Administrator) to hear oral comments on its tentative decision. After evaluating all comments, EPA publishes its final decision in the Federal Register .

40 CFR 260.30-260.31, and 260.33 comprise the standards, criteria, and procedures for variances from classification as a solid waste for three types of materials, materials that are collected speculatively without sufficient amounts being recycled; materials that are reclaimed and then reused within the original primary production process in which they were generated; and materials which have been reclaimed, but must be reclaimed further before the materials are completely recovered. Under 40 CFR 260.32 and 260.33 are regulations governing the procedures and criteria for obtaining a variance for classification as a boiler. This variance is available to owners or operators of enclosed flame combustion devices.

40 CFR 261.3 and 261.4 contain provisions that allow generators to obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for certain types of wastes. Facilities applying for these exclusions must submit a notification, or supporting information and/or keep detailed records. Under § 261.3(a)(2)(iv), generators may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for wastewater mixtures subject to Clean Water Act regulation. Under § 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C), generators may obtain an exclusion for certain non-wastewater residues resulting from high temperature metals recovery (HTMR) processing of K061, K062 and F006 waste. Also, under § 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(A), generators and intermediate handlers may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion for zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials that are to be incorporated into zinc fertilizers. In addition, under § 261.4(b)(6), generators of chromium-containing waste may obtain a hazardous waste exclusion under certain conditions.

Also addressed under this section is the shipment of samples between generators and laboratories for the purpose of testing to determine their characteristics or composition. Sample handlers who are not subject to DOT or USPS shipping requirements must comply with the information requirements of § 261.4(d)(2).

When intended for treatability studies, hazardous waste otherwise subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA is exempted from these regulations, provided that the requirements in § 261.4(e)-(f) are met, including the following information requests: initial notification, record keeping, reporting, and final notification. In addition, generators and collectors of treatability study samples also may request quantity limit increases and time extensions, as specified in § 261.4(e)(3).

40 CFR 261.31(b)(2)(ii) governs procedures and informational requirements for generators and treatment, storage and disposal facilities to obtain exemptions from listing as F037 and F038 wastes. Also under this section are regulations promulgated in 1990 under § 261.35(b) and (c) governing procedures and information requirements for the cleaning or replacement of all process equipment that may have come into contact with chlorophenolic formulations or constituents thereof, including, but not limited to, treatment cylinders, sumps, tanks, piping systems, drip pads, fork lifts, and trams.

EPA anticipates that some data provided by respondents will be claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Respondents may make a business confidentiality claim by marking the appropriate data as CBI. Respondents may not withhold information from the Agency because they believe it is confidential. Information so designated will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and in 48 CFR chapter 15.

EPA would like to solicit comments to:

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

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

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

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

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

EPA estimates the total respondent burden for this ICR (#1189.14) is 20,863 hours per year at a cost of $2,059,217. The burden increased by 61 hours per year at a cost of $12,653 from the previously approved ICR (#1189.09). This increase in the burden is a direct result of incorporating the respondent burden associated with the zinc fertilizer rulemaking into this ICR. EPA estimates a total of approximately 150 respondents. EPA also estimates that operation and maintenance (O&M) costs will be incurred by the respondents for various activities. The largest of these are for sampling wastes for a delisting petition ($28,006), and preparing a statement as part of a rulemaking petition ($9,479). Total O&M costs for this ICR are $886,315 per year. EPA estimates that there will be no capital costs incurred. Finally, EPA estimates that the average annual burden per respondent ranges from 3.5 hours (preparation of a nonwastewater exemption) to 414 hours (preparation of a delisting petition).

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who have an interest in or may be required to manage pollution prevention and toxic chemical programs, individuals, groups concerned with environmental justice, children's health, or animal welfare, as they relate to OPPT's programs under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in the activities of the NPPTAC. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical 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-2002-0001. 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.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number OPPT-2002-0001, NPPTAC July meeting in the subject line on the first page of your comment.

1. By mail: OPPT Document Control Office, Environmental Protection Agency, 7407M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

2. Electronically: At http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , search for OPPT-2002-0001, and follow the directions to submit comments.

3. Hand delivery/courier: OPPT Document Control Office in EPA East Bldg., Rm. M6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.

The proposed agenda for the NPPTAC meeting includes: The High Production Volume Challenge Program; pollution prevention, risk assessment; risk management; risk communication, and coordination with Tribes and other stakeholders. The meeting is open to the public.

You may request to attend the meeting by filling out the registration form according to the instructions listed under Unit I.A. Please note that registration will assist in planning adequate seating; however, members of the public can register the day of the meeting. Therefore, all seating will be available on a first come, first serve basis.

1. To register to attend the meeting: Pre-registration for the July 2004 NPPTAC meeting and requests for special accommodations may be made by visiting the NPPTAC web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/meetings.htm . Registration will also be available at the meeting. Special accommodations may also be requested by calling (202) 564-9891 and leaving your name and telephone number.

2. To request an opportunity to provide oral comments: You must register first in order to request an opportunity to provide oral comments at the July 2004 NPPTAC meeting. To register visit the NPPTAC web site at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/meetings.htm . Request to provide oral comments at the meeting must be submitted in writing on or before June 29, 2004, with a registration form. Please note that time for oral comments may be limited to 3 to 5 minutes per speaker, depending on the number of requests received.

3. Written comments . You may submit written comments to the docket listed under Unit I.B. Written comments can be submitted at any time. If written comments are submitted on or before June 29, 2004, they will be provided to the NPPTAC members prior to or at the meeting. If you provide written comments at the meeting, 35 copies will be needed.

Do not submit any information that is considered CBI.

Environmental protection, NPPTAC, Pollution prevention, Toxics, Toxic chemicals, Chemical health and safety.

The FACT Act was signed into law on December 4, 2003. Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, Public Law 108-159 (2003). In general, the Act amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) to enhance the accuracy of consumer reports and to allow consumers to exercise greater control regarding the type and amount of marketing solicitations they receive. To promote increasingly efficient national credit markets, the FACT Act also establishes uniform national standards in key areas of regulation regarding consumer report information. The Act contains a number of provisions intended to combat consumer fraud and related crimes, including identity theft, and to assist its victims. Finally, the Act requires a number of studies to be conducted on consumer reporting and related issues.

Section 319 of the Act mandates that the Federal Trade Commission shall conduct an ongoing study of the accuracy and completeness of information contained in consumer reports prepared or maintained by consumer reporting agencies and methods for improving the accuracy and completeness of such information. The time horizon for the mandated study, inclusive of a series of biennial reports to Congress, runs eleven years. The first report is due in early December 2004.

The roundtable has a limited purpose: it is a review of various methodologies pertinent to testing the accuracy and completeness of consumer reports (also known as “credit reports”). This review is not part of any rule-making procedure and does not address any FTC policy matter. Also, in reference to the language of the Act, the roundtable discussion is solely a forum for review of methodologies applicable exclusively to the accuracy and completeness aspect of the section 319 study and will not address methods for improving accuracy and completeness, nor the costs and benefits of requirements, or potential requirements, pertaining to credit reports.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 3, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/06/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Written comments must be submitted on or before July 2, 2004. Comments should refer to “Itron, Inc., et al., File No. 031 0201,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”  1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be sent to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Itron, Inc. and Schlumberger Electricity, Inc. The purpose of the Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects of Itron's acquisition of Schlumberger Electricity. Under the terms of the Consent Agreement, Itron is required to grant a royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license to Hunt Technologies, Inc. for Itron's mobile radio frequency (“RF”) automatic meter reading (“AMR”) technology for electric utilities, as well as components of Schlumberger Electricity's mobile RF AMR technology for electric utilities.

The proposed Consent Agreement has been placed on the public record for thirty days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty days, the Commission will again review the proposed Consent Agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the proposed Consent Agreement or make it final.

Pursuant to a stock and asset purchase agreement dated July 16, 2003, Itron agreed to acquire Schlumberger Electricity and 51 percent of the shares of Walsin Schlumberger Electricity Measurement Corporation (a Taiwan corporation), and certain foreign assets of Schlumberger Canada Limited, Schlumberger Distribucion S.A. de C.V., Schlumberger Servicios S.A. de C.V., and Axalto S.A. (formerly Schlumberger Systemes S.A.), all owned indirectly by Schlumberger Limited, in a cash transaction for approximately $255 million (“Proposed Acquisition”). The Commission's Complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the United States market for the research, development, manufacture, and sale of mobile RF AMR systems for electric utilities.

Headquartered in Spokane, Washington, Itron is the leading supplier of mobile RF AMR systems to electric utilities in the United States. Itron's mobile RF AMR system is based upon encoder-receiver-transmitter (“ERT”) technology and related communication protocols. The Itron ERT is electronic circuitry that gathers consumption information from an electricity meter and then broadcasts the data via radio frequency, using a specific communication protocol, known as the ERT protocol. To gather this data stream, Itron supplies handheld and vehicle-transportable receivers, also known as drive-by data collectors. The ERT is sold as either a retrofit for existing electromechanical electricity meters, or is integrated into newly manufactured electromechanical and solid state meters. Itron also supplies mobile RF AMR systems to water and natural gas utilities. In each of these areas, Itron is a leading mobile RF AMR systems supplier. Itron is also active in other lines of business serving the utility sector, including handheld computers for manual meter reading, as well as specialized software systems for billing systems, route management, and line design.

Schlumberger Electricity is a wholly owned subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, a leading provider of oilfield services. With its headquarters in Oconee, South Carolina, Schlumberger Electricity is the leading supplier of residential electricity meters in the United States, and the second largest supplier of mobile RF AMR systems in the United States. Presently, Schlumberger Electricity's mobile RF AMR is based on the R300, which is integrated into Schlumberger Electricity's meters. Schlumberger Electricity also sells handheld and drive-by data collectors through a partnership with Neptune Technology Group, Inc. The Neptune/Schlumberger mobile RF AMR receivers are capable of gathering data from the Itron ERT and the Schlumberger R300.

As the result of a license arrangement, Itron's and Schlumberger Electricity's mobile RF AMR systems utilize the same technology and proprietary communication protocols. Hence, products produced by Itron and Schlumberger are fully interoperable. Electric utilities, therefore, can utilize a combination of Itron and Schlumberger mobile RF AMR components, i.e. , endpoints and receiving devices, within the same system. No other company manufactures a mobile RF AMR system that is interoperable with the mobile RF AMR systems manufactured by Itron or Schlumberger.

Electric utilities utilize mobile RF AMR systems to automatically and remotely gather consumption data from residential electricity meters and certain electricity meters used by smaller commercial enterprises. A mobile RF AMR system consists of two principle components: (1) An endpoint, which is electronic circuitry integrated into an electricity meter that records and broadcasts consumption data, and (2) a mobile receiving device, which can be handheld or vehicle-transportable, to gather the data signal.

Mobile RF AMR systems allow consumption data from electricity meters to be read automatically and remotely, eliminating the need for a utility to send a meter reader to manually inspect each individual meter. Manual meter reading is labor-intensive and time-consuming, requiring the meter reader to physically access and visually inspect each electricity meter. Further, many meters are hard to access. Consequently, manual meter reading requires the effort of a substantial workforce of meter readers. By deploying a mobile RF AMR system, an electric utility can reduce its labor costs significantly. Additional cost savings are obtained by eliminating other problems endemic to manual meter reading, such as transcription errors, unread meters, and theft of service. As a result of these benefits, electric utilities are unlikely to alter their mobile RF AMR purchases relative to manual meter reading even if the price of mobile RF AMR systems increased by five to ten percent. Likewise, in response to a small but significant increase in mobile RF AMR prices, customers are unlikely to utilize other, non-mobile AMR technologies as they entail different technical requirements and are substantially more expensive.

The United States is the appropriate geographic market for mobile RF AMR systems in which to analyze the competitive effects of the Proposed Acquisition. There are not now, nor have there ever been, any imports of mobile RF AMR systems. Companies cannot compete from abroad for two primary reasons. First, electric utilities will not purchase mobile RF AMR systems from companies that do not have a substantial presence and track record in the United States. This is due to the importance of timely and effective service and support, as well as a strong “buy American” sentiment. Second, there are no significant foreign companies that produce mobile RF AMR systems.

The United States market for mobile RF AMR systems is highly concentrated. Itron and Schlumberger Electricity are the two largest suppliers of mobile RF AMR systems to electric utilities in the United States, and combined would account for over 99 percent of the market. There are three other firms in the market that together have a market share of less than one-half of one percent. Additionally, because Itron and Schlumberger Electricity are the only two mobile RF AMR suppliers with access to the proprietary ERT technology, the industry standard, they are especially close competitors, and the direct competition between Itron and Schlumberger Electricity has benefitted consumers significantly in the form of lower prices, improved service and greater innovation. Absent Commission action, Itron's acquisition of Schlumberger Electricity raises serious antitrust concerns.

Finally, sufficient new entry into the United States mobile RF AMR market is unlikely to occur in a timely manner as there are significant impediments to entry and expansion. A new entrant would need to devote significant time and expense to researching and developing a product. Second, a new entrant must undertake the lengthy and costly process of establishing a track record of performance and reliability for its product, which is critical to utility customers because they rely on the quality and accuracy of AMR systems in order to properly bill their customers. Further, a new entrant would not have access to the intellectual property necessary to sell a mobile RF AMR system that is compatible with the substantial installed base of systems produced by Itron and Schlumberger Electricity, which would significantly limit the available sales opportunities.

The Consent Agreement effectively remedies the Proposed Acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the U.S. market for the research, development, manufacture, and sale of mobile RF AMR systems by requiring Itron to grant a royalty-free license to its mobile RF AMR technology. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, a package of assets referred to in the Consent Agreement as the RF AMR Assets, will be licensed to Hunt. The RF AMR Assets provide Hunt with all the technology and rights necessary to manufacture and sell a mobile RF AMR system, including endpoints and receivers, that is entirely interoperable with Itron's mobile RF AMR system. Should Itron fail to accomplish the divestiture within the time and in the manner required by the Consent Agreement, the Commission may appoint a trustee to divest the RF AMR Assets subject to Commission approval. The trustee will have the exclusive power and authority to accomplish the divestiture within twelve (12) months of being appointed, subject to any necessary extensions by the Commission.

The Commission is satisfied that Hunt is a well-qualified acquirer of the divested assets. Hunt is a private corporation headquartered in Pequot Lakes, Minnesota, that researches, develops, manufactures, and sells powerline carrier (“PLC”) systems to electric utilities. PLC systems are a type of AMR technology used primarily for rural service areas. PLC systems are therefore complementary to mobile RF AMR systems, which are utilized primarily in areas of low population concentration. Therefore, Hunt does not pose separate competitive issues as the acquirer of the license to the RF AMR assets. Due to its involvement in the electric utility industry, Hunt has the resources, related expertise and capabilities to ensure that it will become an effective competitor in the market for mobile RF AMR systems for electric utilities.

Until Hunt has made the necessary manufacturing arrangements, Hunt will procure Electric RF Endpoints from Itron at terms that will allow Hunt to aggressively compete with Itron immediately upon the closing of the transaction. Under a separate supply agreement, Hunt may also procure mobile RF AMR receivers from Itron under terms that would enable Hunt to compete effectively with Itron. To provide mobile RF AMR receivers, however, Hunt may choose to partner with Neptune, as did Schlumberger Electricity. To ensure that Hunt retains the ability to partner with Neptune for mobile RF AMR receiving devices and to allow Neptune to continue to make sales for its own account, the proposed consent agreement requires Itron to assign all of Schlumberger Electricity's mobile RF AMR receiving device rights to Neptune.

The Consent Agreement contains several further provisions designed to help ensure that the divestiture of the mobile RF AMR Assets is successful. First, to assist Hunt in the manufacture and sale of the Hunt mobile RF AMR system, Itron will provide technical assistance to Hunt, including 200 hours of technical assistance at no cost to Hunt. Second, Itron must provide Hunt with any updates to ERT technology for a period of three years. Finally, the Decision and Order allows the Commission to appoint an Interim Monitor, if necessary, to ensure that Itron complies with all of its obligations and performs all of its responsibilities as required by the Consent Agreement.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement, and is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Decision and Order or the Order to Maintain Assets, or to modify their terms in any way.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for June 3, 2004), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/06/index.htm. A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. Written comments must be submitted on or before July 2, 2004. Comments should refer to “KFC Corporation, File No. 042 3033,” to facilitate the organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. If the comment contains any material for which confidential treatment is requested, it must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document must be clearly labeled “Confidential.”  1 The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions. Comments filed in electronic form should be sent to the following e-mail box: consentagreement@ftc.gov.

The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be considered by the Commission, and will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at www.ftc.gov. As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

The Federal Trade Commission has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from KFC Corporation (“KFCC”).

The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.

This matter involves the advertising and promotion of KFC Original Recipe fried chicken. According to the FTC complaint, KFC represented that eating KFC fried chicken, specifically 2 Original Recipe fried chicken breasts, is better for a consumer's health than eating a Burger King Whopper. The complaint alleges that this claim is false. Although 2 KFC Original Recipe fried chicken breasts have slightly less total fat (38 g. v. 43 g.) and saturated fat (12 g. v. 13 g.) than Burger King's Whopper, they have more trans fat (3.5 g. vs. 1 g.), more cholesterol (290 mg. v. 85 mg.), more sodium (2300 mg. vs. 980 mg.), and more calories (760 v. 710).

The FTC's complaint also alleges that KFCC represented that eating KFC fried chicken is compatible with “low carbohydrate” weight loss programs. The FTC alleges that this claim is false because “low carbohydrate” weight loss programs such as the Atkins Diet and the South Beach Diet, for example, advise against eating breaded, fried foods.

The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent KFCC from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future.

Part I of the order prohibits KFCC from representing that eating KFC fried chicken is better for a consumer's health than eating a Burger King Whopper, or that eating KFC fried chicken is compatible with “low carbohydrate” weight loss programs, unless the representation is true and, at the time it is made, KFCC possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence—which in certain specified cases must be competent and reliable scientific evidence—that substantiates the representation.

Part II prohibits KFCC from making certain representations about the absolute or comparative amount of fat, cholesterol, sodium, calories or any other nutrient in any food it sells that contains chicken, about the compatibility of such food with any weight loss program, or about the health benefits of such food, unless the representation is true and, at the time it is made, KFCC possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence—which in certain specified cases must be competent and reliable scientific evidence—that substantiates the representation.

Part II also provides that representations conveying nutrient content or health claims that have been defined (for labeling purposes) by regulations promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) will be evaluated using the same nutrient thresholds that FDA has established for those claims. Furthermore, Part II provides that a mere numerical statement of the amount of a particular nutrient in such food will not, by itself, be considered to be a weight loss compatibility or health benefit claim covered by Part II.

Part III permits any representation for any product that is permitted in labeling for such product pursuant to regulations promulgated by FDA pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.

Parts IV through VII of the order require KFCC to keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; to provide copies of the order to certain of its current and future personnel for three years; to notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure; and to file compliance reports with the Commission. Part VIII provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.

The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.

The Commission has entered into a consent agreement with KFC Corp. (“KFCC”) to settle allegations that the company deceptively advertised its fried chicken as being compatible with low-carbohydrate weight loss programs, among other claims. I concur with the Commission's admirable results in obtaining strong injunctive relief, and I applaud staff for bringing a national advertising case. I believe, however, that an even stronger remedy is warranted. KFCC is fully aware of our nation's struggle with obesity, yet has cynically attempted to exploit a massive health problem through deceptive advertising. Companies should not be allowed to benefit monetarily from this kind of deception, especially where the health and safety of consumers are compromised. Therefore, I encourage the Commission to find ways to seek monetary relief in future cases like this one.

Our nation's obesity rate has “reached epidemic proportions, afflicting 6 out of every 10 Americans.”  1 Being overweight or obese is “the second leading cause of preventable death, after smoking, resulting in an estimated 300,000 deaths per year. The costs, direct and indirect, associated with [being] overweight and obes[e] are estimated to exceed $100 billion a year.”  2 Obesity has been described as both an “epidemic” and a “crisis.”  3 Many consumers are interested in controlling their weight, and they rely heavily on the nutritional information in food advertisements to help them make choices about which foods to eat.

In the fall of 2003, KFCC apparently was suffering from decreased fried chicken sales, perhaps as a result of consumers' interest in a healthier diet. 4 In October 2003, KFCC embarked on an ad campaign in which it deceptively advertised that eating KFC fried chicken is compatible with a “low carbohydrate” weight loss program, even though “low carbohydrate weight loss programs such as the Atkins Diet and the South Beach Diet advise against eating breaded, fried foods.”  5 In another ad, KFCC advertised that eating two of its “Original Recipe” fried chicken breasts was better for a consumer's health than eating a Burger King Whopper—even though the chicken is nearly equivalent to the Whopper in fat grams and is actually higher in trans fat, cholesterol, sodium and calories. 6 Both ads also promote an entire bucket of chicken, even though the voiceovers in the ads referenced one or two-piece servings. 7

KFCC knew (or certainly should have known) that its ads were false and deceptive, and that the ads would encourage consumers to believe that KFC fried chicken was much healthier for them that it actually is. Only a few days after the ads aired, an Advertising Age editorial strongly criticized KFCC for running them, describing the ads as “desperate and sleazy tactics.”  8 In an interview on National Public Radio, the executive editor of Advertising Age stated that it was “very unusual” for the publication to run such a staff editorial, but justified it by saying that “[i]nstead of being truth well told, which is what advertising should be, it seems like not only an exaggerated claim, but basically an effort to deceive.”  9 Consumer advocacy groups complained about the ads as well, and the ads were the subject of much discussion until they stopped airing in late November 2003. 10

I have voted to accept the proposed settlement because it contains very strong injunctive relief that will go a long way toward preventing KFCC from engaging in similar deceptive advertising in the future. In addition to addressing the specific claims made in the KFCC ads, the proposed consent agreement also contains more general language prohibiting KFCC from making representations about the absolute or comparative amount of fat, cholesterol, sodium, calories, or any other nutrient in any food it sells that contains chicken; about the compatibility of such food with any weight loss program; or about the health benefits of such food, unless the representation is true and, at the time it is made, KFCC possesses and relies upon competent and reliable evidence—which in certain specified cases must be competent and reliable scientific evidence—that substantiates the representation. 11

Accepting injunctive relief alone is reasonably consistent with the Commission's prior settlements in similar cases. However, where a company appears to have exploited a national health crisis, an even stronger response from the Commission is warranted. While I recognize that it may be difficult to calculate monetary relief in these kinds of cases, I would like to see the Commission develop methodological approaches that would support seeking such remedies in future cases of similar types of deceptive advertising, as the Commission has done in the past. For example, in 1995, the FTC settled charges with The Dannon Company that it had made false or misleading claims for its Pure Indulgence line of frozen yogurt. As part of the consent agreement, Dannon agreed to pay $150,000 in disgorgement. 12 Similarly, in 1983, the FTC settled charges with Estee Corporation that it had misled consumers by falsely claiming that the sweeteners in its foods had been accepted by the American Diabetes Association and the Food and Drug Administration. Estee Corporation agreed to pay $25,000 in cy pres relief to the American Diabetes Association or the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. 13

While injunctive relief is important in deceptive advertising cases such as this one, monetary relief may further serve to correct unlawful conduct, reverse its ill effects, and deter future violations of the law. Well-formulated cy pres relief, in particular, may provide real benefits to consumers. It is not only reasonably related to the violation, but also reasonably likely to reach the individuals most injured by a particular deceptive advertisement. Should the appropriate case present itself in the future, I strongly encourage the Commission to consider the applicability and effectiveness of cy pres and other potential monetary remedies.

I have voted to accept the consent agreement with KFC Corp. in this matter and I concur with Commissioner Harbour's statement.

Since 1995, the only ambulatory CAHPS® survey has been focused on health plan level, though there are different versions across types of plans from fee-for-service through HMOs, as well as optional modules. Significant stakeholder interest has emerged in using a standard CAHPS® survey beyond the health plan level specifically for group practices and clinician-level surveys.

The idea behind ACAHPS is to provide a flexible, modular approach to assessing the quality of ambulatory care at different levels of the health care system while still retaining the valuable aspects of the current CAHPS® Health Plan Survey such as industry standardization and comparability.

Although many combinations of ACAHPS modules are possible, the CAHPS Consortium plans to simplify the task of constructing a survey by developing several sets of pre-packaged survey instruments and data collection protocols. These surveys will be designed to address the most common applications based on the market research completed in 2003 as well as the on-going input from stakeholders. We will also provide guidelines for reporting the results of these surveys to external and internal audiences.

In addition, we will design some simple decision trees to help users assess their needs and recommend a prepackaged survey or help users to build their own using the ACAHPS modules. Technical assistance will continue to be offered from the CAHPS-SUN Helpline, 1-800-492-9261 and the Web site located at http://www.cahps-sun.org .