Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. The ACHP has issued the regulations that set forth the process through which Federal agencies comply with these duties. Those regulations are codified under 36 CFR part 800 (“Section 106 regulations”).

Under Section 800.14(e) of those regulations, agencies can request the ACHP to provide a “Program Comment” on a particular category of undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews of each individual undertaking under such category, as set forth in 36 CFR 800.4 through 800.6. An agency can then meet its Section 106 responsibilities for those undertakings by taking into account the ACHP's Program Comment and by following the steps set forth in those comments.

The Air Force and Navy have requested such a Program Comment to cover management of their Wherry and Capehart era housing. A copy of the draft Program Comment can be found at the end of this notice. Once the public input resulting from this notice is considered, the ACHP will decide whether to issue a final Program Comment to the Air Force and Navy.

Military housing constructed during the 1949-1962 period is commonly called Wherry and Capehart Era housing after the two United States Senators who sponsored national military housing construction programs to address inadequate and substandard military family housing at military installations across the nation. Senator Wherry's program, implemented 1949-1955, allowed developers to construct, own, and maintain military housing on Department of Defense (“DoD”) (in this case Air Force and Navy) lands with FHA-insured mortgages. DoD guaranteed occupancy, agreed to long-term leases, and discounted utility rates in exchange for the developer's agreement to establish set rental rates and preferential leases for military families. Senator Capehart's program, implemented 1955-1962, called for DoD to purchase the new housing constructed by developers, and to purchase the developer-owned housing previously constructed under the Wherry housing program. DoD remained responsible for operation, maintenance and repair of this housing. Approximately 37,913 units constructed during the Capehart-Wherry Era remain in the Air Force's inventory of family housing, and 24,064 units remain in the Navy's inventory (17,122 are Navy's units and 6,942 are Marines units).

Approximately 39% of the Air Force's entire military family housing stock consists of those units built during the Wherry and Capehart military family housing construction program between 1949 and 1962. For the Navy, 34.5% of its housing stock is Wherry and Capehart housing (35% for the Navy and 32% for the Marines). Structures associated with this family housing include detached garages, carports and storage buildings, and the landscape features (including but not limited to the overall design and layout of the Wherry and Capehart Era communities, including road patterns, plantings and landscaping, open spaces, playgrounds, parking areas, signage, site furnishings, views into and out of the community, lighting, sidewalks, setbacks and all other associated cultural landscape features). A small percentage of buildings and structures constructed during this time period were not constructed with funds provided through the Wherry and Capehart funding programs, but are similar in all other respects, and are therefore included as part of this action.

Wherry and Capehart Era buildings were largely constructed from off-the-shelf, commercially available plans and specifications and range from single-family detached houses, to multi-unit row houses, duplexes, four-plexes, and multi-story apartment buildings. Brick, frame, cement block, and stucco were typical building materials. While architectural styles were largely consistent, there was some variation across the United States, but these tend to be differences in regional styles. Developers, consistent with principles guiding civilian neighborhood design at the onset of the “baby boom,” paid attention to comprehensive neighborhood planning and design. Overall, the Air Force's and Navy's Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures, and landscape features reflect the ubiquitous, nation-wide suburban subdivision construction trends of this period.

The Air Force and Navy anticipate that all of their Capehart-Wherry Era family housing, associated structures and landscape features will be subject to the following categories of undertakings: Maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, renovation, layaway and mothballing, demolition, demolition and replacement, and transfer, sale or lease out of government control. These undertakings are a necessary part of DoD's efforts to modernize housing for military families. Currently, much of the Air Force's and the Navy's housing does not meet today's military housing standards. The Air Force and Navy are requesting that the ACHP provide a Program Comment on these categories of undertakings for their Capehart-Wherry Era family housing, associated structures and landscape features.

The Air Force and Navy are requesting a Program Comment as a service-wide Section 106 compliance action related to management of Wherry and Capehart era housing, associated structures and landscape features. This programmatic approach will facilitate management actions for privatization and transfer out of federal agency ownership, substantial alteration through renovation, and demolition and replacement of Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, there is the potential for adverse effects to historic properties.

The following is the full text of the draft Program Comment:

This Program Comment provides the Department of the Air Force (Air Force) and the Department of the Navy (Navy) with an alternate way to comply with its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with regard to the following actions in the management of the Wherry and Capehart Era family housing: Privatization and transfer out of federal agency ownership, substantial alteration through renovation, and demolition and replacement of Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Army conducted a historic context of its Wherry and Capehart properties and documented these in a report entitled For Want of a Home: A Historic Context for Wherry and Capehart Military Family Housing. On May 22, 2001, the Army sponsored a symposium on Wherry and Capehart era housing management as it relates to historic preservation. The symposium was attended by preservation experts, including the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Trust), the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), the ACHP, and nationally recognized experts in the field of historic preservation from academia and industry. Symposium participants recommended a programmatic approach to complying with Section 106, and these approaches were part of the Program Comment which was approved by the ACHP in 2002 (67 FR 39332; June 7, 2002). The Air Force and the Navy have gathered data on their inventory of Wherry and Capehart properties which will be appended to the Army's context study, as outlined below, to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Department of Defense (DoD) inventory for this property type. As with the Army, the Air Force and the Navy consider their inventory of Wherry and Capehart properties, including any associated structures and landscape features, to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places for the purposes of Section 106 compliance.

The Air Force and the Navy have requested a Program Comment as a service-wide Section 106 compliance action related to management of Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features. This programmatic approach will facilitate management actions for privatization and transfer out of Federal agency ownership, substantial alteration through renovation, and demolition and replacement of Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features. Such actions present a potential for adverse effects to historic properties.

Based on the Program Comment previously approved for the Army for this property type, and following meetings with the ACHP, the Trust and NCSHPO, the Air Force and the Navy agree to the following five-step approach to the treatment of its Wherry and Capehart properties:

(i) The Air Force and the Navy will revise the Army's historic context, The Wherry and Capehart Era Solutions to the Postwar Family Housing Shortage (1949-1962): A Historic Context, to include information pertinent to Air Force and Navy bases where this information differs from that provided in the Army's context study (for example, numbers and types of units at Air Force and Navy bases, historically important builders, developers and architects associated with design and construction on Air Force and Navy bases, Properties of Particular Importance in the Air Force and Navy inventories, etc.) The intent of these revisions is to provide a more complete picture of Wherry and Capehart Era family housing across DoD. Upon completion of the revised context study, the Air Force and the Navy will use it and the oral histories recorded in accordance with section (v), below, to prepare a report suitable for release to the general public. The report to the public will extract that information which may be deemed sensitive or inappropriate for release to the public. Copies of the report will be provided to all the SHPOs, NCSHPO, the Trust and the ACHP.

(ii) The Air Force and Navy will use, or modify for their own use, the Army's design guidelines: Neighborhood Design Guidelines for Army Wherry and Capehart Housing. These Neighborhood Design Guidelines will be distributed Air Force and Navy-wide to those offices that manage and maintain this housing type and they will consider the design guidelines in planning actions that affect their Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features. Copies of the Air Force and Navy guidelines will be provided to the NCSHPO, the Trust and the ACHP.

(iii) For Wherry and Capehart properties that have been determined to be of particular importance, as defined in the revised context study, the Air Force and the Navy will, within funding and mission constraints, consider the preservation of these properties through continued use as military housing.

(iv) The Air Force and the Navy will advise developers involved in housing privatization initiatives that Wherry and Capehart properties may be eligible for historic preservation tax credits.

(v) The Air Force and the Navy will attempt to locate and conduct oral interviews of military families (which may include Army families) that had previously lived in Wherry and Capehart housing. Prior to conducting any interviews, the Air Force and the Navy will work with the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project to develop a set of appropriate interview questions and proper formats in which interviews will be recorded. Upon completion of the oral histories, the Air Force and the Navy will provide a copy of all written and recorded documentation to the Library of Congress.

The ACHP believes that this five-step approach will ensure that the Air Force and the Navy take into account the effects of management of their Wherry and Capehart era housing.

This Program Comment does not apply to the following properties that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places: (a) Archeological sites, (b) properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to federally recognized Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, or (c) historic properties other than Air Force and Navy Wherry and Capehart Era housing, associated structures and landscape features.

By following this comment and outlined five-step approach, the Air Force and the Navy will have met their responsibilities for compliance under Section 106 regarding management of their Wherry and Capehart era housing. Accordingly, Air Force and Navy bases will not have to follow the case-by-case Section 106 review process for each individual management action.

The Air Force and the Navy may carry out management actions prior to the completion of all of the five treatment steps outlined above, so long as such management actions do not preclude the eventual successful completion of those five steps.

If the ACHP determines that the consideration of Wherry and Capehart properties is not being carried out in a manner consistent with this Program Comment, the ACHP may withdraw this comment. Following such withdrawal, the Air Force and the Navy would comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 for each individual management action.

The original Notice of Intent for this project was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2002.

Agenda topics for these meetings include a review of projects approved and proposed for funding as authorized under Title II of Pub. L. 106-393, and public comment. If the meeting locations are changed, notice will be posted in local newspapers, including The Montana Standard.

On July 16, 2004, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (69 FR 42649) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service to the Government.

2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions. If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in the notice for each product or service will be required to procure the products and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and services to the Government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the Government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

The following products and services are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) (April 2002), on May 28, 2004, Seed Timber requested a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain softwood lumber products from Canada. On July 8, 2004, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we initiated a new shipper review of this order for the period May 1, 2003, through April 30, 2004 (69 FR 41229). Seed Timber withdrew its request for a new shipper review on August 18, 2004.

The Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(f)(1) provide that the Department will rescind a new shipper review if the party that requested the review withdraws its request for review within 60 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Seed Timber withdrew its request within the 60-day period. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review.

Bonding is no longer permitted to fulfill security requirements for shipments of certain softwood lumber products from Canada produced and exported by Seed Timber, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States on or after the publication of this rescission notice in the Federal Register .

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO material 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 sanctions.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(f)(3).

This information collection complies with Executive Order 13126, Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, signed by the President on June 12, 1999. Executive Order 13126 requires that this prohibition be enforced within the federal acquisition system by means of: (1) A provision that requires the contractor to certify to the contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the contractor has made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of child labor; and (2) A provision that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully in providing reasonable access to the contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises if reasonably requested by authorized officials of the contracting agency, the Department of the Treasury, or the Department of Justice, for the purpose of determining whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract.

The information collection requirements of the Executive Order are evidenced via the certification requirements delineated at FAR 22.1503, 52.212-3, 52.222-18, and 52.222-19.

To eliminate some of the administrative burden on offerors who must submit the same information to various contracting offices, the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) decided to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to require offerors to submit representations and certifications electronically via the Business Partner Network (BPN), unless certain exceptions apply. Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) is the specific application on the BPN to replace the paper based Representations and Certifications (Reps and Certs) process. The change to the FAR is being accomplished by FAR Case 2002-024. The clearance associated with this case referenced this OMB Control No. 9000-0155 and reduced the hours of burden by 35%—attributable to mandated use of ORCA. This reduction is already reflected in the figures below.

Respondents: 500.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Hours Per Response: 0.325.

Total Burden Hours: 162.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0155, Prohibition on Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, in all correspondence.

The Department of the Army prepared the EIS for Transformation of the 2nd Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Light) to an SBCT in Hawaii. The EIS was prepared to address proposed actions affecting the islands of Oahu and Hawaii. The EIS identified the relevant environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on the biological, physical, and cultural environment.

The Army has designated the 2nd Brigade to be converted to an SBCT under the Army's efforts to incorporate future force capabilities into the Army's current force. Implementing the Proposed Action as defined in the Final EIS will require undertaking several distinct but coordinated actions and activities directly associated with transforming the 2nd Brigade. These various actions that make up the Proposed Action will include stationing personnel, fielding Stryker systems and other SBCT-specific materiel, building new facilities, acquiring new land and additional easements, and conducting SBCT-specific training.

Transformation of the 2nd Brigade will involve an increase in approximately 810 Soldiers; the addition of approximately 291 Stryker vehicles along with support vehicles; the construction of new, additional, or modified ranges, facilities and infrastructure; and acquisition of approximately 1,400 acres of additional training lands on the island of Oahu and 23,000 acres on the island of Hawaii. The Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle will also be fielded to the 2nd Brigade to support reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition missions. Upon conversion, the 2nd Brigade will be better organized, manned and equipped to respond to the range of emerging threats and circumstances that the Army is likely to encounter in current and future operations around the world.

In making its decision, the Army considered the analysis of effects contained in the EIS, assessment of the alternatives in relationship to the primary issues of concern, comments provided during formal public review periods, and Army-wide transformation, national security and mission requirements. The Army determined that the proposed action best meets its underlying purpose and need, and that the proposed action reflects a proper balance between mission imperatives and goals for protection of the environment.

The Final EIS provides detailed evaluation of the Proposed Action and the Reduced Land Acquisition (RLA) and No Action Alternatives. After weighing all these considerations, the No Action Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Army would not undertake the proposed conversion of the 2nd Brigade to an SBCT in Hawaii. The 2nd Brigade would retain its current force structure and equipment while continuing to train and operate as a conventional light infantry force. Three environmentally significant impacts, primarily due to Army training activities, would remain: noise at SBMR; the threat of wildland fires to biological resources at SBMR and PTA; and cumulative impacts from the threat of wildland fires to biological resources on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii. However, the No Action Alternative does not satisfy any aspects of the stated purpose and need, which are in furtherance of the Army's national defense mission.

The Proposed Action was selected over the RLA Alternative for several reasons. While the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the RLA Alternative are virtually identical, the Proposed Action is superior to the RLA because constructing the multipurpose Qualification Training Range (QTR2) in the South Range Acquisition Area near the concentration of Soldiers at SBMR facilitates individual weapons qualification at the home station, which is consistent with Army training guidance. Because most Soldiers are stationed on Oahu, it is more efficient to conduct individual weapons qualification training close to home station. Individual qualification is conducted semi-annually and is required for all Soldiers, even those that are not assigned to units that routinely deploy to PTA. The Proposed Action assures adequate throughput capacity for conducting individual qualification on Oahu. On the other hand, conducting individual weapons qualification training at a QTR2 at PTA results in greater logistical and safety issues from scheduling training and arranging transport of Soldiers and weapons to the Island of Hawaii. The additional travel requirements would result in greater training costs and require Soldiers to spend even more time away from home station. If units are able to take advantage of scheduled deployments to PTA to accomplish individual weapons qualification, this may not increase training costs, but could result in even more time away from home station. Constructing QTR2 at PTA would pose conflicts with the use of Range 8 and the potential development of an SBCT-specific anti-armor and live-fire tracking range. Acquiring the full acreage in the South Range Acquisition Area (SRAA) partially cures the shortage of Army training lands in Hawaii, provides a buffer to incompatible development along the southern border of SBMR, and provides some additional safety zones for Wheeler Army Airfield's runway. Additionally, based on The Nature Conservancy's comments, changes to the orientation of QTR2 have minimized the impact on access to the Honouliuli Preserve.

Therefore, we select the Proposed Action for implementation. We have fully considered the environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action. Notwithstanding these impacts, we have decided to implement all facets of the Proposed Action because it best meets the purpose and need for this action and it is critical to achieving current and future national security objectives in U.S. Pacific Command's Area of Responsibility (AOR). This AOR is vital to the security of the United States and key allies. The AOR covers more than 50 percent of earth's surface and traverses 16 times zones. It includes nearly 60 percent of the world's population living in 43 countries. The world's six largest armed forces operate within this AOR: Peoples Republic of China, United States, Russia, India, North Korea, and South Korea. Nations within this AOR are parties to five of the seven worldwide U.S. mutual defense treaties. Additionally, approximately 35 percent of U.S. international trade is transacted within this AOR.

The ROD also commits to the implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures to rectify, reduce, or eliminate adverse effects to land use and recreation, visual resources, air quality, noise, traffic, water resources, geology, soils and seismicity, biological resources, cultural resources, human health and safety, and socioeconomic and Environmental Justice. The mitigation and monitoring measures are defined in the Final EIS.

Copies of the SBCT ROD are available for review at the following libraries: Hilo Public Library, 300 Waianuenue Avenue, Hilo; Kailua-Kona Public Library, 75-138 Hualalai Road, Kailua-Kona; Thelma Parker Memorial Public and School Library, 96767-1209 Mamalahoa Hwy., Kamuela; Kahuku Public and School Library, 56-490 Kamehameha Hwy., Kahuku; Mililani Public Library, 95-450 Makaimoimo Street, Mililani; Hawaii State Library, 478 South King St., Honolulu; Wahiawa Public Library, 820 California Avenue, Wahiawa; Waianae Public Library, 85-625 Farrington Hwy., Waianae; Waialua Public Library, 67-068 Kealohanui Street, Waialua; UH Environmental Center, Krauss Annex 19, 2500 Dole Road, Honolulu.

The Record of Decision may also be reviewed at the SBCT Web site http://www.SBCTEIS.com.

This section contains the following information about the energy information collection submitted to OMB for review: (1) The collection numbers and title; (2) the sponsor ( i.e., the Department of Energy component); (3) the current OMB docket number (if applicable); (4) the type of request ( i.e., new, revision, extension, or reinstatement); (5) response obligation ( i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a description of the need for and proposed use of the information; (7) a categorical description of the likely respondents; and (8) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden ( i.e. , the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).

1. Forms EIA-411, 412, 423, 767, 826, 860, 860M, 861, 906, and 920, “Electric Power Program.”

2. Energy Information Administration.

3. OMB Number 1905-0129.

4. Three-year extension.

5. Mandatory (all forms except for EIA-411) and voluntary (EIA-411).

6. The Electric Power Surveys collect electric power information including capacity, generation, fuel consumption, fuel receipts, fuel stocks, and prices, along with financial information. Respondents include both regulated and unregulated entities that comprise the U.S. electric power industry. Electric power data collected are used by the Department of Energy for analysis and forecasting. Data are published in various EIA reports.

Below are additional proposed changes to the electric power surveys that that have been made subsequent to the April 2, 2004 Federal Register notice (69 FR 17400) requesting public comments. The proposed changes resulted from EIA's consideration of public comments and internal reviews of the electric power surveys.

Generic changes across forms:

1. Replaced “Regulated” and “Unregulated” with “Utility” and “Non Utility,” where appropriate.

2. Standardized all “Higher Heating Value” tables across forms.

3. Combined all glossaries into one that can be accessed online; replaced all glossaries in the individual forms with links to the online version.

4. Revised burden estimates for all forms.

The changes noted below are FORM changes only. Many instructional changes were made in all the forms for the following form changes, and, in some cases, to better clarify the meaning of various data element requests.

1. Modified: Schedule 2, CAPACITY FOR EXISTING GENERATORS IN REPORTING YEAR (was Schedule 3 in Federal Register version) by replacing lines 8, 9 and 10 with line 8. Basically lumped all of the derating categories into one category. Total operable capacity (line 11) is now line 9.

2. Modified: Schedule 3, HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED DEMAND AND CAPACITY (was Schedule 2 in Federal Register version) by adding lines 7a, 7b1, 7b2, 7c, and 7d to provide additional derating categories at a higher level of aggregation than Schedule 2 would have been.

3. Modified: Schedule 4, HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED CAPACITY PURCHASES/INCOMING TRANSFERS (MEGAWATTS) to include capacity incoming transfers, and to list Plant and Unit ID for each transfer/purchase.

1. Modified: Schedule 9, Parts A, B, & C, ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT STATISTICS, to add “Net Generation” back into forms, keeping “Gross Generation” but instructing respondents to provide Gross Generation only if they are unable to provide Net Generation data.

2. Also added “Rents” to Production Expenses portion of Schedule 9, Parts B & C (Rents was already included in Part A) in order to pick up all expenses.

3. Added a list of Prime Mover codes to instructions for Schedule 9, Parts A, B & C, line 1, “Kind of Plant.”

1. In SCHEDULE 4, BOILER INFORMATION, PART C. DESIGN PARAMETERS, deleted lines 18 through 21 on alternate fuel capabilities.

2. In SCHEDULE 6, COOLING SYSTEM INFORMATION, PART B. DESIGN PARAMETERS, added line 22, datum for latitude and longitude.

3. In SCHEDULE 9, STACK AND FLUE INFORMATION—DESIGN PARAMETERS, added line 18, datum for latitude and longitude.

1. Deleted SCHEDULE 1. RETAIL SALES TO ULTIMATE CUSTOMERS, PART E. ANY OTHER RETAIL ENERGY SERVICE PROVIDER THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHEDULES A THROUGH D.

2. Deleted word “Retail” from Schedule 1, Parts A, B, C, & D.

1. Replaced data element from Schedule 3, Generator Information—“Is this Generator Regulated?” with “Is Any Part of This Generator Owned by an Entity that is Not an Electric Utility?”

2. Modified Schedule 3, Part B, Question 3—to read “Maximum Reactive Output (Lagging MVAR) At Expected Peak Output.”

3. Modified Schedule 3, Part B, Questions 8 to “Is this generator associated with a Combined Heat and Power system (fuel input is used to produce both electricity and useful thermal output)?” and Question 9 to “Is this a Distributed Generator?”

4. Added question 10 b to Schedule 3, Part B—“Is this generator part of a Solid Fuel Gasification system?”

5. Modified number of fuel options for co-firing reportable from 9 to 6 (Q. 20, Sch. 3, Part B).

6. Modified number of “other energy sources” from ten to four (Q. 14, Part B; Q. 11, Part C; Q. 13, Part D).

7. Deleted question on ability to co-fire natural gas in Parts B, C and D.

8. Added question 7b to Schedule 3, Part C, and 9b to Schedule 3, Part D—“Will this generator be part of a Solid Fuel Gasification system?”

9. Deleted question from Schedule 3, Part D.—Expected Active Power Output at Maximum Reactive Output (MW).

10. Deleted question from Schedule 3, Part B—Active Power Output at Maximum Reactive Output (MW).

11. Modified Schedule 3, Part D, Question 7 to: “Will this generator be associated with a Combined Heat and Power system (fuel input is used to produce both electricity and useful thermal output?)” and Question 8 to “Will this be a Distributed Generator?”

12. Deleted Schedule 7.

1. Deleted word “Retail” from Schedule 4, Parts A, B, C, and D.

2. Deleted SCHEDULE 4. RETAIL SALES TO ULTIMATE CUSTOMERS, PART E. ANY OTHER RETAIL ENERGY SERVICE PROVIDER THAT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHEDULES A THROUGH D.

1. Modified response due date on form from “10 days following the end of the report month,” to “the last day of the month following the end of the reporting period.”

2. Modified “Stocks at End of Reporting Month” to “Stocks at End of Reporting Period.”

1. Modified response due date on form from 10 working days after the end of the report month to the last day of the month following the end of the reporting period.

2. Modified “Stocks at End of Reporting Month” to “Stocks at End of Reporting Period.”

3. Added line f—Other Outgoing Electricity to Schedule 4.2.

7. Business or other for-profit; State, local or tribal government; Federal government.

8. 155, 120 hours of burden.

Please refer to the supporting statement as well as the proposed forms and instructions for more information about the purpose, who must report, when to report, where to submit, the elements to be reported, detailed instructions, provisions for confidentiality, and uses (including possible nonstatistical uses) of the information. For instructions on obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT SECTIONn .

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0287. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell Street, Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

EPA's position paper, charge/questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition ([ i.e. , members and consultants for this meeting) and the meeting agenda will be available as soon as possible, but no later than early-September 2004. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap .

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0287. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0287. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0287. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

3. By mail . Due to potential delays in EPA's receipt and processing of mail, respondents are strongly encouraged to submit comments either electronically or by hand delivery or courier. We cannot guarantee that comments sent via mail will be received prior to the close of the comment period. If mailed, please send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0287.

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2004-0287 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

1. Oral comments . Oral comments presented at the meetings should not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written comments. Although requests to present oral comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), to the extent that time permits, interested persons may be permitted by the Chair of FIFRA SAP to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP is strongly advised to submit their request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, eastern time, October 7, 2004, in order to be included on the meeting agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment ([ e.g. , overhead projector, 35mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to FIFRA SAP at the meeting.

2. Written comments . Although submission of written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), the Agency encourages that written comments be submitted, using the instructions in Unit I., no later than noon, eastern time, October 7, 2004, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review the written comments. There is no limit on the extent of written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP. Persons wishing to submit written comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies.

3. Seating at the meeting . Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access and assistance for the hearing impaired, should contact the DFO at least 5 business days prior to the meeting using the information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

4. Request for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicit the stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated for the current meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: risk assessment of virus-resistant transgenic plants, plant virology, plant virus recombination, heterologous encapsidation of plant viruses, gene flow and protein biochemistry. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or before September 24, 2004. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the Agency.

The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on the needs of the FIFRA SAP and includes consideration of such issues as adequately covering the areas of expertise (including the different scientific perspectives within each discipline) necessary to address the Agency's charge questions. In addition, ad hoc members of the FIFRA SAP must be available to fully participate in the review; they must not have any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality; and they must be independent and unbiased with respect to the matter under review. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal Department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except the EPA). In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates selecting more than 10 ad hoc scientists.

If a prospective candidate for service on the FIFRA SAP is considered for participation in a particular session, the candidate is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the FIFRA SAP candidate is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Special Government Employees Serving on Federal Advisory Committees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA Form 3110-48 5-02) which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure form to assess that there are no financial conflicts of interest, no appearance of lack of impartiality and no prior involvement with the development of the documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP.

Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

Amendments to FIFRA enacted November 28, 1975 (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) of FIFRA that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide regulations pursuant to section 6(b)(2) of FIFRA, as well as proposed and final forms of rulemaking pursuant to section 25(a) of FIFRA, be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with section 25(d) of FIFRA, the FIFRA SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The FIFRA SAP also shall make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the FIFRA SAP for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

Section 104 of FQPA (Public Law 104-170) established the FQPA Science Review Board (SRB). These scientists shall be available to the FIFRA SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews conducted by the FIFRA SAP.

The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review issues associated with deployment of a type of plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), specifically those based on plant viral coat proteins (PVCP-PIPs). A plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) is a pesticidal substance that is intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance. The term includes both active and inert ingredients. PIPs are regulated as pesticides by EPA under FIFRA because they meet the FIFRA definition of a pesticide, being intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating a pest.

PIPs may occur naturally or be introduced into plants by conventional breeding or genetic engineering. PVCP-PIPs are PIPs in which inserted genetic material is derived from a plant virus sequence that encodes a plant virus coat protein. Plant virus coat proteins encapsidate the viral nucleic acid and are known to have a role in nearly every stage of viral infection including replication, movement throughout an infected plant, and transport from plant to plant. Incorporation of plant virus coat protein gene sequences into plant genomes has been found to confer resistance to the virus from which it was derived and often to related viruses.

EPA is seeking the assistance of the SAP in evaluating several issues concerning PVCP-PIP transgenic plants, including the potential environmental consequences associated with gene flow and novel viral interactions.

The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days after the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the PIRIB at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I.

EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) conducts periodic, scientifically reviewed studies to assess the costs and benefits of regulations promulgated under the Clean Air Act. The Council is an outside body of recognized experts charged with reviewing the data, methods and cost-benefit analyses conducted by OAR for implementing its programs. EPA has thus far issued one retrospective analysis of the Clean Air Act covering the 1970-1990 time period and one prospective analysis covering the 1990-2010 time period. EPA is planning a second prospective analysis covering the 1990-2020 time period and has issued two analytic blueprints for this analysis. The Council provided advice on these analytic blueprints in 2001 and 2004. These reports of the Council and its subcommittees may be found at http://www.epa.gov/sab/fiscal04.htm. OAR provides more information on “Section 812” reports at: http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/index.html. Additional background on the Council and on the statutorily mandated analyses of the costs and benefits of Clean Air Act programs was provided in a Federal Register notice published on February 14, 2003 (68 FR 7531-7534).

In its March 2004 Advisory report, posted at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/council_adv_04002.pdf, the Council HES provided advice through the Council on the health science aspects of EPA's analytic blueprint for its second prospective analysis. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation and EPA's Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation recently requested that the Council provide clarification on its advice in this March 2004 report pertaining to cessation lags, i.e. the time delay between reductions in air pollution and reductions in human health effects. The Agency seeks clarification of the Council's advice regarding this issue of cessation lags so that the Agency's analysis of the benefits of future rules for particulate matter (PM 2.5) might comport with the Council's previous recommendations. The Agency seeks the Council's advice on this proposed cessation lag structure.

The September 21 and September 29 teleconferences will provide the Council HES an opportunity to address the Agency's questions as stated in the letter to the Council which is posted at: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/comments_on_council_adv_04001.pdf. Agendas for these teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site prior to the teleconference calls.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2004-0305. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2004-0305. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0305. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0305.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2004-0305. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessment(s), and related documents for PHMB, an antimicrobial pesticide, and encouraging the public to suggest risk management ideas or proposals. PHMB is used as a fungicide, algicide, and sanitizer in swimming pools, as a preservative for cut flowers, and as an all-purpose cleaner and disinfectant. EPA developed the risk assessment(s) and preliminary risk reduction options for PHMB through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA).

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide written comments and input on the Agency's risk assessment(s) for PHMB. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to PHMB, compared to the general population.

All comments should be submitted using the methods in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION , and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency record for PHMB.

EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. In conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For PHMB, a modified, four-phase process with one comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its refined risk assessment(s), limited use, small number of users, few complex issues, few affected stakeholders, and/or other factors. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed. EPA plans to issue the PHMB RED as a final document for public comment.

Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended, directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”

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

• Report on System Performance

• June 10, 2004 (Regular Meeting)

• Financials

• Report on Insured Obligations

• Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan

• Review of Insurance Premium Rates

• Proposed 2005-2006 Budget and 2005 Annual Performance Plan

OMB Control No.: 3060-0816.

OMB Approval date: 8/30/2004.

Expiration Date: 8/31/2007.

Title: Local Competition and Broadband Reporting, CC Docket No. 99-301 and WC Docket No. 04-141 (NPRM).

Form No.: FCC form 477.

Estimated Annual Burden: 966 responses; 48,207 total annual burden hours; approximately 50 hours average per respondent.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 477 seeks to gather information on the development of local competition and deployment of broadband service also known as advanced telecommunications services. The data are necessary to evaluate the status of developing competition in local exchange telecommunications markets and to evaluate the status of broadband deployment. The information is used by Commission staff to advise the Commission about the efficacy of Commission rules and policies adopted to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0166.

OMB Approval date: 8/23/2004.

Expiration Date: 8/31/2007.

Title: Part 42—Preservation of Records of Communications Common Carriers.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 54 responses; 108 total annual burden hours; 2 hours per respondent.

Needs and Uses: Part 42 prescribes the regulations governing the preservation of records of communications common carriers that are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC. The requirements are necessary to ensure the availability of carrier records needed by Commission staff for regulatory purposes.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0355.

OMB Approval date: 7/23/2004.

Expiration Date: 7/31/2007.

Title: Rate-of-Return Reports.

Form No.: FCC forms 492 and 492A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 114 responses; 912 total annual burden hours; 8 hours average per respondent.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 492 is filed by each local exchange carrier (LEC) or group of carriers who file individual access tariffs or who are not subject to Sections 61.41 through 61.49 of the Commission's rules. Each LEC or group of affiiated carriers subject to the previously stated sections file FCC Form 492A. Both forms are filed annually. The reports contain rate-of-return information and are needed to enable the Commission to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0106.

OMB Approval date: 7/26/2004.

Expiration Date: 7/31/2007.

Title: Section 43.61—Reports of Overseas Telecommunications Traffic.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 134 responses; 2,412 total annual burden hours; 18 hours average per respondent.

Needs and Uses: On April 12, 2004, the Federal Communications Commission (“Commission”) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), “In the Matter of Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services; Amendment of Part 43 of the Commission's Rules,” IB Docket No. 04-112, FCC 04-70. The Commission is seeking comments from the public on how to simplify the reporting requirements and to ensure the usefulness of the data collected by the Commission.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1062.

OMB Approval date: 7/13/2004.

Expiration Date: 7/31/2007.

Title: Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism—Notification of Equipment Transfers.

Form No.: N/A.

Estimated Annual Burden: 600 responses; 600 total annual burden hours; 1 hour average per respondent.

Needs and Uses: The Commission addresses several matters related to the administration of the schools and libraries universal service mechanism (also known as the e-rate program). What makes this collection relevenat is in the event that a recipient is permanently or temporarily closed and equipment is transferred, the transferring entity must notify the Administrator of the transfer, and both the transferring and receiving entities must maintain detailed records documenting the transfer and the reason for the transfer for a period of five years.

This Notice informs the public that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, a survey instrument to obtain information from faith-based and community organizations on their likelihood and success at applying for various funding programs. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

Title of Proposal: Computation of Payments In Lieu of Taxes.

OMB Approval Number: 2577-0072.

Form Numbers: 52267.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use:

The collection captures specific financial data detailing the allowed payments in lieu of taxes to local governments in accordance with regulatory requirements. HUD collects information on the estimated propery taxes that a public housing property would pay to local government if it were a taxable property. Local tax rates, property values, rent and utility costs are collected as components of the PILOT calculation in a formula to determine a public housing operating subsidy.

Frequency of Submission: Annually.

Reporting Burden:

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,254.

Status: Reinstatement, with change, of previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.

Recovery of endangered or threatened animals and plants is a primary goal of our endangered species program and the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). Recovery means improvement of the status of listed species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the measures needed for recovery.

The Act requires the development of recovery plans for listed species unless such a plan would not promote the conservation of a particular species. Section 4(f) of the Act requires that public notice and an opportunity for public review and comment be provided during recovery plan development. The Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Paiute Cutthroat Trout was available for public comment from January 26, 2004, through March 26, 2004 (69 FR 3598). Information presented during the public comment period has been considered in the preparation of this final revised recovery plan, and is summarized in an appendix to the recovery plan. We will forward substantive comments regarding recovery plan implementation to appropriate Federal or other entities so that they can take these comments into account during the course of implementing recovery actions.

The Paiute cutthroat trout is native to the Silver King Creek in the East Fork Carson River drainage of Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Alpine County, California. Hybridization with non-native salmonids is the primary threat to the species.

The original recovery plan for the Paiute cutthroat trout was published in 1985. This revised recovery plan incorporates recent research data and addresses the species' current status, threats, distribution, and recovery needs. It also addresses the effects of recovery actions on the mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa ) and the Yosemite toad ( Bufo canorus ), which occur within the Silver King Creek drainage as well as in the vicinity of the out-of-basin population sites. This plan identifies actions to maintain ecosystem integrity as well as recover the Paiute cutthroat trout.

The revised recovery plan includes conservation measures designed to ensure that self-sustaining populations of Paiute cutthroat trout will once again occupy its historic range. Specific recovery actions focus on removing non-native salmonids and establishing a viable population in its historic range. The plan also identifies the need to protect pure populations which exist outside of the historic range. The ultimate goal of this revised recovery plan is to delist the Paiute cutthroat trout by implementing a variety of measures to attain the following criteria: (1) All non-native salmonids are removed from Silver King Creek and its tributaries downstream of Llewellyn Falls to fish barriers in Silver King Canyon; (2) a viable population of Paiute cutthroat trout occupies all historic habitat in Silver King Creek and its tributaries downstream of Llewellyn Falls to fish barriers in Silver King Canyon; (3) Paiute cutthroat trout habitat is maintained in all occupied streams; (4) the refuge populations in Corral and Coyote Creeks, Silver King Creek and tributaries above Llewellyn Falls, as well as out-of-basin populations are maintained as refugia and are secured from the introduction of other salmonid species; and (5) a long-term conservation plan and conservation agreement are developed, which will be the guiding management documents once Paiute cutthroat trout are delisted.

Wind energy development on BLM-administered lands currently is managed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Interim Wind Energy Development Policy (Instruction Memorandum 2003-020), issued October 16, 2002. To further support wind energy development on public lands and minimize potential environmental and sociocultural impacts, the BLM is seeking to build upon the existing interim policy to establish a Wind Energy Development Program. Three alternatives were considered in the DPEIS: (1) The proposed action, which would implement a Wind Energy Development Program, establish Best Management Practices for wind energy authorizations, and amend a number of BLM land use plans; (2) the no action alternative, which would allow wind energy development under the existing terms and conditions of the interim policy; and (3) a limited wind energy development alternative, which would allow wind energy development only in selected locations. The DPEIS was prepared in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701), as amended; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321), as amended; and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).

The BLM published a Notice of Intent to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to Evaluate Wind Energy Development on Western Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, on October 17, 2003 ( Federal Register , Vol. 68, No. 201). This initiated a 60-day public scoping period that ended on December 19, 2003. Public scoping meetings were conducted in five locations (Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Cheyenne, Las Vegas, and Boise) in November 2003. Written scoping comments were accepted by comment card, mail, fax, and the project Web site ( http://www.windeis.anl.gov ). The BLM published a scoping summary report and made copies of the individual letters, facsimiles, and electronic comments received during scoping available on the project Web site.

The BLM seeks information and comments on the analysis of potential impacts of wind energy development on public lands discussed in the DPEIS and on the assessment of the management alternatives, in terms of their effectiveness at mitigating potential impacts and facilitating wind energy development. In particular, the BLM seeks comments on the conclusion that the proposed action appears to provide the best approach for managing wind energy development on BLM-administered lands. The BLM also seeks additional data or information that would improve the analysis in the DPEIS.

The Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Draft Environmental Impact Statement describes the effects of modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam to assist in the recovery of four endangered fish, and their critical habitat, downstream from the dam. The purpose of the proposed action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), particularly those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact.

The draft EIS describes and analyzes the potential effects of two alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative, operations under the conditions imposed by the 1992 Biological Opinion would continue. Under the Action Alternative, operations would be in accordance with the flow and temperature regimes specified in the Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered Fish in the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam (2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations), published in September 2000 by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program).

Flaming Gorge Dam, located on the Green River in northeastern Utah about 200 miles east of Salt Lake City, is an authorized storage unit of the Colorado River Storage Project. Flaming Gorge Dam was completed in 1962, and full operation of the dam and reservoir began in 1967. The powerplant, located at the base of the dam, began commercial operation in 1963 and was completed in 1964. Reclamation operates the dam and powerplant, and the Western Area Power Administration markets the power.

Reclamation proposes to take action to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes found in the Green and Colorado River Basins, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the CRSP. The four endangered fish species are the humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus lucius ), razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ), and bonytail ( Gila elegans ). Reclamation would implement the proposed action by modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Recovery Program. Reclamation's goal is to implement the Proposed Action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the CRSP.

The recommended flows and temperatures are intended to provide water releases of sufficient magnitude and, with the proper timing and duration, to assist in the recovery of the endangered fishes and their designated critical habitat.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to operate Flaming Gorge Dam to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes, while maintaining all authorized purposes of the Flaming Gorge Unit of the CRSP, particularly those related to the development of water resources in accordance with the Colorado River Compact. The Proposed Action is needed for the following reasons:

• The operation of Flaming Gorge Dam, under its original operating criteria, jeopardized the continued existence of the endangered fishes in the Green River.

• Reclamation is required to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the operation of CRSP facilities, including Flaming Gorge Dam. Within the exercise of its discretionary authority, Reclamation must avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species and destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat.

• The Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to the 1992 Biological Opinion on the Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam required modification of Flaming Gorge releases to benefit the endangered fish, a five-year study period to evaluate winter and spring flows, and reinitiation of discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service following the study period to further refine the flow recommendations. With the results of these studies, as well as other relevant information, the Recovery Program developed and approved the 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations report for the Green River. These recommendations are an extension of the 1992 jeopardy Biological Opinion RPA. Reclamation committed to assist in meeting flow requirements through the refined operation of Flaming Gorge Dam and other federal reservoirs in the 1987 agreement that formed the Recovery Program.

• Flaming Gorge Dam and Reservoir is the primary water storage and delivery facility on the Green River, upstream from its confluence with the Colorado River. The storage capacity and ability to control water releases of Flaming Gorge Dam allow Reclamation flexibility in providing flow and temperature management to protect and assist in the recovery of endangered fish populations and their critical habitat within specific reaches of the river. Thus, the refined operation of Flaming Gorge Dam is a key element of the Recovery Program.

• The refined operation will offset the adverse effects of flow depletions from the Green River for certain Reclamation water projects in Utah, as defined by existing jeopardy Biological Opinions. Modifying the operation of Flaming Gorge Dam will also serve as the RPA, as defined by the ESA, to offset jeopardy to endangered fishes and their critical habitat that could result from the operation of numerous other existing or proposed water development projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin.

Reclamation proposes to take action to protect and assist in recovery of the populations and designated critical habitat of the four endangered fishes found in the Green and Colorado River Basins. Reclamation would implement the Proposed Action by modifying the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, to the extent possible, to achieve the flows and temperatures recommended by participants of the Recovery Program. Reclamation's goal is to implement the Proposed Action and, at the same time, maintain and continue all authorized purposes of the CRSP.

Hearing Process Information: Oral comments at the hearings will be limited to five minutes. The hearing officer may allow any speaker to provide additional oral comments after all persons wishing to comment have been heard. All comments will be formally recorded. Speakers not present when called will lose their privilege in the scheduled order and will be recalled at the end of the scheduled speakers. Speakers are encouraged to provide written versions of their oral comments, and any other additional written materials, for the hearing/administrative record.

Written comments should be received by Reclamation's Provo Area Office using the contact information provided above no later than November 15, 2004, for inclusion in the hearing/administrative record. Under the NEPA process, written and oral comments, received by the due date, are given the same consideration.

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

The proposed exemptions were requested in applications filed pursuant to section 408(a) of the Act and/or section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990). Effective December 31, 1978, section 102 of Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), transferred the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue exemptions of the type requested to the Secretary of Labor. Therefore, these notices of proposed exemption are issued solely by the Department.

The applications contain representations with regard to the proposed exemptions which are summarized below. Interested persons are referred to the applications on file with the Department for a complete statement of the facts and representations.

The Department is considering granting an exemption under the authority of section 408(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or the Act) and section 4975(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the Code) and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).

If the proposed exemption is granted, the restrictions of sections 406(a) and 406(b) of the Act and the sanctions resulting from the application of section 4975 of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(A) through (F) of the Code, shall not apply to the receipt of fees by Comerica Bank and its affiliates (Comerica) from the Munder Funds (the Funds), open-end investment companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the 1940 Act), for acting as an investment adviser for the Funds, as well as for providing any other services to the Funds which are not investment advisory services (“Secondary Services” as defined in Section III(h) below) in connection with the purchase and sale of shares of the Funds by certain defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans and funded employee welfare benefit plans (Client Plans) for which Comerica serves as fiduciary with investment discretion, provided that the following conditions and the General Conditions set forth in Section II are met:

(a) No sales commissions, redemption fees, or other fees are paid by the Client Plans in connection with the purchase or sale of shares of the Funds.

(b) The price paid or received by a Client Plan for shares in a Fund is the net asset value per share, as defined in Section III (e), at the time of the transaction, and is the same price that would have been paid or received for the shares by any other investor at that time.

(c) Comerica, including any officer or director of Comerica, does not purchase or sell shares of the Funds from or to any Client Plan.

(d) Each Client Plan receives a credit, through a cash rebate of such Plan's proportionate share of all fees charged to the Funds by Comerica for investment advisory services, including any investment advisory fees paid by Comerica to third-party subadvisers. Cash rebates for investment advisory services provided to the Client Funds are received by a Plan on or before the date Comerica charges the Client Plan for plan-level investment management services. Comerica management fees and Munder advisory fees are paid in arrears for services provided to the Client Plans and the Funds, respectively. The crediting of all such fees is audited by Comerica through a system of internal controls to verify the proper crediting of the fees to each Client Plan.

(e) Comerica will supply, annually and upon request, to the second fiduciary acting for a Client Plan, who is independent of and unrelated to Comerica (the Second Fiduciary), all information reasonably necessary for such fiduciary to verify that the fee credit calculation is correct and any additional information that the Second Fiduciary may require to determine that the conditions of this exemption are being met by Comerica.

(f) For each Client Plan, the combined total of all fees received by Comerica for the provision of services to a Client Plan, and in connection with the provision of services to the Funds in which the Client Plan may invest, is not in excess of “reasonable compensation” within the meaning of section 408(b)(2) of ERISA.

(g) Comerica does not receive any fees payable pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act in connection with the transactions.

(h) The Client Plans are not employee benefit plans sponsored or maintained by Comerica.

(i) The Second Fiduciary receives, in advance of any initial investment by the Client Plan in a Fund, full and detailed written disclosure of information concerning the Fund, including, but not limited to:

(1) A current prospectus for each Fund in which a Client Plan is considering investing;

(2) A statement describing the fees for investment advisory or similar services and any Secondary Services as defined in Section III (h), and all other fees to be charged to or paid by the Client Plan and by the Funds, including the nature and extent of any differential between the rates of such fees;

(3) The reasons why Comerica may consider such investment to be appropriate for the Client Plan;

(4) A statement describing whether there are any limitations applicable to Comerica with respect to which assets of a Client Plan may be invested in the Funds, and if so, the nature of such limitations; and

(5) Upon the request of the Second Fiduciary, a copy of the proposed exemption and/or a copy of the final exemption, if granted, once such documents is published in the Federal Register .

(j) After consideration of the information described in paragraph (i) above, the Second Fiduciary authorizes in writing the investment of assets of the Client Plan in each particular Fund, the fees to be paid by such Fund to Comerica, and the cash rebate to the Client Plan of fees received by Comerica from the Funds for investment advisory services.

(k) All authorizations made by a Second Fiduciary regarding investments in a Fund and the fees paid to Comerica are subject to an annual reauthorization wherein any such prior authorization referred to in paragraph (j) above shall be terminable at will by the Client Plan, without penalty to the Plan, upon receipt by Comerica of written notice of termination. A form expressly providing an election to terminate the authorization described in paragraph (j) above (the Termination Form) with instructions on the use of the form must be supplied to the Second Fiduciary no less than annually. However, if the Termination Form has been provided to the Second Fiduciary pursuant to paragraph (m) below, then the Termination Form need not be provided again for an annual reauthorization pursuant to this paragraph unless at least six months have elapsed since the form was provided in connection with the additional service or fee increase. The instructions for the Termination Form must include the following information:

(1) The authorization is terminable at will by any of the Client Plans, without penalty to such Client Plans, upon receipt by Comerica of written notice from the Second Fiduciary; and

(2) Failure by the Second Fiduciary to return the Termination Form on behalf of a Client Plan will result in continued authorization of Comerica to engage in the transactions described in paragraph (j) above on behalf of the Client Plan.

(3) A copy of the Termination Form will be sent to the Second Fiduciary for the Client Plan upon request.

(l) The Second Fiduciary receives full written disclosure, prior to the effective date, in a Fund prospectus or otherwise, of any increases in the rates of fees charged by Comerica to the Funds for investment advisory services even though such fees will be rebated as required by paragraph (d) above.

(m) In the event that Comerica provides an additional Secondary Service to a Fund for which a fee is charged or there is an increase in the rate of any fee paid by the Funds to Comerica for any Secondary Services that results from either an increase in the rate of such fee or a decrease in the number or kind of services performed by Comerica for such fees in connection with a previously authorized Secondary Service, Comerica will, at least 30 days in advance of the implementation of such additional service for which a fee is charged or fee increase, provide written notice (that is separate from the prospectus of the Fund) to the Second Fiduciary explaining the nature and the amount of the additional services or of the effective increase in fees of the affected Fund. Such notice shall be accompanied by the Termination Form.

(n) On an annual basis, Comerica provides the Second Fiduciary of a Client Plan investing in the Funds with:

(1) A copy of the current prospectus for the Funds and, upon such Second Fiduciary's request, a copy of the Statement of Additional Information for such Funds that contains a description of all fees paid by the Funds to Comerica (including fees for investment advisory services);

(2) A copy of the annual financial disclosure report of the Funds in which such Client Plan is invested, which includes information about the Fund portfolios; and

(3) Oral or written responses to inquiries of the Second Fiduciary as they arise.

(o) All dealings between the Client Plans and the Funds are on a basis no less favorable to the Client Plans than dealings with other shareholders of the Funds.

(a) Comerica maintains for a period of six years the records necessary to enable the persons described in paragraph (b) of Section II to determine whether the conditions of this exemption have been met, except that:

(1) A prohibited transaction will not be considered to have occurred if, due to circumstances beyond the control of Comerica, the records are lost or destroyed prior to the end of the six-year period, and

(2) No party in interest other than Comerica shall be subject to the civil penalty that may be assessed under section 502(i) of ERISA or to the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code if the records are not maintained or not available for examination as required by paragraph (b) below.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) below and notwithstanding any provisions of section 504(a)(2) and (b) of ERISA, the records referred to in paragraph (a) of Section II are unconditionally available at their customary location for examination during normal business hours by: (i) Any duly authorized employee or representative of the Department of Labor or the Internal Revenue Service; (ii) Any fiduciary of a Client Plan who has authority to acquire or dispose of shares of the Funds owned by the Client Plan, or any duly authorized employee or representative of such fiduciary; and (iii) Any participant or beneficiary of a Client Plan or duly authorized employee or representative of such participant or beneficiary.

(1) None of the persons described in subparagraph (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) above shall be authorized to examine trade secrets of Comerica, or commercial or financial information, which is privileged or confidential.

For purposes of this exemption:

(a) “Comerica” means Comerica Bank, a Michigan banking corporation, and any affiliate thereof (as affiliate is defined below in paragraph (b) of this section).

(b) An “affiliate” of a person includes:

(1) Any person directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the person;

(2) Any officer, director, employee, relative, or partner in any such person; and

(3) Any corporation or partnership of which such person is an officer, director, partner, or employee.

(c) “Control” means the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a person other than an individual.

(d) The term “Fund” or “Funds” shall include the Munder Funds, each series thereof, or any other diversified open-end investment company registered under the 1940 Act for which Comerica serves as an investment adviser and may also serve as a Fund accountant, transfer agent or provide some other Secondary Service (as defined below in paragraph (h) of Section III) which has been approved by such Funds.

(e) “Net asset value” means the amount for purposes of pricing all purchases and sales, calculated by dividing the value of all securities, determined by a method as set forth in a Fund's prospectus and statement of additional information, and other assets belonging to the Fund or portfolio of the Fund, less the liabilities charged to each such portfolio or Fund, by the number of outstanding shares.

(f) “Relative” means a “relative” as that term is defined in section 3(15) of ERISA (or a “member of the family” as that term is defined in section 4975(e) (6) of the Code), or a brother, a sister, or a spouse of a brother or a sister.

(g) “Second Fiduciary” means a fiduciary of a Client Plan who is independent of and unrelated to Comerica. For purposes of this exemption, the Second Fiduciary will not be deemed to be independent of and unrelated to Comerica if:

(1) Such fiduciary directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with Comerica;

(2) Such fiduciary, or any officer, director, partner, employee, or relative of the fiduciary is an officer, director, partner, or employee of Comerica (or is a relative of such persons); or

(3) Such fiduciary directly or indirectly receives any compensation or other consideration for his or her own personal account in connection with any transaction described in this proposed exemption:

If an officer, director, partner, or employee of Comerica (or relative of such persons), is a director of such Second Fiduciary, and if he or she abstains from participation in (i) the choice of the Client Plan's investment adviser, (ii) the approval of any such purchase or sale between the Client Plan and the Funds, and (iii) the approval of any change in fees charged to or paid by the Client Plan in connection with any of the transactions described in Section I and Section II above, then subparagraph (g)(2) of Section III shall not apply.

(h) “Secondary Service” means a service other than an investment management, investment advisory, or similar service which is provided by Comerica to the Funds including (but not limited to) custodian services, transfer and dividend disbursing agent services, administrator or sub-administrator services, accounting services, and shareholder servicing agent services.

However, for purposes of this exemption, the term “Secondary Service” will not include any brokerage services provided to the Funds by Comerica for the execution of securities transactions engaged in by the Funds.

(i) “Termination Form” means the form supplied to the Second Fiduciary that expressly provides an election to the Second Fiduciary to terminate on behalf of a Client Plan the authorization described in paragraph (j) of Section I above. Such Termination Form may be used at will by the Second Fiduciary to terminate an authorization without penalty to the Plan and to notify Comerica in writing to effect a termination by selling the shares of the Funds held by the Client Plan requesting such termination within one business day following receipt by Comerica of the form; provided that if, due to circumstances beyond the control of Comerica, the sale cannot be executed within one business day, Comerica shall have one additional business day to complete such sale.

Effective Date: The proposed exemption, if granted, will be effective as of the date the final exemption is published in the Federal Register .

1. Comerica represents that it acts as trustee with investment discretion for approximately 62 Client Plans that are subject to ERISA. The Client Plans include defined benefit and defined contribution pension plans, and funded employee welfare benefit plans. Comerica Bank is a banking corporation chartered under the laws of the State of Michigan. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated which is a bank holding company regulated by and registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 as amended.

2. Comerica represents that it has been granted trust powers by the Office of Financial and Insurance Services of the State of Michigan, which regulates Comerica Bank pursuant to Michigan law. As to fiduciary matters, the Office of Financial and Insurance Services generally requires Michigan chartered banks to comply with the regulations promulgated by the United States Comptroller of Currency as well as Michigan law. Comerica Bank is also regulated by the Federal Reserve Board. As of March 31, 2004, Comerica Bank had approximately $26.8 billion under trust management.

3. Comerica represents that Munder Capital Management (Munder) is the investment advisor to several open-end investment companies registered under the 1940 Act (Munder Funds). Munder is a Delaware general partnership with three partners, two of which, WAM Holdings, Inc. and WAM Holdings II, Inc. own a 95.5% interest in Munder, and are wholly owned subsidiaries of Comerica Investment Services, Inc. which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comerica Incorporated. Munder is, consequently, an affiliate of Comerica Bank as defined at 29 CFR 2510.3-21(e).

4. The Munder Funds are Massachusetts business trusts. The Munder Funds involved in the exemption transactions are: Munder Bond Fund B Class Y, Munder Fram Emerging Mkts B Y, Munder Fram Healthcare FD-Y, Munder Framlington Intl GRW, Munder Fund of Funds, Munder Future Technology CL Y, Munder Index 500 Fund B CL K, Munder Index 500 Fund B CL Y, Munder Inst S&P Midcap 400, Munder Instl S&P Smallcap 600, Munder Instl S&P 500 Idx Equ Fd, Munder Instl S&P 600 Fd CL K, Munder Intermed Bd Fd (K Shs), Munder Intermediate Bd-Y, Munder International Eq-Y, Munder Intl Bond Fund—CL Y, Munder Intl Equity Fund (K Shs), Munder Intl Net Net CL Y, Munder Large Cap Growth Fd CL Y, Munder Large Cap Value Fund CL Y, Munder Micro Cap Equity B Y, Munder Midcap Select Fund CL Y, Munder Multi-Seas Gwth Fd (CL K), Munder Multi-Season Growth B Y, Munder Net Net Fund CL Y, Munder Power Plus Fund CL Y, Munder Real Estate Eq Inv-Y, Munder Small Cap Value Fd-Y, Munder Small Co GRY Shrs, Munder U.S. GVT Income FD (K SHS), Munder U.S. Govt Income FD-Y (the Funds). Comerica anticipates that other Munder Funds may be established in the future, and it intends to offer appropriate Munder Funds to its Client Plans as they are organized.

5. Comerica represents that it uses its fiduciary authority to invest Client Plan assets in the Funds and that all investments in the Funds on behalf of the Client Plans are made by Comerica pursuant to initial written authorizations and annual reauthorizations of the investments by an independent fiduciary of each of the Client Plans after receipt by that fiduciary of the current prospectus for the relevant Munder Funds and written disclosure of the investment advisory fees charged to the Client Plan and the Munder Funds.

6. The Applicant believes that the advantages of permitting Comerica to invest the assets of Client Plans in the Funds include the fact that the Funds are valued daily, and their market values are quoted in daily publications of mass circulation. This permits the independent fiduciaries of the Client Plans to monitor their plans' investment performance on a daily basis without the need to communicate with Comerica Bank, unlike the case with Comerica's collective investment funds. The Funds also have the advantage of permitting investment and redemption on a daily basis, so that funds may be immediately invested in the desired medium, whereas some investments, such as some of Comerica's collective funds, are only available for investment and redemption monthly.

7. The Applicant states that all investments of Client Plan assets in the Funds occur either through the direct purchase of shares of the Funds for a Client Plan by Comerica Bank, the liquidation of shares owned by a Client Plan in one Munder Fund and the simultaneous purchase of shares in another Munder Fund at the direction of Comerica, or an automated sweep of uninvested cash of a Client Plan by Comerica Bank into one or more Funds previously designated by the Client Plan for that purpose. Comerica states that the terms and conditions of these transactions are at least as favorable to the Client Plans as offered to other customers of Comerica Bank. The Client Plans pay no sales commissions or redemption fees in connection with transactions in the Fund shares executed at Comerica Bank's instruction. Comerica represents that it does not and will not receive fees payable pursuant to Rule 12b-1 in connection with transactions for Client Plans involving shares of the Funds.

8. Comerica states that it charges management fees to its Client Plans in accordance with written fee agreements. These agreements are individually negotiated between the independent fiduciaries of the Client Plans and Comerica Bank. The fee agreements establish base management fees calculated as a percentage of assets under management and per-transaction fees for Secondary Services. Comerica represents that the fees charged to Client Plans for services performed are exempt from the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA by Section 408(b)(2) and the regulations under that Section at 29 CFR 2550.408b-2. 1

9. The Applicant represents that Munder is compensated for acting as investment advisor to each of the Munder Funds. Munder charges a uniform fee for acting as investment advisor to each of the Munder Funds equal to 0.75% of average net daily assets of each of the respective Munder Funds. The fee agreements between Munder and the Funds are approved by the Board of Directors of the Munder Funds in accordance with the applicable provisions of the 1940 Act. As described in detail below, Comerica states that it regularly rebates to Client Plans their proportional shares of Munder's investment advisory fee, so that Client Plans do not pay duplicative fees for investment advisory services to both Munder and Comerica Bank.

10. The Applicant represents that all investments of Client Plans in the Funds occur through direct purchases of Fund shares from the Funds' distributor, Funds Distributors, Inc., which is not an affiliate of Comerica Bank. The Applicant represents that Client Plans pay no commissions or redemption fees in connection with purchases or sales of Fund shares, but Funds Distributors, Inc. is compensated by the Funds under a distribution plan adopted by the Funds pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act equal to an annual rate of 0.25% of the Funds' average daily net assets. The distribution fee is calculated daily and paid monthly. 2

11. The Applicant states that Comerica Bank provides shareholder services to the Funds. Comerica Bank further notes that it receives shareholder servicing fees from the Funds of 0.25% of the average daily net asset value of Class K shares of equity and bond Munder Funds, and .15% of the average daily net asset value of Class K shares of money market Munder Funds under the Munder Funds' shareholder servicing plans. These services are not investment advisory services to the Funds, and consequently do not duplicate the fees for asset management charged by Comerica Bank to the Client Plans. Moreover, the Applicant represents that the shareholder services that Comerica Bank provides to the Funds are not duplicative of secondary trustee services for which Comerica Bank is compensated by the Client Plans or their sponsors either as part of the base management fee or from per-transaction fees. These secondary trustee services include processing distributions, maintaining participant accounts, executing investment directions, valuing plan assets, filing required reports, and compiling participant and plan sponsor reports. These trustee services are necessary whether or not a Client Plan's assets are invested in a Fund and may involve maintenance of Client Plan accounts reflecting ownership of Fund shares, whereas Comerica Bank's services to the Funds relate to securities owned by the Funds and procedures necessary for servicing the Funds' shareholders. 3

12. Comerica represents that it does not and will not provide securities brokerage services to either the Funds or the Client Plans, so that Comerica Bank will not generate brokerage fees with respect to securities transactions for the Client Plans.

13. Comerica Bank represents that it uses automatic data systems to manage its fee arrangements with Client Plans. The automatic data systems create cash rebates of the appropriate amounts of Munder fees rather than crediting the Munder fees against Comerica Bank's management fees. It is solely for this reason that Comerica Bank cannot rely upon Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 77-4  4 for the transactions described herein.

14. With respect to transactions that occurred prior to the effective date of this proposed exemption, Comerica notes the following: “Comerica Bank's ERISA compliance officer was not aware until recently that the Department intended that PTE 77-4 be followed literally in crediting fund investment management fees rather than in rebating them. When the compliance officer was made aware of the distinction by published commentary, an assessment of the operation of Comerica Bank's trust fee systems was instituted and it was discovered that the computer system maintained by Comerica Bank generated rebates, not credits. The compliance officer then caused the Comerica exemption application to be prepared and filed. Comerica continues to rebate fund level investment management fees. Because the Department has issued other individual exemptions permitting the rebate of investment management fees and because the Client Plans reap financial advantages from Comerica Bank's rebating procedures, it was decided that the current procedures will be continued and be adjusted, if necessary, to secure the Department's approval of the individual exemption.” Comerica further notes that: “Correction of the exemption transactions would require the Client Plans to refund the investment returns received by virtue of receiving fee rebates earlier than fee credits would have been received under the requirements of PTE 77-4. Comerica Bank believes that the correction of the transactions is inappropriate under the circumstances.”  5

15. Comerica represents that it either charges a Client Plan directly for management fees or it invoices the Client Plan's plan sponsor for management fees. In some cases, a portion of a Client Plan's management fees are charged directly and a portion invoiced to the plan sponsor. Comerica states that it utilizes an automated system for Client Plans to which all management fees are charged directly. The automated system calculates the appropriate Munder fee rebate for each month on the last day of that month. The transfer of funds by Comerica Bank to Client Plans to rebate the Munder fees takes place on the 15th of the next month or the next business day if the fifteenth is not a business day.

Depending on the management agreement between Comerica Bank and the Client Plan, the charge to Client Plans for Comerica Bank management fees or other fees occurs monthly, quarterly, semi-annually or annually, as appropriate, on the 15th day of the month (or the next business day, if later) after the fee calculation period and concurrently with the Munder fee rebate for the prior month. The Applicant states that the phrase “after the fee calculation period” means the Comerica management fees are paid in arrears.

Comerica represents that for Client Plans for which some or all of the management fees are invoiced to the plan sponsor, Comerica has and continues to utilize an automated billing system. The automated fee calculation system calculates the Munder fee rebate for each such Client Plan on the last day of each month and transfers the rebate to each Client Plan on 15th day of the next month (or the next business day, if later). The automated billing system invoices Comerica management fees to the plan sponsor no later than the third to the last business day of the month after the end of the monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual fee calculation period. If a portion of the Comerica Bank management fees are charged directly to the Client Plan, the charge is made on the third to the last day of the month after the fee calculation period, and in no event before the posting of the Munder fee rebate for the prior month. The Applicant provides the following example. If Comerica charges its trust management fee monthly, then it earns its fee for January and is paid on February 15. The automated system calculates the appropriate cash rebate for Munder fees for January on January 31 and pays it to the trust account no later than February 15. If the trust account pays its management fee quarterly, then it would pay Comerica's management fees for January through March on April 15. The rebates of the Munder fees nevertheless proceed monthly on February 15, March 15 and April 15.

16. Comerica Bank prefers the method it uses for rebating Munder fees because it permits the Client Plans to confirm that the fees paid to Comerica Bank are in accordance with its fee agreement, and Comerica Bank desires to avoid the expense of changing its data processing systems to calculate a credit of the Munder fees against the Comerica Bank management fees. Comerica represents that the Client Plans in many cases receive an advantage by the rebating method because they receive their rebates in advance of paying the Comerica Bank management fee, but in no case does a Client Plan receive its appropriate rebate later than the time at which it pays Comerica Bank's management fees. Moreover, Client Plans whose sponsors pay the management fees are in a better position under Comerica Bank's rebate program, since the Client Plans receive a greater return on their investments in Munder Funds. 6

17. Comerica represents that it has established a system of internal controls to ensure the proper rebating of Munder investment management fees to clients. The calculation of asset management fees and rebate of Munder fees is an automated function of the computer program that controls the rebates and is accomplished with minimal human intervention. The asset management fee and Munder rebate calculation logic is coded into the computer program. Thus, once the calculation logic is confirmed as producing the intended rebates, the opportunity for error in the rebate calculation method is nil. Access to the computer application files in which the computer program is maintained is strictly controlled, and any changes must be reviewed by authorized personnel in both the Trust Systems Department and the Information Systems Department. In addition, Comerica states that its Information Technology audit group performs periodic internal audits of the controls over all mainframe computer system changes, including changes to the program that controls the Munder fee rebates. The Comerica Bank Trust Operations group maintains a computer spreadsheet of the investment management fee rates applicable to each trust asset. Each month a review is conducted to ensure the system rate and the spreadsheet rate are the same. Munder's fees charged to the Munder Funds are extracted from the Funds' published prospectuses, and once entered into the computer files are also protected from unauthorized access. All data changes are reviewed and approved by appropriate personnel in the Trust Operations Department. Comerica Bank Trust Operations handles the actual transfer of cash used for fee rebates from a Munder account to a Comerica account. It performs a monthly reconciliation between cash received from Munder and rebates calculated by the computer system. Comerica Bank Trust Operations performs a quarterly review of Munder fees/rebates and Munder reviews the results of this self-audit. Additionally, Comerica Bank Institutional Trust and Private Banking management receive reports of the results and conduct an independent review.

Comerica Bank's internal audit department performs annual reviews of fee income reconciliation including Munder fee rebates. In the event an error is made in the rebating of fees to the Client Plans, Comerica asserts that it will correct the error and conduct further audits to determine whether the error occurred with respect to other Client Accounts. With respect to any shortfall in rebated fees to a Client Plan, Comerica Bank will make a cash payment to the Client Plan equal to the amount of the error with interest computed on the same yield as that paid by the Client Plan's money market fund or the Federal Funds rate if no money market fund is used for the period involved. Any excess rebates made to a Client Plan will be corrected, to the extent possible, by an appropriate reduction of cash rebate to the Client Plan during the next payment period.

18. Comerica Bank represents that the independent fiduciary of each Client Plan who approves the investment of assets in the Munder Funds receives full and detailed disclosure of information concerning the fees paid by the Funds, including the investment advisory fees of Munder Capital Management and fees paid for shareholder services to Comerica Bank both before the authorization of the investments by the independent fiduciary and at least 30 days before any increase in the fees. 7 In the event that Comerica Bank provides an additional service to a Fund for which a fee is charged or there is an increase in the amount of fees paid by the Funds to Comerica Bank for any services resulting from a decrease in the number or kinds of services performed by Comerica Bank, it will provide thirty day's advance written notice of the such additional services or fee increase, provide written notice to the independent fiduciaries explaining the nature and the amount of the additional services for which a fee will be charged or the nature and the amount of the increase in fees from the affected Munder Fund. Such notice will be made separate from the Munder Fund prospectuses and will be accompanied by a Termination Form. The independent fiduciary will also receive full written disclosure in a Munder Fund prospectus of any increase in the rate of fees charged by Munder Capital Management for investment advisory services even though such fees will be rebated to the Client Plans.

19. Any authorizations by an independent fiduciary regarding the investment of a Client Plan's assets in a Fund and the fees to be paid to Munder and Comerica Bank, including any future increases in rates of fees for Secondary Services, are or will be terminable at will by the independent fiduciary, without penalty to the Client Plan, upon receipt by Comerica Bank of written notice of termination. Comerica states that a termination form expressly providing an election to terminate the authorization will be supplied to the independent fiduciary upon initial authorization. Instructions on the use of the Termination Form will be supplied to the independent fiduciary no less than annually. The instructions for the termination form include the following information:

(a) The authorization is terminable at will by the Client Plan, without penalty to the Client Plan, upon receipt by Comerica Bank of written notice from the independent fiduciary; and

(b) Failure to return the form will result in continued authorization of Comerica Bank to engage in the subject transactions on behalf of the Client Plan.

(c) Additional Termination Forms are available at any time from Comerica Bank upon request.

The Termination Form may be used to notify Comerica Bank in writing to effect a termination by selling the shares of the Funds held by the Client Plan requesting such termination within one business day following receipt by Comerica Bank of the form. Comerica states that if, due to circumstances beyond its control, the sale cannot be executed within one business day, it will complete the sale within the next business day.

20. Comerica represents that any disclosure of information regarding a proposed increase in the rate of any fees for Secondary Services will be accompanied by an additional Termination Form with instructions on the use of the form as described above. Therefore, the independent fiduciary will have prior notice of the proposed increase and an opportunity to withdraw from the Funds in advance of the date the increase becomes effective. Although the independent fiduciary will also have notice of any increase in the rates of fees charged by Munder to the Funds for investment advisory services, through an updated prospectus or otherwise, such notice will not be accompanied by a Termination Form since all increases in investment advisory fees will be rebated by Comerica Bank to the Client Plans and will be subject to an annual reauthorization as described above.

21. Comerica states that the independent fiduciary always receives a current prospectus for each Munder Fund and a written statement giving full disclosure of the fee structure prior to any investment in the Funds. The disclosure statement explains why Comerica believes that the investment of assets of the Client Plan in the Fund is appropriate. The disclosure statement also describes any limitations on Comerica with respect to which Client Plan assets may be invested in shares of the Munder Funds and the nature of such limitations. 8 Comerica provides further that the independent fiduciary receives an updated prospectus for each Fund at least annually and annual financial reports for each Fund. Comerica Bank also provides monthly reports to the independent fiduciary of all transactions engaged in by the Client Plan, including purchases and sales of Fund shares.

22. In summary, Comerica represents that the transactions described above satisfy the statutory criteria of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code because: (a) The Funds provide the Client Plans with a more effective investment vehicle than collective investment funds maintained by Comerica Bank without any increase in investment management, advisory or similar fees paid to Comerica; (b) Comerica Bank's automated system of fee rebates and its controls and auditing procedures for protecting the system and periodically verifying the accuracy of rebates to Client Plans will insure that the proper rebates are credited to the Client Plans; (c) with respect to any investments in a Fund by the Client Plans and the payment of any fees by the Fund to Comerica Bank for services, an independent fiduciary receives full written disclosure of information concerning the Fund, including a current prospectus and a statement describing the fee structure, and authorizes in writing the investment of the Client Plan's assets in the Munder Fund and the fees paid by the Fund to Comerica Bank; (d) any authorizations made by a Client Plan regarding investments in a Fund and fees paid to Munder, or any increases in the rates of fees for secondary services which are retained by Comerica Bank, are or will be terminable at will by the Client Plan, without penalty to the Client Plan, upon receipt by Comerica Bank of written notice of termination from the independent fiduciary; (e) no commissions or redemption fees are paid by the Client Plan in connection with either the acquisition or sale of Fund shares; (f) Comerica Bank does not receive any fees payable pursuant to Rule 12b-1 under the 1940 Act in connection with transactions in Fund shares for Client Plans; and (g) all dealing between the Client Plans, the Funds and Comerica Bank, are on a basis which is at least as favorable to the Client Plans as such dealings are with other shareholders of the Munder Funds.

Notice of the proposed exemption shall be given to all Second Fiduciaries of Client Plans that are currently invested in the Funds, as of the date the notice of the proposed exemption is published in the Federal Register , where Comerica Bank provides services to the Funds and receives fees that would be covered by the exemption, if granted. Notice to interested persons shall be provided by first class mail within fifteen (15) days following publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register . Such notice shall include a copy of the notice of proposed exemption as published in the Federal Register and a supplemental statement (see 29 CFR 2570.43(b)(2)) which informs all interested persons of their right to comment on and/or request a hearing with respect to the proposed exemption. Comments and requests for a public hearing are due within forty-five (45) days following publication of the proposed exemption in the Federal Register .

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:

• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our functions.

• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.

Abstract of proposed collection: The information collection will facilitate the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs' (ECA) ability to regularly collect critical and timely feedback data from a defined universe of respondents (customer base). The evaluation and performance measurement data obtained through the information collection will allow ECA to better assess and improve ECA's exchange programs, learn more about the results and effectiveness of ECA programs, and comply with reporting requirements established by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. ECA's exchange programs are critical to the Department of State's foreign policy mission and public diplomacy strategy as they are designed to help promote a balanced and accurate view of the United States and build partnerships around the world.

Methodology: Data collected through the information collection will be derived from customer/ respondent paper and on-line surveys, personal interviews and/or focus groups. The customer/respondent base includes applicants, participants, alumni, program administrators, hosts and grantee organizations involved in ECA exchange programs.

The GSP Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) has initiated a review in order to make a recommendation to the President as to whether Serbia and Montenegro meets the eligibility criteria of the GSP statute, as set out below. After considering the eligibility criteria, the President is authorized to designate Serbia and Montenegro as a beneficiary developing country for purposes of the GSP.

Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding the eligibility of Serbia and Montenegro for designation as a GSP beneficiary developing country. Documents should be submitted in accordance with the below instructions to be considered in this review.

The trade benefits of the GSP program are available to any country that the President designates as a GSP “beneficiary developing country.” In designating countries as GSP beneficiary developing countries, the President must consider the criteria in sections 502(b)(2) and 502(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2462(b)(2), 2462(c)) (“the Act”). Section 502(b)(2) provides that a country is ineligible for designation if:

1. Such country is a Communist country, unless—

(a) The products of such country receive nondiscriminatory treatment, (b) Such country is a WTO Member (as such term is defined in section 2(10) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act) (19 U.S.C. 3501(10)) and a member of the International Monetary Fund, and (c) Such country is not dominated or controlled by international communism.

2. Such country is a party to an arrangement of countries and participates in any action pursuant to such arrangement, the effect of which is—

(a) To withhold supplies of vital commodity resources from international trade or to raise the price of such commodities to an unreasonable level, and (b) To cause serious disruption of the world economy.

3. Such country affords preferential treatment to the products of a developed country, other than the United States, which has, or is likely to have, a significant adverse effect on United States commerce.

4. Such country—

(a) Has nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise seized ownership or control of property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, owned by a United States citizen or by a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, (b) Has taken steps to repudiate or nullify an existing contract or agreement with a United States citizen or a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, so owned, or (c) Has imposed or enforced taxes or other exactions, restrictive maintenance or operational conditions, or other measures with respect to property, including patents, trademarks, or copyrights, so owned, the effect of which is to nationalize, expropriate, or otherwise seize ownership or control of such property, unless the President determines that—

(i) Prompt, adequate, and effective compensation has been or is being made to the citizen, corporation, partnership, or association referred to above, (ii) Good faith negotiations to provide prompt, adequate, and effective compensation under the applicable provisions of international law are in progress, or the country is otherwise taking steps to discharge its obligations under international law with respect to such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association, or (iii) A dispute involving such citizen, corporation, partnership, or association over compensation for such a seizure has been submitted to arbitration under the provisions of the Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, or in another mutually agreed upon forum, and the President promptly furnishes a copy of such determination to the Senate and House of Representatives.

5. Such country fails to act in good faith in recognizing as binding or in enforcing arbitral awards in favor of United States citizens or a corporation, partnership, or association which is 50 percent or more beneficially owned by United States citizens, which have been made by arbitrators appointed for each case or by permanent arbitral bodies to which the parties involved have submitted their dispute.

6. Such country aids or abets, by granting sanctuary from prosecution to, any individual or group which has committed an act of international terrorism or the Secretary of State makes a determination with respect to such country under section 6(j)(1)(A) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. Appx. section 2405(j)(1)(A)) or such country has not taken steps to support the efforts of the United States to combat terrorism.

7. Such country has not taken or is not taking steps to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers in the country (including any designated zone in that country).

8. Such country has not implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.

Section 502(c) provides that, in determining whether to designate any country as a GSP beneficiary developing country, the President shall take into account:

1. An expression by such country of its desire to be so designated;

2. The level of economic development of such country, including its per capita gross national product, the living standards of its inhabitants, and any other economic factors which the President deems appropriate;

3. Whether or not other major developed countries are extending generalized preferential tariff treatment to such country;

4. The extent to which such country has assured the United States that it will provide equitable and reasonable access to the markets and basic commodity resources of such country and the extent to which such country has assured the United States that it will refrain from engaging in unreasonable export practices;

5. The extent to which such country is providing adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights;

6. The extent to which such country has taken action to—

(a) Reduce trade distorting investment practices and policies (including export performance requirements); and (b) Reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in services; and

7. Whether or not such country has taken or is taking steps to afford to workers in that country (including any designated zone in that country) internationally recognized worker rights. Note that the Trade Act of 2002 amended paragraph (D) of the definition of the term “'internationally recognized worker rights,”' which now includes: (A) The right of association; (B) the right to organize and bargain collectively; (C) a prohibition on the use of any form of forced or compulsory labor; (D) a minimum age for the employment of children and a prohibition on the worst forms of child labor as defined in paragraph (6) of section 507(4) of the Act; and (E) acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health.

Comments must be submitted to the Chairman of the GSP Subcommittee, Trade Policy Staff Committee. Comments, in English, must be received no later than 5 p.m., October 12, 2004.

In order to facilitate prompt consideration of submissions, USTR strongly urges and prefers electronic mail (e-mail) submissions in response to this notice. If unable to provide submissions by e-mail, please contact the GSP Subcommittee to arrange for an alternative method of transmission. Hand delivered submissions and facsimile submissions will not normally be accepted.

Submissions by e-mail should not provide separate cover letters or messages in the message area of the e-mail; information that might appear in any cover letter should be included directly in the attached file containing the submission. The name and organization of the submitter, address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and e-mail address, should be included in the attached file itself.

The e-mail submissions should be a single copy transmission, in English, with the total submission, including attachments, not to exceed 50 double- spaced, standard-size pages (8 1/2 x 11 inch) in 12 point type as a digital file, not exceeding 1 megabyte in size, attached to an e-mail transmission.

Submissions by e-mail should use the following subject line: “Serbia and Montenegro GSP Eligibility Review.” Documents must be submitted as either WordPerfect (“.WPD”), MSWord (“.DOC”), or text (“.TXT”) files. Documents shall not be submitted as electronic image files or contain large imbedded images (for example, “.JPG”, “.PDF”, “.BMP”, “.TIF”, or “.GIF”), as these types of files are generally excessively large.

Any supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets is acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel, preformatted for printing on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper. To the extent possible, any data attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself and not as separate files, and should not cause the entire submission to exceed the 50 page and 1 megabyte size limits.

Information and comments submitted will be subject to public inspection by appointment with the staff of the USTR Public Reading Room, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6. If the submission contains business confidential information, a non-confidential version of the submission must also be submitted that indicates where confidential information was redacted by inserting asterisks where material was deleted. In addition, the confidential submission must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top and bottom of each and every page of the document.

The public version that does not contain business confidential information must also be clearly marked at the top and bottom of each and every page (either “PUBLIC VERSION” or “NONCONFIDENTIAL”). Documents that are submitted without any marking might not be accepted or will be considered public documents.

For any document containing business confidential information submitted as an electronic attached file to an e-mail transmission, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter.

Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for review approximately 30 days after the due date by appointment in the USTR public reading room, 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC. Appointments may be made from 9:30 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday by calling (202) 395-6186.

Under WTO rules, the United States is entitled to compensation from the EU resulting both from EU tariff changes as a result of EU enlargement and EU changes to its rice import regime. If agreement on compensation cannot be reached on either or both of these issues, the United States would be entitled to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions and apply increased duties on products of interest to the EU. In addition to the information presented below on these EU actions, relevant WTO rules, and domestic procedures, additional supplemental information on the EU enlargement tariff compensation negotiations and the rice margin of preference issues can be found on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's Web site at: http://www.ustr.gov/World_Regions/Europe_Mediterranean/European_Union/Section_Index.html.

Enlargement: With the accession to the EU of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Cyprus and Malta (“the new EU Member States”), the EU withdrew the entire WTO tariff schedules of the new EU Member States and applied the common external tariff of the EU of fifteen to imports into the territory of the new EU Member States, resulting in increased tariffs on certain products.

Rice Import Regime Changes: As part of reforms to its Common Agricultural Policy, on September 1, 2004, the EU replaced its rice import regime, called the Margin of Preference, with a specific duty of 65 Euros/MT for husked (brown) rice. The United States is a major supplier of brown rice to the EU. Tariffs were also changed for milled rice.

Legal Background: Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 establishes that a WTO Member may modify or withdraw a tariff concession bound in its WTO schedule by negotiation and agreement with certain affected Members, more specifically, those Members that initially negotiated the relevant concession or are determined to have a principal supplying interest or a substantial interest in the concession. Such affected Members are entitled to receive adequate compensation or, in the absence of successful compensation negotiations, to withdraw “substantially equivalent concessions.” Pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994, where a WTO Member has modified or withdrawn a concession in the expansion of a customs union, the procedure under Article XXVIII also applies. The United States has negotiating and compensation rights on certain tariff concessions at issue under both of the EU actions described above.

Affected WTO Members' rights to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII are time-limited; these rights expire within six months of the EU's withdrawal or modification of concessions unless exercised or extended. WTO Members intending to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions must provide notice to the WTO of their intent at least thirty days prior to the effective date of such action.

Whenever a foreign country withdraws, suspends, or modifies the application of trade agreement obligations of benefit to the United States without granting adequate compensation, the President is authorized under section 125(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2135) to withdraw, suspend or modify the application of any substantially equivalent trade agreement obligations of benefit and proclaim under section 125(c) such increased duties or other import restrictions as are appropriate to effect adequate compensation. Section 125(c) authorizes the President to proclaim increased duties or other import restrictions as he deems necessary or appropriate in order to exercise the rights of the United States whenever the United States, acting in pursuance of its rights or obligations under certain trade agreements, withdraws, suspends or modifies any obligation with respect to foreign trade. Section 125(f) provides that the President, normally before taking any action under section 125 to withdraw, suspend, or modify trade agreement obligations or to increase duties, must provide for a public hearing, at which time interested persons will be given an opportunity to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard.

Pursuant to section 125(c), any new tariff rates proclaimed by the President would not exceed 50 percent above the rate set forth in rate column numbered 2 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States, as in effect on January 1, 1975, or 20 percent ad valorem above the rate existing on January 1, 1975, whichever is higher. If imposed, the increased duties would apply to imports from all countries that are subject to the rates of duty set forth in the Column 1 General rate of duty column of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The products affected by a suspension of concessions and duty increase would be drawn from the list of products set forth in the Annex to this notice. In recommending any action to the President under section 125, the TPSC will consider all comments and testimony by interested persons submitted in accordance with the procedures described below.

Pursuant to section 125(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2135), the TPSC, chaired by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, has scheduled a public hearing beginning at 9 a.m. on Friday, September 24, 2004, in Room 1, 1724 F Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20508. Further details on the hearing and submission of testimony is provided below. In lieu of or in addition to participation at the public hearing, parties may submit written comments to be received no later than noon, Tuesday, September 28, 2004.

Written comments and/or written or oral testimony of interested persons should be limited to the following issues: (1) The appropriateness of withdrawing WTO tariff concessions upon the products listed in the Annex to this notice; (2) the appropriateness of imposing increased duties upon the products listed in the Annex to this notice; (3) the levels at which U.S. customs duties should be set for particular items; and (4) the degree to which increased duties might have an adverse effect upon U.S. consumers of the products listed in the Annex.

Persons wishing to testify orally at the hearing must provide both a written notification of their intention and a copy of their testimony by noon on Friday, September 17, 2004. The notification should include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number, fax number, and firm or affiliation of the person wishing to testify; (2) a short (one or two paragraph) summary of the oral presentation; and (3) list of goods of interest (including HTSUS numbers). Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the TPSC.

In order to facilitate prompt processing of submissions, the TPSC strongly urges and prefers electronic (e-mail) submissions in response to this notice. In the event that an e-mail submission is impossible, submissions should be made by facsimile.

Persons making submissions by e-mail should use the following subject line: “EU Enlargement/EU Rice Import Regime” followed by (as appropriate) “Written Comments,” “Notice of Testimony,” or “Testimony.” Documents should be submitted as either Adobe PDF, WordPerfect, MSWord, or text (.TXT) files. Supporting documentation submitted as spreadsheets are acceptable as Quattro Pro or Excel. For any document containing business confidential information submitted electronically, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC-”, and the file name of the public version should begin with the characters “P-”. The “P-” or “BC-” should be followed by the name of the submitter. Persons who make submissions by e-mail should not provide separate cover letters; information that might appear in a cover letter should be included in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, any attachments to the submission should be included in the same file as the submission itself, and not as separate files.

Written comments, notices of testimony, and testimony will be placed in a file open to public inspection pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.5, except confidential business information exempt from public inspection in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6. Confidential business information submitted in accordance with 15 CFR 2003.6 must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” at the top of each page, including any cover letter or cover page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary of the confidential information. All public documents and non-confidential summaries shall be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room. The USTR Reading Room is open to the public, by appointment only, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling (202) 395-6186. Appointments must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance.

General information concerning USTR may be obtained by accessing its Internet Web site ( http://www.ustr.gov ).

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 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. Therefore the FAA solicits comments on the following current collections of information in order to evaluate the necessity of the collection, the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and possible ways to minimize the burden of the collection in preparation for submission to renew the clearance of the following information collections:

1. 2120-0005: General Operating and Flight Rules—FAR 91. Part A of Subtitle VII of the Revised Title 49 USC authorizes the issuance of regulations governing the use of navigable airspace. 14 CFR part 91 prescribes regulations governing the general operation and flight of aircraft. Information is collected to determine compliance. Respondents are individual airmen, State or local governments, and businesses. The current estimated annual reporting burden is 231,064 hours.

2. 2120-0517: Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. The respondents are those airport operators voluntarily submitting noise exposure maps and noise compatibility programs to the FAA for review and approval. FAA approval makes airport operators' noise compatibility programs eligible for discretionary grant funds set aside under the FAA Airport Improvement Program for that purpose. The current estimated annual reporting burden is 50,400 hours.

3. 2120-0675: Certification of Airports, 14 CFR part 139 (Final Rule). This rule revises the current airport certification regulations and establishes certification requirements for airports serving scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with 10-30 seats. The changes to 14 CFR part 139 result in additional information collections from respondents. The current estimated annual reporting burden is 52,993 hours.

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 172 meeting. The agenda will include:

• September 21:

• Opening Plenary Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Review of Agenda, Review Summary of Previous Meeting).

• Convene Working Group-2.

• Review Working Papers.

• Draft DO-224B, Signal-in-Space Minimum Aviation System Performance Standard (MASPS) for Advanced VHF Digital Data Communications Including Compatibility with Digital Voice Status and proposed changes to working papers.

• Draft Appendix, Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPS) to draft DO-224B cross reference.

• September 22:

• Reconvene WG-2 as necessary, per above.

• Convene Working Group-3.

• DO-281 Section 2.2.1.1.3 Tuning Time.

• DO-271 Audio Level Test Vector.

• Load Mismatch Voltage Standing Wave Radio (VSWR) Sections 2.2.1.3.9 & 2.4.4.2.9.

• DO-281 changes needed due to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Amendment Proposals.

• DO-186a/ED23B difference resolution.

• Reconvene Plenary.

• Review relevant activities.

• ICAO Aeronautical Mobile Communications Panel work.

• NEXCOM activities.

• EUROCAE WG-47 status and issues.

• Others as appropriate.

• Future work for SC-172.

• Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Date and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn).

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to use the revenue from a PFC at Columbia Regional Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On September 2, 2004, the FAA determined that the applicaiotn to use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Columbia, Missouri, was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 19, 2004.

The following is a brief overview of the application.

Proposed charge expiration date: October 1, 2012.

Level of the PFC: $4.50.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $7,759.

Brief description of proposed project(s): Replacement of snow plow/spreader truck.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA regional Airports office located at: 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.

In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Columbia Regional Airport.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the applications to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Francisco C. Ada/Saipan International, Rota International, and Tinian International Airports under the provisions of the 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 40117 and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On July 23, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the Commonwealth Ports Authority, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of part 158. The FAa will approve or disapprove the applications, in whole or in part, no later than October 21, 2004.

The following is a brief overview of the impose and use applications Nos. 04-01-C-00-GSN; 04-01-C-00-GRO; 40-01-C-00-TNI:

Level of proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: January 1, 2005.

Proposed charge expiration date: August 1, 2016.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $33,442,548.

Brief description of the proposed projects: At GSN: Electrical Upgrade/Generator, Conversion of Restaurant to Holding Room Sewerline Connection, Enclosure and Air Conditioning of Terminal Corridor, Environmental Assessment for Taxilane/Hardstand, Connecting Taxiway, Storm Drainage Master Plan, Parallel Taxiway, Aircraft Waste Disposal, Perimeter Fencing, New Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Vehicle, Environmental Assessment for taxiways, Flight Information Display, Radio Communications Upgrade, Runway 7/25 Rehabilitation—Phase I and II, ARFF Training Facility (Burn Pit), Noise Mitigation, Airport Security Enhancement, ARFF Training Facility (Classroom), Airport Terminal Roof Replacement, Airport Runway Safety Area Improvement, PFC Implementation and Administration, Terminal Modernization Program Phase 1; at GRO: Aprom Expansion, Air Conditioning Arrival Area, Runway Rehabilitation, Airport Visual Guidance System, Environmental Assessment for Runway 9/27 Extension, Design and Construct Runway 9/27 Extension; at TNI: New Runway Improvement, ARFF Vehicle.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: None.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Division located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 3012, Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Commonwealth Ports Authority.

The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport under the provisions of the 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On July 23, 2004, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use a PFC submitted by the city of Phoenix was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than October 26, 2004.

The following is a brief overview of the application No. 04-07-C-00-PHX.

Level of proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: January 1, 2005.

Proposed charge expiration date: July 1, 2007.

Total estimated PFC revenue: $200,500,000.

Brief description of the proposed projects: Community Noise Reduction Program (Voluntary Land Acquisition/Property Exchange), Terminal 4 Expansion, Airside Reconstruction, Automated People Mover Design Completion, and Capital Security Improvements.

Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Nonscheduled/On-Demand Air Carriers filing FAA form 1800-31 and Commuters or Small Certificated Air Carriers filing DOT form 298-C T1 or E1.

Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA Regional Airports Division located at: Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Room 3012, Lawndale, CA 90261. In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Commonwealth Ports Authority.