On December 30, 2003, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would expedite the implementation of a National Animal Identification System (NAIS) for all animal species after the discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in a cow in Washington State. On April 27, 2004, following several months of development, the Secretary announced the framework for implementation of a NAIS designed to provide a unique identification number for agricultural premises and animals so that diseases can be more quickly contained and eradicated. The Secretary also announced that $18.8 million would be transferred from the Department's Commodity Credit Corporation to provide initial funding for the program during fiscal year (FY) 2004. The FY 2004 funding was earmarked for the initial infrastructure development and implementation of the NAIS, but both private and public support will be required to make it fully operational.

The NAIS will be implemented in several phases over time. Currently, the registration of premises, i.e., the locations where livestock are raised or held, is the primary activity of the NAIS. The second phase will involve the identification of animals. Certain species, such as cattle, will require individual identification, which will be accomplished by attaching to the animal an approved identification tag or device bearing an animal identification number (AIN). The AIN may be cross-referenced or linked to other technologies (e.g., radio frequency identification, retinal image, DNA, etc.) to automate the collection of the animal's number or to verify the animal's identification. Other species, such as swine and poultry, typically move through the production chain in groups or lots. These animals may be eligible for identification as a group.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the NAIS, on November 8, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR 64644-64651, Docket No. 04-052-1) an interim rule that, among other things, amended the regulations to recognize additional numbering systems for the identification of animals in interstate commerce and State/Federal/industry cooperative disease control and eradication programs and to redefine the numbering system used to identify premises where animals are managed or held. Specifically, the interim rule recognized the AIN as an official numbering system for the identification of individual animals, the group/lot identification number (GIN) for the identification of groups or lots of animals within the same production system, and the seven-character premises identification number (PIN) for the identification of premises in the NAIS. Use of the new numbering systems was not, however, required as a result of the interim rule. Finally, the interim rule amended the regulations to prohibit the removal of official identification devices and to eliminate potential regulatory obstacles to the recognition of emerging technologies that could offer viable alternatives to existing animal identification devices and methods.

As part of the ongoing NAIS development process, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has completed a Draft Strategic Plan and a Draft Program Standards document. The NAIS Draft Strategic Plan, which covers the years 2005 to 2009, presents our current view of how the NAIS implementation process will unfold. The document provides a history of the NAIS' development to this point and examines some of the critical issues that must be dealt with in the course of implementing the system, including such stakeholder concerns as cost, confidentiality, flexibility, and liability. The Draft Strategic Plan also discusses the goals, key components, and guiding principles of the NAIS; APHIS' role in managing the system; and the means by which success will be measured. A timeline for full implementation of the NAIS is presented, as well as an outline of a five-stage State status designation process designed to measure progress toward that goal. The NAIS Draft Program Standards document, on the other hand, presents our current view of how the NAIS would work when fully implemented. The document contains, among other things, data standards for key components of the NAIS; descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of APHIS, State and tribal governments, and producers and other stakeholders in administering the NAIS; flow charts illustrating the workings of the system; identification and reporting requirements for animals moved within the United States, exported from the United States, and imported into the United States; species-specific procedures and requirements; an outline of the State status designation process referred to above; and definitions of key terms. Both documents are works in progress and will continue to be updated as more details are worked out. Updates will be posted on our Web site as they are made.

We are making the NAIS Draft Strategic Plan and the NAIS Draft Program Standards available to the public for review and comment. We will consider all comments that we receive on or before the date listed under the heading DATES at the beginning of this notice.

Though we will consider comments on any issues pertaining to the two documents, there are certain topics on which we would particularly like to solicit feedback from the public. Please consider the following questions in your comments:

• The Draft Strategic Plan calls for making the entire system mandatory by January 2009. Is a mandatory identification program necessary to achieve a successful animal disease surveillance, monitoring, and response system to support Federal animal health programs? Please explain why or why not.

• In the current Draft Strategic Plan, the NAIS would require that producers be responsible for having their animals identified before the animals move to a premises where they are to be commingled with other animals, such as a sale barn. At what point and how should compliance be ensured? For example, should market managers, fair managers, etc., be responsible for ensuring compliance with this requirement before animals are unloaded at their facility or event? Please give the reasons for your response.

• In regard to cattle, individual identification would be achieved with an AIN tag that would be attached to the animal's left ear. It is acknowledged that some producers do not have the facilities to tag their animals; thus, the Draft Program Standards document contains an option for tagging sites, which are authorized premises where owners or persons responsible for cattle could have the cattle sent to have AIN tags applied. Do you think this is a viable option, i.e., can markets or other locations successfully provide this service to producers who are unable to tag their cattle at their farms? Please give the reasons for your response.

• The current Draft Strategic Plan does not specify how compliance with identification and movement reporting requirements will be achieved when the sale is direct between a buyer and seller (or through their agents). In what manner should compliance with these requirements be achieved? Who should be responsible for meeting these requirements? How can these types of transactions be inputted into the NAIS to obtain the necessary information in the least costly, most efficient manner?

• USDA suggests that animals should be identified anytime prior to entering commerce or being commingled with animals from other premises. Is this recommendation adequate to achieve timely traceback capabilities to support animal health programs or should a timeframe (age limit) for identifying the animals be considered? Please give the reasons for your response.

• Are the timelines for implementing the NAIS, as discussed in the Draft Strategic Plan, realistic, too aggressive (i.e., allow too little time), or not aggressive enough (i.e., do not ensure that the NAIS will be implemented in a timely manner)? Please give the reasons for your response.

• Should requirements for all species be implemented within the same timelines, or should some flexibility be allowed? Please give the reasons for your response.

• What are the most cost-effective and efficient ways for submitting information to the database (entered via the Internet, file transfer from a herd-management computer system, mail, phone, third-party submission of data)? Does the type of entity (e.g., producer, market, slaughterhouse), the size of the entity, or other factors make some methods for information submission more or less practical, costly, or efficient? Please provide supporting information if possible.

• We are aware that many producers are concerned about the confidentiality of the information collected in the NAIS. Given the information identified in the draft documents, what specific information do you believe should be protected from disclosure and why?

• The NAIS as planned would require States, producers, and other participating entities to provide information and develop and maintain records. How could we best minimize the burden associated with these requirements? For example, should both the seller and the buyer of a specific group of animals report the movement of the animals, or is reporting by one party adequate?

A key issue in the development of the NAIS concerns the management of animal tracking information. Animal heath officials must have immediate, reliable, and uninterrupted access to essential NAIS information for routine surveillance activities and in the event of a disease outbreak. APHIS determined that this goal could best be achieved by having the data repositories managed by APHIS. The Draft Program Standards document provides for two main NAIS information repositories: The National Premises Information Repository and the National Animal Records Repository. The National Premises Information Repository would maintain data on each production and animal holding location (contact name, address, phone number, type of operation, etc.). The National Animal Records Repository would maintain animal identification and movement data.

Recently, however, an industry-led initiative suggested a privately managed database as an alternative for the management of data on animal tracking in the NAIS. The industry group stated that a private database would ensure that the needs of both government and industry would be fulfilled, and that the flow of information throughout the NAIS would be maintained in a secure and confidential manner.

APHIS is requesting comment from stakeholders regarding the utility of a privately managed database for holding animal location and movement information. Among the issues you may wish to comment on are the following:

• How should a private database system be funded? Please give the reasons for your response.

• Should the NAIS allow for multiple privately managed databases? Please explain why or why not.

• Should a public (government) system be made available as well as a privately managed system so that producers would have a choice? Please give the reasons for your response.

• Should a privately managed system include all species? Please give the reasons for your response.

• Would either system work equally well at the State level? Please explain why or why not.

The NAIS Draft Strategic Plan and the NAIS Draft Program Standards may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.usda.gov/nais. The documents may also be accessed through EDOCKET (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing EDOCKET). You may request paper copies of the documents by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the titles of the documents when requesting copies. The documents are also available for review in our reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room is listed under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this notice).

Title: Standard Operating Agreement Governing Intermodal Transportation.

OMB Control Number: 0560-0194.

Expiration Date: October 31, 2005.

Type of Request: Extension with revision.

Abstract: CCC, through the Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO), solicits bids from transportation companies for the purpose of providing intermodal transportation of agricultural commodities. Intermodal Marketing Companies (IMC) provide rail trailer-on-flatcar/container-on-flatcar (TOFC/COFC) service that CCC hires to provide program transportation needs. Those IMC's, who choose to do business with the KCCO Export Operations Division (EOD) are required to complete and submit the KC-9 (Standard Operating Agreement Governing Intermodal Transportation) at one time only. EOD uses the completed form to determine if IMC is available and meets CCC requirements for hauling agricultural products for CCC.

Estimate of Burden: Average 1 hour per response.

Respondents: Intermodal Marketing Companies.

Respondents: 22.

Estimated Number of Annual Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 22 hours.

Comment is invited regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected; or (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of the information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for OMB approval.

The Forest Service determined a need, “To have available and utilize adequate types and quantities of qualified fire chemical products to accomplish fire management activities safely, efficiently, and effectively.” (Forest Service Manual 5192.02). To accomplish this objective the Forest Service needs to evaluate and approve manufacturer's wildland fire foam products that may be used in direct wildland fire suppression operations prior to being used on lands managed by the Forest Service and its Federal cooperators.

Evaluation and qualification is based upon meeting the standards identified in the specifications maintained by staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center. Specification taken from the “List of Known and Suspected Carcinogens” and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's “List of Highly Hazardous Materials” are utilized in the evaluation, qualification, and approval process.

Safe products will not include ingredients that create an enhanced risk in typical use to either the firefighters involved or the public in general. A risk analysis may be required to determine if any products or ingredients in wildland fire foam pose an increased health risk to humans. The effects are based upon acute toxicity determinations of the products and a review of lists of known and suspected carcinogens. The safety of the firefighters equipment, either ground-based or aircraft, such as uniform corrosion tests or intergrandular, is considered. Safety to the environment also is considered in terms of aquatic environments (fish and clean water) and terrestrial environments (wildlife and plants).

Risk determinations are undertaken to identify products which do not enhance risk to those environments in typical use. Toxicity determinations are done for acute toxicity concerns. Efficiency evaluations are based upon such items as (1) the range of mix ratios of concentrate products with water appropriate for storage and handling in typical wildland fire operations to provide products that are storable and/or can be kept available on fire equipment and (2) can be mixed and used with readily available equipment and facilities. Effectiveness tests for wildland fire foam products are based upon the products ability to reduce fire spread and intensity even after the water carrier has evaporated away.

The information is collected by manufacturers and submitted on two completed forms, the Confidential Disclosure Sheets and Technical Data Sheets. The manufacturers submit the completed forms to staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center, located in Missoula, Montana. These forms are available electronically via e-mail or paper via surface mail. The manufacturers may submit the completed forms electronically or via surface mail to the Missoula Technology and Development Center.

The following describes the information collection to be extended:

Title: Wildland Fire Foams.

OMB Number: 0596-0183.

Expiration Date of Approval: 09/30/2005.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: The collected information includes listings of specific individual ingredients and the quantity of these ingredients in the formulation of the products, identification of the specific sources of supply for each ingredient, and the specific mixing requirements.

If a risk analysis is necessary, the Forest Service will request the manufacturer send a copy of the product labeling. In these cases a third party (either contractor or other Federal agency) is utilized to assess the specific levels of products or ingredients expected to occur in typical applications relative to human and environmental health. Once the manufacturers (and/or their suppliers) have submitted their information and payment (approximately $15,000 to the USDA Forest Service and an additional approximate $15,000 to third party laboratories in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.202(a)(2)(ii)) for analysis and evaluation, the Missoula Technology and Development Center staff will begin to test the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the wildland fire foam products.

The one-time collection of this information for each product submitted for evaluation is necessary (1) because it takes over a year to test the wildland fire foam products for safety, effectiveness and efficiency and (2) Forest Service needs to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of wildland fire foam products prior to their use. If this information is not collected and foam fire suppressant products are not analyzed and evaluated on an on-going basis, the ability of the Forest Service to solicit and award wildland fire foam contracts in a timely manner would not be possible.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 2.8 hours.

Type of Respondents: Manufacturers (and their suppliers) of wildland fire foam products which suppress combustion of wildland fires and which may meet the requirements of the appropriate USDA FS Specification that may be viewed at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wildland_chemicals.htm.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 5.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 28 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The Forest Service determined a need, “To have available and utilize adequate types and quantities of qualified fire chemical products to accomplish fire management activities safely, efficiently, and effectively.” (Forest Service Manual 5192.02). To accomplish this objective the Forest Service needs to evaluate and approve manufacturer's long-term fire retardant products that may be used in direct wildland fire suppression operations prior to being used on lands managed by the Forest Service and its Federal cooperators.

Evaluation and qualification is based upon meeting the standards identified in the specifications maintained by staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center. Specifications taken from the “List of Known and Suspected Carcinogens” and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's “List of Highly Hazardous Materials” are utilized in the evaluation, qualification, and approval process.

Safe products will not include ingredients that create an enhanced risk in typical use to either the firefighters involved or the public in general. A risk analysis may be required to determine if any products or ingredients in Long-term Fire Retardants pose an increased health risk to humans. The effects are based upon acute toxicity determinations of the products and a review of lists of known and suspected carcinogens. The safety of the firefighters equipment, either ground-based or aircraft, such as uniform corrosion tests or intergrandular, is considered. Safety to the environment also is considered in terms of aquatic environments (fish and clean water) and terrestrial environments (wildlife and plants).

Risk determinations are undertaken to identify products, which do not enhance risk to those environments in typical use. Toxicity determinations are done for acute toxicity concerns. Efficiency evaluations are based upon such items as (1) the range of mix ratios of concentrate products with water appropriate for storage and handling in typical wildland fire operations to provide products that are storable and/or can be kept available on fire equipment and (2) can be mixed and used with readily available equipment and facilities. Effectiveness tests for these products are based upon those products ability to reduce fire spread and intensity even after the water carrier has evaporated away.

The information is collected by manufacturers and submitted on two completed forms, the Confidential Disclosure Sheets and Technical Data Sheets. The manufacturers submit the completed forms to staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center, located in Missoula, Montana. These forms are available electronically via e-mail or paper via surface mail. The manufacturers may submit forms electronically or via surface mail to the Missoula Technology and Development Center.

The following describes the information collection to be extended:

Title: Long-Term Fire Retardants.

OMB Number: 0596-0184.

Expiration Date of Approval: 09/30/2005.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: The collected information includes listings of specific individual ingredients and the quantity of these ingredients in the formulation of the products, identification of the specific sources of supply for each ingredient, and the specific mixing and hydration requirements of gum-thickened retardants.

If a risk analysis is needed, the Forest Service will request the manufacturer send a copy of the product labeling. In these cases a third party (either contractor or other Federal agency) is utilized to assess the specific levels of products or ingredients expected to occur in typical applications relative to human and environmental health. Once the manufacturers (and/or their suppliers) have submitted their information and payment (approximately $15,000 to the USDA Forest Service and an additional approximate $15,000 to third party laboratories in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.202(a)(2)(ii)) for the analysis and evaluation, the Missoula Technology and Development Center staff will begin to test the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the long-term fire retardant products.

The one-time collection of this information for each product submitted for evaluation is necessary (1) because it takes over a year to test the long-term fire retardant products for safety, efficiency, and effectiveness and (2) the need to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of long-term fire retardant products prior to their use. If this information is not collected and long-term fire retardant products are not analyzed and evaluated on an on-going basis, the ability of the Forest Service to solicit and award long-term fire retardant fire contracts in a timely manner would not be possible.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 3.6 hours.

Type of Respondents: Manufacturers (and their suppliers) of long-term fire retardant products which suppress and retard combustion of wildland fires and which may meet the requirements of the appropriate USDA FS Specification that may be viewed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wildland_chemical.htm.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 6.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 65.5 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

The Forest Service determined a need, “To have available and utilize adequate types and quantities of qualified fire chemical products to accomplish fire management activities safely, efficiently, and effectively.” (Forest Service Manual 5192.02). To accomplish this objective Forest Service personnel need to evaluate and approve manufacturer's water enhancer products that may be used in direct wildland fire suppression operations prior to being used on lands managed by the Forest Service and its Federal cooperators.

Evaluation, qualification, and approval are based upon meeting the standards identified in the specifications maintained by staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center. Specifications, taken from the “List of Known and Suspected Carcinogens” and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's “List of Highly Hazardous Materials,” are utilized in the evaluation, qualification, and approval process.

Safe products will not include ingredients that create an enhanced risk in typical use to either the firefighters involved or the public in general. A risk analysis may be required to determine if any products or ingredients in water enhancers pose an increased health risk to humans. The effects are based upon acute toxicity determinations of the products and a review of lists of known and suspected carcinogens. The safety of the firefighters equipment, either ground-based or aircraft, such as uniform corrosion tests or intergrandular, is considered. Safety to the environment also is considered in terms of aquatic environments (fish and clean water) and terrestrial environments (wildlife and plants).

Risk determinations are undertaken to identify products, which do not enhance risk to those environments in typical use. Toxicity determinations are done for acute toxicity concerns. Efficiency is evaluated based upon such items as (1) the range of mix ratios of concentrate products with water appropriate for storage and handling in typical wildland fire operations to provide products that are storable and/or can be kept available on fire equipment and (2) can be mixed and used with readily available equipment and facilities. Effectiveness tests for water enhancer products are based upon the products ability to reduce fire spread and intensity, even after the water carrier has evaporated away.

The information will be collected by manufacturers and submitted on two completed forms, the Confidential Disclosure Sheets and Technical Data Sheets. The manufacturers will submit the completed forms to staff at the Missoula Technology and Development Center located in Missoula, Montana. These forms are available electronically via e-mail or paper via surface mail. The manufacturers may submit the completed forms to the Missoula Technology and Development Center electronically or via surface mail.

The following describes the information to be extended:

OMB Number: 0596-0182.

Expiration Date of Approval: 09/30/2005.

Type of Request: Extension.

Abstract: The collected information will include listings of specific individual ingredients and the quantities of the ingredients in the formulation of the products, identification of specific sources of supply for each ingredient, and the specific mixing and hydration requirements of gum-thickened products.

If a risk analysis is necessary, Forest Service personnel will request that the manufacturer send a copy of the product labeling. When a risk analysis is necessary, a third party (either contractor or Federal agency) is utilized to assess the specific levels of products or ingredients expected to occur in typical application relative to human and environmental health. Once the manufacturers (and/or their suppliers) have submitted their information and payment (approximately $15,000 to the USDA Forest Service and an additional approximate $15,000 to third party laboratories in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 9.0202(1)(2)(ii)) for the analysis and evaluation, the Missoula Technology and Development Center staff will begin to test the safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of the water enhancer products.

The one-time collection of this information for each product submitted for evaluation is necessary (1) because it takes over a year to test the water enhancer products and perform the analysis and evaluation of the products and (2) the Forest Service needs to ensure the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of water enhancer products prior to their use. If this information is not collected and water enhancer products are not analyzed and evaluated on an on-going basis, our ability to solicit and award water enhancer contracts in a timely manner would not be possible.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 5.75 hours.

Type of Respondents: Manufacturers (and their suppliers) of water enhancer products which suppress or retard combustion of wildland fires and which may meet the requirements of the appropriate USDA FS Specification that may be viewed at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wildland_chemicals.htm.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 34.5 hours.

Comment is invited on (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for the Office of Management and Budget approval.

At the June 2 meeting the RAC will review and recommend FY 2006 Title II project proposals and receive an update on how previous fiscal year projects are progressing. A public comment period will be provided at 1 p.m. and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time. On June 3 the committee will tour the Umatilla National Forest and review completed Title II projects.

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:

On March 11, 2005, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (70 FR 12179) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and services listed below are 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 products and services to the Government.

2. 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.

Accordingly, the following products and services are added to the Procurement List:

This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.

In 2003, the CSB investigated three accidents involving combustible dust explosions. The CSB found that issues related to hazard awareness, regulatory oversight, and effectiveness of fire code enforcement were common to these three accidents. CSB's preliminary data indicate that a significant number of combustible dust fires and explosions have occurred in industry in the last twenty-five years. The data will be presented at the hearing. Additionally, individuals knowledgeable about dust explosion hazards will present information to the Board and respond to Board questions. Following these presentations there will be an opportunity for public comment.

In 2003 the CSB investigated 3 combustible dust explosions. A total of 14 individuals were killed and 81 injured in these events. In January 2003, an explosion and fire at the West Pharmaceutical Services facility in Kinston, North Carolina resulted in the deaths of six workers and injuries to 38 others. CSB investigated this accident and concluded that the explosion was the result of the deflagration of polyethylene powder that had accumulated above a suspended ceiling in the processing area of the facility.

In February 2003, a combustible dust explosion occurred at the CTA Acoustics facility in Corbin, Kentucky, killing 7 workers and injuring 37. CSB found that the fuel for the explosion was phenolic resin used to produce insulation materials for the automotive industry. The explosion began near a curing oven, where routine cleaning lofted accumulated resin dust that was ignited by fire in an oven on which the doors were left open. Numerous secondary deflagrations caused damage and injuries throughout the facility.

In October 2003, one worker was killed and six others injured when an aluminum dust explosion occurred at Hayes Lemmerz International in Huntington, Indiana. The report of CSB's investigation into this accident is expected to be approved by the Board soon.

The occurrence of three fatal combustible dust explosions within one calendar year prompted the Board to commence a broader study of the extent, nature and prevention of combustible dust fire and explosion hazards.

The objectives of CSB's investigation include:

1. Determining the number and effects of combustible dust fires and explosions in the United States during the twenty-five-year period beginning in 1980. CSB is excluding the following types of incidents for the purposes of this study:

(a) Those occurring in grain-handling or other facilities that are currently regulated by OSHA's grain handling standard.

(b) Those occurring in coal mines or other facilities covered by MSHA regulations. Incidents involving coal dust at power generation plants and other facilities not covered by MSHA regulations are not excluded.

(c) Incidents occurring in non-manufacturing facilities such as hospitals, military installations and research institutes.

(d) Incidents involving transportation or transportation vehicles.

(e) Incidents occurring outside the United States or U.S. territories.

2. Evaluating the extent and effectiveness of efforts by state and local officials to prevent combustible dust fires and explosions.

3. Evaluating the effectiveness of existing hazard communication programs and regulations in making facility managers and workers aware of the fire and explosion hazards of combustible dusts.

4. Determining what additional state, federal or private sector activities may be necessary to prevent future combustible dust fires and explosions.

CSB solicits written or verbal comments on the following issues. The public hearing will address a selection of these issues, pending level of public interest and available time.

1. The CSB is currently researching and cataloging combustible dust incidents that have occurred in the United States since 1980. This survey has identified nearly 200 combustible dust incidents involving approximately 100 fatalities and 600 injuries. The sources of data include: the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) incident database; the Institute of Chemical Engineers (ICHEME) accident base; Lexis/Nexus; and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). The CSB will consult other data resources as the research continues.

a. Are there other sources of data on combustible dust incidents that may not have been captured in these databases?

b. Regarding any specific combustible dust incident(s) that you are aware of, were the causes of the incident(s) determined? If yes, what were they?

c. Are you aware of any materials or conditions that have contributed to the causation of major combustible dust incidents that may not have been identified in the technical literature or addressed in existing codes or guidelines?

2. A preliminary survey by the CSB has found that approximately 25% of identified incidents occur in the plastics, pharmaceuticals, paints and other industries addressed within the scope of NFPA 654 (Standard for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing, Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids), approximately 23% each in metal and wood industries, and 20% in the food (excluding grain handling) industry, with 10% involving coal dust (not including mines).

a. Should the CSB investigation examine only those industries within the scope of NFPA 654, or also address combustible dust hazards in metal, food, coal (other than mining) and wood industries?

b. To what extent do the problems described below (lack of awareness, poor enforcement of existing codes, etc.) exist in each of these industries?

c. Are there significant differences in the causes or the means of preventing explosions in industries handling combustible plastic, metal, wood, food, coal or other dusts?

3. Both the NFPA and the International Code Council (ICC) have developed codes that address combustible dust hazards.

a. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NFPA and ICC standards for combustible dust?

b. Are changes necessary in any of these standards to better prevent combustible dust fires and explosions?

4. In two investigations, the CSB found that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for materials that may form combustible dusts did not adequately communicate explosion hazards. In addition, many MSDSs do not communicate the potential hazards of materials that may generate combustible dust as a result or byproduct of processing.

a. Does OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard clearly address combustible dust hazards?

b. Should OSHA provide better guidance on how combustible dust hazards should be addressed under the Hazard Communication Standard?

c. How effective are current MSDSs in communicating combustible dust hazard warnings?

d. Are there examples of MSDSs that communicate these hazards better than others?

e. What can be done to improve the ability of MSDSs to communicate more effectively the hazards of combustible dusts and information on how to control those hazards?

f. Are there other written materials that more effectively communicate the hazards of combustible dusts to downstream users?

g. How effective is hazard labeling in communicating the hazards of combustible dusts?

5. Is additional research needed to resolve any technical issues or barriers, or issues around which no industry consensus has been reached in order to better control or prevent combustible dust explosions?

6. How do states address combustible dust hazards?

a. Do most states cover combustible dust hazard in some manner under their fire codes?

b. Do some states have occupational safety standards that address combustible dust hazards?

c. Are there examples of state occupational safety programs that have used the General Duty Clause to address combustible dust hazards?

d. Are there other examples that show how state governments have effectively addressed combustible dust hazards?

7. The CSB has found that the primary regulatory mechanism for controlling or eliminating combustible dust hazards is enforcement of fire codes by local fire code officials. CSB found that awareness of combustible dust hazards among local fire code officials in several states is generally low.

a. What are the barriers to enforcement of fire codes?

b. Is the establishment and enforcement of state building and fire codes effective in preventing combustible dust incidents?

c. Are there examples of states where there is effective enforcement of fire codes addressing combustible dust hazards?

8. CSB has found that some facilities that have experienced serious dust explosions had been inspected by their insurers, but that these inspections had not identified combustible dust hazards.

a. Do/should insurers play a role in preventing dust explosions?

b. Are there barriers inherent in the structure of the insurance industry that prevent the industry from effectively addressing dust hazards?

c. What can be done to encourage the insurance industry to address these hazards more effectively?

d. What training, inspection protocols and educational curricula are available to risk insurance inspectors?

9. CSB has found that awareness about combustible dust hazards throughout industry, including occupational health and safety professionals, is generally low.

a. What forms and methods of outreach, training, education guidelines or regulations have been successful in raising awareness of combustible dust hazards and explosion prevention among safety professionals, facility owners, managers and workers?

b. How can local and national safety or fire officials identify, target and reach at-risk industrial establishments with preventive information?

10. Are there model programs for managing combustible dust hazards in industry?

a. Are there examples of effective combustible dust safety training programs?

b. Are there examples of effective products (brochures, guidelines, alerts, training material, etc.) or campaigns that have successfully communicated preventive information about dust explosions to different affected sectors?

c. Is there a means to make these programs available across the affected industries?

11. Is there a role for the federal government in preventing combustible dust explosions?

a. Is the OSHA Grain Handling Facilities standard (CFR 1910.272) a model for a general industry combustible dust standard?

b. Do data exist to evaluate how the number and severity of combustible dust incidents in the grain industry have been affected by the OSHA Grain Handling Facilities standard?

c. Would an OSHA standard addressing combustible dust hazards be effective in preventing explosions?

d. Are there other federal government agencies that could play a role in issuing regulations or raising awareness?

Comments should address any of the questions listed above. CSB will accept verbal comments at the public hearing. Verbal comments must be limited to 5 minutes. Those wishing to make verbal comments should pre-register by June 10th. To pre-register, send your name and a brief outline of your comments to the person listed in ADDRESSES.

The CSB requests that interested parties submit written comments on the above questions to facilitate greater understanding of the issues. Of particular interest are any studies, surveys, research, and empirical data. Comments should indicate the number(s) of the specific question(s) being answered, provide responses to questions in numerical order, and use a separate page for each question answered. Comments should be captioned “Combustible Dust Hazard Study—Comments,” and must be filed on or before August 1, 2005.

Parties sending written comments should submit an original and two copies of each document. To enable prompt review and public access, paper submissions should include a version on CD-ROM in PDF, ASCII, WordPerfect, or Microsoft Word format. Diskettes should be labeled with the name of the party, and the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document. Alternatively, comments may be e-mailed to dust@csb.gov. Written comments will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and CSB regulations. This notice and all comments will be posted on the CSB Web site: http://www.csb.gov.

The Public Hearing will be open to the public, and there is no fee for attendance. As discussed above, pre-registration is strongly encouraged, as seating may be limited. To pre-register, please e-mail your name and affiliation to dust@csb.gov by June 10, 2005. A detailed agenda and additional information on the hearing will be posted on the CSB's Web site at http://www.csb.gov.

The United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board announces that it will convene a Public Meeting beginning on Wednesday June 22, 2005, beginning at 8:30 a.m. at the Horizon Ballroom, Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Topics will include: CSB's investigation into combustible dust hazards. The meeting will be open to the public and will end at 4:30 p.m. Please notify CSB 10 business days prior to the public meeting if a translator or interpreter is needed. For more information, please contact: Dr. Daniel Horowitz, CSB Director of Congressional, Public, and Board Affairs at (202) 261-7613/(202) 441-6074 cell or Sandy Gilmour Communications, (202) 261-7614 or (202) 251-5496 cell, or visit our Web site at: http://www.csb.gov.

The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd., (“Shanghai Sunbeauty”) (March 18, 2005), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufactures Co., Ltd., (“Jiangsu JOM”) (March 18, 2005), and Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd., (“Qingdao Wentai”) (March 21, 2005) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214 (c), for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, which has a March semiannual anniversary month. Jiangsu JOM identified itself as the producer and exporter of freshwater crawfish tail meat. Shanghai Sunbeauty identified itself as the exporter and Wuwei Xinhua Food Co., Ltd., (“Wuwei Xinhua”) as the producer of subject merchandise. Qingdao Wentai identified itself as the exporter and Nanxian Shunxiang Aquatic Food Products Co., Ltd., as the producer of subject merchandise. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), and (iii)(A), Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai certified that they did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States during the period of investigation (“POI”), and that each company has never been affiliated with any exporter or producer which exported freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States during the POI. Furthermore, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai have also certified that their export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC, satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai submitted documentation establishing the date on which the subject merchandise was first entered for consumption in the United States, the volume of that first shipment and any subsequent shipments, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States. The Department conducted Customs database queries to confirm that each company's shipment had officially entered the United States via assignment of an entry date in the Customs database by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”).

In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), and based on information on the record, we are initiating new shipper reviews for Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai. See Memoranda to the File through James C. Doyle, “New Shipper Initiation Checklist,” all dated April 29, 2005. We intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days after the date on which this review was initiated, and the final results of this review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(B), the period of review (“POR”) for a new shipper review, initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month, will be the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for the new shipper reviews of Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai will be September 1, 2004, through February 28, 2005.

It is the Department's usual practice in cases involving non-market economies to require that a company seeking to establish eligibility for an antidumping duty rate separate from the country-wide rate provide evidence of de jure and de facto absence of government control over the company's export activities. Accordingly, we will issue questionnaires to Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai, including a separate rates section. The reviews will proceed if the responses provide sufficient indication that Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, and Qingdao Wentai are not subject to either de jure or de facto government control with respect to their exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat. However, if the exporter does not demonstrate the company's eligibility for a separate rate, then the company will be deemed not separate from the PRC-wide entity, which exported during the POI and its new shipper review will be rescinded. See, 19 CFR 251.214(2)(iii)(A), see also Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and Rescission of New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 53669 (September 2, 2004) and Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Second New Shipper Review and Final Results and Partial Rescission of First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61581 (November 12, 1999). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(e), we will instruct CBP to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until the completion of the review, of a single entry bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for certain entries of the merchandise exported by either Shanghai Sunbeauty, Jiangsu JOM, or Qingdao Wentai. We will apply the bonding option under 19 CFR 351.107(b)(1)(i) only to entries from these three exporters for which the respective producers under review are the suppliers. Interested parties that need access to proprietary information in these new shipper reviews should submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214(d).

On August 3, 2004, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on certain large diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line, and pressure pipe (“SLP”) from Mexico, for the period August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004 (69 FR 46496). On August 31, 2004, we received a request from the petitioner 1 to review TAMSA. On September 22, 2004, we published the notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review with respect to TAMSA. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). On November 23, 2004, TAMSA submitted a letter certifying that neither TAMSA, nor its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris Global Services USA (“Tenaris”), directly or indirectly, exported or sold for consumption in the United States any subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”).

The products covered are large diameter seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes produced, or equivalent, to the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM”) A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. The scope of this order also includes all other products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below. Specifically included within the scope of this order are seamless pipes greater than 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) up to and including 16 inches (406.4 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.

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

Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Large diameter seamless pipe is used primarily for line applications such as oil, gas, or water pipeline, or utility distribution systems. Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various American Society of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.

Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.

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

Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.

Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.

The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes in large diameters is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. A more minor application for large diameter seamless pipes is for use in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants, as well as in power generation plants and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.

The scope of this order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the exclusions discussed below, whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of this investigation. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.

For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, such products are covered by the scope of this review.

Specifically excluded from the scope of this order are:

A. Boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications.

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

C. Products produced to the A-335 specification unless they are used in an application that would normally utilize ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.

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

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

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

TAMSA submitted a letter on November 23, 2004, certifying that neither TAMSA, nor its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris, directly or indirectly, exported or sold for consumption in the United States any subject merchandise during the POR. The petitioner did not comment on TAMSA's no-shipment claim.

We conducted an internal customs data query on December 9, 2004. The data query indicated TAMSA and its U.S. affiliate, Tenaris, had customs entries/shipments during the POR, some of which entered under the HTSUS numbers for subject merchandise. Subsequent to our analysis of the internal customs data, we requested an external customs data query. See Memorandum dated February 24, 2005, entitled “Request for U.S. Entry Documents—Certain Large Diameter Carbon and Alloy Seamless Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe from Mexico from Mexico, Customs Case Number A-201-827.” We reviewed the customs entry documents which included bills of lading, entry summaries, entry/immediate delivery forms, invoices, and mills certificates. Based on the product specifications and the information contained in the documents, which confirmed that AD/CVD duties were not assessed on the shipments, we were able to confirm that TAMSA had no entries, exports, or sales to the United States of subject mrchandise during the POR.

Based on our analysis of the shipment data, we are treating TAMSA as a non-shipper for the purpose of this review. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of the Department's regulations, and consistent with our practice, we preliminarily determine to rescind this review. See e.g., Stainless Steel Bar from India; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 12209 (March 8, 2000); Persulfates From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 65 FR 18963 (April 10, 2000).

An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing, if requested, will be held 44 days after the date of publication, or the first working day thereafter. Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this preliminary notice. See 19 CFR 351.309. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in such briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issue, (2) a brief summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities. Further, parties submitting written comments should provide the Department with an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on diskette. The Department will issue the final notice, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, or at a hearing, if requested, within 120 days of publication of this preliminary notice.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d).

On September 22, 2004, the Department published its notice of initiation of an antidumping administrative review on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 56745 (September 22, 2004). The Department subsequently received a timely withdrawal request from one of the exporters that requested a review: Shangyu City Garden Candle Factory (“Garden Candle”). On March 30, 2005, the Department published a notice of rescission, in part, of antidumping duty administrative review for Garden Candle. See Petroleum Wax Candles from the PRC: Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 16217 (March 30, 2005). The Department is not rescinding its review of Shanghai R&R Import/Export Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai R&R”), another exporter that requested review. The preliminary results of this administrative review are currently due no later than May 3, 2005.

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department shall issue preliminary results in an administrative review of an antidumping duty order within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of the date of publication of the order for which a review is requested and the final results within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary results are published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.

The Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the preliminary results in the administrative review of petroleum wax candles from the PRC within the originally anticipated time limit (i.e., by May 3, 2005), because we are currently analyzing factors of production information that has required numerous supplemental questionnaires. Therefore, the Department is extending the time limit for completion of the preliminary results no later than August 11, 2005, in accordance with Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The deadline for the final results of this administrative review continues to be 120 days after the publication of the preliminary results. We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with Section 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On April 1, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of “Opportunity To Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey (69 FR 17129). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 30, 2004, the Department received requests from both Colakoglu and ICDAS to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. As part of its request, ICDAS also requested that the Department revoke the dumping order with regard to it, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 30, 2004, the petitioners, Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation, also requested an administrative review for the following 23 producers/exporters of rebar: Cebitas; Cemtas; Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. (Colakoglu); Demirsan; Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Yazici), and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Diler”); Ege Celik; Ege Metal; Ekinciler; Habas; ICDAS; Iskenderun; Izmir; Kaptan; Kardemir; Kroman; Kurum; Metas; Nurmet; Nursan; Sivas; Tosyali; and Ucel. In May 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review for each of these companies and issued questionnaires to them. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part, 69 FR 30282 (May 27, 2004). In May and June 2004, the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments or entries of subject merchandise during the POR: Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali. We reviewed CBP data and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. In July 2004 Colakoglu requested that the Department modify its reporting requirements with respect to its home market sales. Specifically, Colakoglu requested that it be excused from reporting home market sales and cost data for coiled rebar. In its request, Colakoglu stated that it sold only straight-length rebar in the U.S. market and noted that this was produced in a separate facility from coiled rebar. The Department granted Colakoglu's request on July 6, 2004. In August 2004 we received responses to sections A through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to the home market and the United States) and section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS. On November 4, 2004, the Department postponed the preliminary results of this review until no later than May 2, 2005. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Notice of Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 69 FR 65151 (Nov. 10, 2004). From November 2004 through March 2005, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the participating respondents. We received responses to these questionnaires between December 2004 and March 2005. We verified the sales and cost information submitted by ICDAS in February and March 2005.

The product covered by this order is all stock deformed steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

The POR is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004.

As noted above, Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, and Tosyali informed the Department that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. We have confirmed this with CBP. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to these companies. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 FR 64731, 64732 (Nov. 8, 2004) (2002-2003 Rebar Review) and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 68 FR 53127, 53128 (Sep. 9, 2003) (2001-2002 Rebar Review). We have also confirmed with CBP that Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with the Department's practice, we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to Ege Metal, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, and Ucel.

As noted above, on April 30, 2004, ICDAS submitted a letter to the Department requesting revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b). ICDAS's request was accompanied by a certification that it has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the current POR and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. ICDAS further certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the United States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three consecutive years. The company also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, ICDAS sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.

Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department “may revoke, in whole or in part” an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751(a) of the Act. While Congress has not specified the procedures the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. Section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department's regulations explains that the Secretary may revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered by the order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years. See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 (Jan. 6, 2000).

We preliminarily determine that the request from ICDAS meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222(b). With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our preliminary margin calculations show that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review period. See the dumping margins below. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which it was involved (i.e., ICDAS's dumping margin was zero or de minimis). See 2002-2003 Rebar Review and 2001-2002 Rebar Review.

Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by ICDAS, we preliminarily determine that ICDAS sold the subject merchandise in the United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years cited by ICDAS to support its request for revocation. See the memorandum to the file from Irina Itkin entitled “Analysis of Commercial Quantities for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.'s Request for Revocation,” dated May 2, 2005. Thus, we preliminarily find that ICDAS had zero or de minimis dumping margins for its last three administrative reviews and sold in commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily determine that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the order on rebar pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) and that the order with respect to merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order in part for ICDAS and, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension of liquidation for any of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004, and instruct CBP to refund any cash deposits for such entries.

ICDAS has an affiliated rolling mill, Demir Sanayi ve Celik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. (Demir Sanayi). ICDAS has argued that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review because: (1) the two entities have the same shareholders and managers; (2) Demir Sanayi and ICDAS have the same production capacities for rebar; and (3) Demir Sanayi sold rebar in the home market for its own account. Based on the information on the record of this review, we preliminary find that it is appropriate to collapse ICDAS with Demir Sanayi, consistent with our treatment of these entities in the previous segment of this proceeding. For further discussion, see the memorandum to Louis Apple from the team entitled “Concurrence Memorandum,” dated May 2, 2005 (concurrence memo).

To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the NV. When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in the “Scope of the Order” section of this notice, above, that were in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of trade, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade based on the characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.

In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. and home markets that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: form, grade, size, and American Society for Testing and Materials specification. Where there were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of priority.

For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. Regarding the date of sale, three of the respondents (i.e., Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS) argued in their questionnaire responses that we should use the date of either single-shipment contracts or purchase orders as the date of sale for their U.S. sales in this review. However, we determined that it is appropriate to continue to follow our normal practice of using invoice date as the date of sale for all U.S. sales reported by all of the respondents in this review because the material terms of sale are established on that date. For further discussion, see the concurrence memo.

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for inspection fees, lashing and loading expenses, demurrage expenses (offset by freight commission revenue, wharfage revenue, despatch revenue, demurrage commission revenue, agency fee revenue, attendance fee revenue, and other freight-related revenue), ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, brokerage and handling expenses, loading expenses (including charges for loading supervision), and ocean freight expenses (offset by despatch revenue), where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Regarding foreign inland freight expenses, Diler reported that these expenses were provided by an affiliated party. Because Diler was not able to demonstrate that these expenses were charged on an arm's-length basis, we adjusted the reported amounts to be equivalent to the market price. For further discussion, see the concurrence memo.

In accordance with Public Law 99-574, the NIST Authorization Act for 1987, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved a demonstration project plan, “Alternative Personnel Management System (APMS) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),” and published the plan in the Federal Register on October 2, 1987, (52 FR 37082). The project plan has been modified twice to clarify certain NIST authorities (54 FR 21331 of May 17, 1989, and 55 FR 39220 of September 25, 1990). The project plan and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the final APMS plan, which became permanent on October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54604).

The plan provides for modifications to be made as experience is gained, results are analyzed, and conclusions are reached on how the system is working. This notice formally changes the APMS plan to further strengthen the links between pay and performance, and performance and retention service credit. Comments will be considered and any changes deemed necessary will be made.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Alternative Personnel Management System (APMS) is designed to (1) improve hiring and allow NIST to compete more effectively for high-quality researchers through direct hiring, selective use of higher entry salaries, and selective use of recruiting allowances; (2) motivate and retain staff through higher pay potential, pay-for-performance, more responsive personnel systems, and selective use of retention allowances; (3) strengthen the manager's role in personnel management through delegation of personnel authorities; and (4) increase the efficiency of personnel systems through installation of a simpler and more flexible classification system based on pay banding through reduction of guidelines, steps, and paperwork in classification, hiring, and other personnel systems, and through automation.

Since implementing the APMS, according to findings in the Office of Personnel Management's “Summative Evaluation Report National Institute of Standards and Technology Demonstration Project: 1988-1995,” NIST is more competitive for talent; NIST retained more top performers than a comparison group; and NIST managers reported significantly more authority to make decisions concerning employee pay. This modification builds on this success by strengthening the link between pay and performance and streamlining the current system.

This amendment replaces the current 100-point rating scale with six performance ratings. Pay increases will be based on an annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path and linked directly to the top three performance ratings, strengthening the pay-for-performance link, increasing transparency, and reducing potential payout variations among employees in the same career path and pay band and with the same performance ratings. This amendment also implements a required bonus for high-performing employees who cannot receive a pay increase because they are at the cap of their pay band, or their adjusted salaries would exceed the maximum rate for their pay band. Finally, the provisions on retention service credit for reduction in force and annual adjustments to basic pay are being modified to correspond with these changes.

NIST will continually monitor the effectiveness of this amendment and provide OPM with its findings.

The need to modify the current Pay for Performance System (PPS) surfaced in the results of both the 2000 and 2002 NIST Employee Surveys, the NIST Research Advisory Committee 2002 Report to the NIST Director, stakeholder focus group feedback, and in discussions of the NIST Senior Management Board. Generally, feedback indicated a need to clarify and simplify the system and suggested ways that this could be accomplished. The suggestions were found to have merit and are incorporated into this modification.

The NIST system proposed modifications include replacing the current 100-point rating scale with six performance ratings and linking pay increases to the ratings. From highest to lowest, the six performance ratings are: Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory.

Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and relative weights of the critical elements. Critical elements are rated using benchmark standards and any supplemental standards. The ratings for the critical elements are: exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U).

Performance pay increases will be based on the annually determined percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band in the career path. When the percentage is applied to the mid-point salary in each pay band, the resulting dollar amount is the unit of salary increase or “I” for that pay band and career path. The “I” is used to determine salary increases NIST-wide. The Director, however, may authorize an operating unit to use a lower “I” for reasons related to solvency.

Actual salary increases based on multiples of “I” are granted to employees in the top three performance levels as follows: Exceptional Contributor: “I” x 5; Superior Contributor: “I” x 3; and Significant Contributor: “I.” A salary-capped employee with an Exceptional Contributor or Superior Contributor rating must receive a bonus at least equivalent to the salary increase that would have been received if the employee's salary were not capped.

In addition to receiving a performance pay increase, employees with Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, and Significant Contributor ratings receive the full annual basic pay adjustment (general and locality pay increases) and are eligible for a bonus. Employees with a Contributor rating do not receive a performance pay increase but do receive the full annual basic pay adjustment and are eligible for a bonus. Employees rated Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory do not receive a performance pay increase, bonus, or annual basic pay adjustment.

The current provision on additional service credit for reduction-in-force purposes is revised to correspond with these changes. For retention purposes, this modification grants 10 additional years of service for a rating of Exceptional Contributor, eight additional years of service for a rating of Superior Contributor, three additional years of service for a rating of Significant Contributor, and one additional year of service for a rating of Contributor.

The APMS at the NIST, published in the Federal Register October 21, 1997, (62 FR 54604), is amended as follows:

1. Promotion: The subsection titled “Promotion” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following:

A promotion is a change of an employee to (1) a higher pay band in the same career path or (2) a pay band in another career path in combination with an increase in pay. An employee must have a current performance rating of Contributor or higher to be eligible for promotion. The time-in-pay-band requirement for promotion eligibility is 52 weeks with two exceptions: (1) An employee may be promoted from pay band I to band II in the Support career path without time restriction; and (2) an employee may be promoted from pay band II to band III in the Support career path without time restriction if the employee was not promoted from a band I to band II position during the previous 52 weeks. (For pay provisions related to promotion, see “Pay Administration.”)

2. Link Between Performance and Retention: The subsection titled “Link Between Performance and Retention” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following:

An employee with a performance rating of Exceptional Contributor is credited with 10 additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Superior Contributor is credited with eight additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Significant Contributor is credited with three additional years of service for retention purposes. An employee with a performance rating of Contributor is credited with one additional year of service for retention purposes. The total credit is based on the employee's three most recent annual performance ratings of record received during the four-year period prior to an established cutoff date, for a potential total credit of 30 years. No reduction-in-force credit converts to this system from any other performance appraisal system.

3. Placement in a Lower Pay Band: The subsection titled “Placement in a Lower Pay Band” (62 FR 54609) is replaced with the following:

An employee whose performance rating is Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory does not receive the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay. Because the minimum pay rate for each pay band is increased each year by the amount of the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay, it is possible that the new minimum rate of a pay band will exceed the basic pay of an employee in that pay band who does not receive the NIST annual adjustment to basic pay due to a Marginal Contributor or Unsatisfactory performance rating. When this happens, the employee is placed in the next lower pay band. This placement shall not be considered an adverse action under 5 U.S.C. 7512; nor shall grade (i.e., pay band) retention under 5 U.S.C. 5362 be applicable.

4. Effect of General and Locality Pay Increases on Individual Pay: The subsection titled “Effect of General and Locality Pay Increases on Individual Pay” (62 FR 54610) is replaced with the following:

Only employees with a current performance rating of Contributor or above may receive the full amount of increase in their basic pay (including locality pay) at the time of pay band adjustments. This increase in basic pay will reflect any applicable general and/or locality pay increase for General Schedule employees. The increase in basic pay for employees with a rating of Contributor or above, whose basic pay is at the ceiling of their pay band, will equal the increase in the ceiling.

The basic pay increase for eligible employees whose basic pay is below the ceiling of their band will be calculated by applying a factor to the employee's rate of pay. The factor is based on the net pay increase for General Schedule employees in the locality, including both the general increase and any applicable locality pay increase. Employees with ratings of Contributor or above will receive the full amount of the net increase, and the factor is equal to 1 plus the net increase percentage (expressed as a decimal). For example, if the net increase for a locality were 3.22 percent, the factor for Contributor or above would be 1.0322. Thus, the new rate of basic pay for an employee with a rating of Contributor or above would be calculated using the following formula:

However, a basic pay increase will be applied only to the extent that it does not cause an employee's basic pay to exceed the pay band ceiling.

5. Performance Plans: The subsection titled “Performance Plans” (62 FR 54611) is replaced with the following:

At the beginning of each rating period, supervisors develop and issue performance plans with input from employees. The plans contain from three to six critical performance elements for each position. For performance planning and appraisal purposes, only critical elements are used. The supervisor assigns a weight of 1, 2, 3, or 4 to each element indicating its relative level of importance to the position, so that the total weight of all elements is 10. Benchmark performance standards define the range of performance required to exceed expectations, be fully successful, minimally meet expectations, and be unsatisfactory. A supervisor may supplement the standards to add specificity or clarify expectations.

6. Performance Appraisal: The subsection titled “Performance Appraisal” (62 FR 54611) is replaced with the following:

The performance appraisal brings supervisors and employees together to discuss performance and accomplishments during the performance rating cycle. The appraisal leads to decisions affecting performance ratings, performance pay increases, and bonuses. Performance appraisals normally occur at the end of the rating period. However, a supervisor should issue a performance improvement plan and take appropriate follow-up action any time an employee's performance is unsatisfactory.

7. Performance Ratings: The subsection titled “Performance Ratings” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following:

The NIST APMS performance ratings are Exceptional Contributor, Superior Contributor, Significant Contributor, Contributor, Marginal Contributor, and Unsatisfactory. Performance ratings are determined based on the cumulative ratings and weights of the critical elements in the performance plan. Performance in each critical element is evaluated using the benchmark standards and any supplemental standards, and the element is assigned a rating that exceeds expectations (E), fully successful (S), minimally meets expectations (M), or unsatisfactory (U).

The rating of the element is then matched with the weighted value of that critical element to produce a value for the element. For example, if an element is weighted 4 and the element is assigned a rating that exceeds expectations (E), then that element has a value of 4E.

Once this matching is completed and the elements are totaled, performance ratings are assigned using the following table.

An employee with unsatisfactory performance in one or more critical elements is considered unsatisfactory overall and is given a performance improvement plan and an opportunity to improve. If the employee's performance remains unsatisfactory at the end of an opportunity to improve, the supervisor initiates appropriate follow-up action; i.e., reassignment, proposed change to a lower pay band, or proposed removal.

8. Performance Scores: The subsection titled “Performance Scores” (62 FR 54612) is deleted.

9. Performance Ranking: The subsection titled “Performance Ranking” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following:

Performance ranking has been tested and found to be not appropriate for most positions covered by this modification. The Director may authorize the use of ranking where it is found to be appropriate.

10. Performance Pay Decisions: The subsection titled “Performance Pay Decisions” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following:

Annually, the NIST Director determines the amount of a unit of increase, or “I,” based on a percentage of the mid-point salary for each pay band of each career path. The percentage may vary by career path but must be the same for all pay bands within a career path. Performance pay increases are linked directly to performance ratings. An employee with an overall performance rating of Exceptional Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to five units of increase, or 5 x “I.” A Superior Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to 3 x “I.” A Significant Contributor receives a performance pay increase equal to “I.” The actual dollar amount of a performance pay increase depends upon an employee's career path and pay band. Employees may not receive an increase that causes their salary to exceed the maximum rate for their pay band.

Employees with Contributor, Marginal Contributor, or Unsatisfactory ratings do not receive performance pay increases.

11. Performance Bonuses: The subsection titled “Performance Bonuses” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following:

Bonuses are the only cash awards linked to the NIST APMS pay-for-performance system. They are awarded at the end of the performance rating period and may be granted in conjunction with performance pay increases. A pay pool manager may award a bonus to any employee with a performance rating of Contributor or higher. A pay pool manager is a line manager who manages his or her organization's pay increase and bonus fund and has final decision authority over the performance ratings and bonuses of subordinate employees. An employee with an Exceptional Contributor or Superior Contributor rating whose adjusted salary would exceed the maximum rate for the pay band must receive a bonus at least equivalent to the amount of the performance pay increase over the maximum rate but may receive more.

12. Employee Development: The subsection titled “Employee Development” (62 FR 54612) is replaced with the following:

The objective of the NIST Employee Development Program is to develop the competence of employees for maximum achievement of NIST mission and goals. The NIST APMS legislation mandates the continuance of an employee development program including, in appropriate circumstances, a sabbatical program. The NIST APMS sabbatical program is consistent with the terms and conditions of the Senior Executive Service sabbatical program. It covers all career appointees under the NIST APMS who have at least seven years of Federal service and a current performance rating of Contributor or higher.

The American Petroleum Institute develops and publishes voluntary standards for equipment, materials, operations, and processes for the petroleum and natural gas industry. These standards are used by both private industry and by governmental agencies. All interested persons should contact the appropriate source as listed for further information.

For Further Information Contact: Andrea Johnson, Standards Department, e-mail: johnsona@api.org.

For Further Information Contact: David Soffrin, Standards Department, e-mail: soffrind@api.org.

For Further Information Contact: David Soffrin, Standards Department, e-mail: soffrind@api.org.

For Further Information contact: Andrea Johnson, Standards Department, e-mail: johnsona@api.org.

For Further Information Contact: Paula Watkins, Standards Department, e-mail: watkinsp@api.org.

Meetings/Conferences: The Fall Committee on Petroleum Measurement Meeting will take place at the Intercontinental New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana October 31-November 3, 2005. Interested parties may visit the API Web site at http://www.api.org/events for more information regarding participation in these meetings.

For Further Information Contact: Mike Spanhel, Standards Department, e-mail: spanhel@api.org.

Meetings/Conferences: The 2005 Summer Standardization Conference on Oilfield Equipment & Materials will take place at the Hyatt Regency Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada June 27-July 1, 2005. Interested parties may visit the API Web site at http://www.api.org/events for more information regarding participation in this meeting.

For Further Information Contact: Tim Sampson, Upstream Department, e-mail: sampson@api.org.

For Additional Information on the overall API standards program, Contact: David Miller, Standards Department, e-mail: miller@api.org.

Under Department of Commerce procedures established in Title 15 Code of Federal Regulations Part 10, Procedures for the Development of Voluntary Product Standards, and administered by NIST, the American Lumber Standard Committee acts as the Standing Committee for PS 20-99, American Softwood Lumber Standard, responsible for maintaining, revising, and interpreting the standard. The Committee is comprised of producers, distributors, users, and others with an interest in the standard.

Voluntary Product Standard (PS) 20-05 establishes standard sizes and requirements for developing and coordinating the lumber grades of the various species of lumber, the assignment of design values, and the preparation of grading rules applicable to each species. Its provisions include implementation of the standard through an accreditation and certification program; establishment of principal trade classifications and lumber sizes for yard, structural, and factory/shop use; classification, measurement, grading, and grade-marking of lumber; definitions of terms and procedures to provide a basis for the use of uniform methods in the grading inspection, measurement, and description of softwood lumber; commercial names of the principal softwood species; definitions of terms used in describing standard grades of lumber; and commonly used industry abbreviations. The standard also includes the organization and functions of the American Lumber Standard Committee, the Board of Review, and the National Grading Rule Committee.

In addition to format, terminology, updates and general clarification, this revision makes the following major recommendations: (1) Section 2.2, Board measure, adds calculation of board feet for pieces of lumber less than 1″ in thickness; (2) Section 2.12, Heat treated (HT), adds a definition for heat treated lumber; (3) Table 3, Nominal and minimum-dressed sizes of boards, dimensions, and timbers, adds dry timber sizes as shown in amended Table 3; (4) Sections 6.2.3.1, and 6.2.5.1, on dry and green size requirements, respectively, adds language that recognizes that lumber shrinks or expands depending on its moisture content; (5) Section 7.3.3, concerning grade marking, defines bundled lumber; (6) Section 10, Board of Review, is reformatted; (7) Section 11.3, Composition of National Grading Rule Committee, deletes old building code organizations and adds new building code organizations represented on the Committee and adds membership to the Committee as indicated; and (8) Appendix A, Commercial Names of the Principal Softwood Species, deletes species groups and adds additional species.

All public comments will be reviewed and considered. The American Lumber Standard Committee and NIST will revise the standard accordingly.

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and that the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as:

There will be a committee review of several cooperative research project final reports and the development of any associated advice for use by the Council. There will be an update on NOAA Fisheries Service plans to issue a Request for Proposals for short-term research projects; and review of the status of projects affected by the policy to use “A” days-at-sea to account for catch and associated fishing mortality during cooperative research efforts.

Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting dates.

The URAA provided (among other things) for the Office to prescribe regulations to provide further limited (re)examination after final rejection of applications that have been pending for two years or longer as of June 8, 1995, taking into account any reference made in such application to any earlier filed applications under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c). See Pub. L. 103-465, § 532(a)(2)(A), 108 Stat. 4809, 4985 (1994). The Statement of Administration Action that accompanied the URAA indicated that the purpose of this transitional procedure for the limited examination of certain applications filed before June 8, 1995, was to facilitate the completion of the prosecution of applications pending in the Office as of June 8, 1995. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 1005 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4298 (emphasis added). Section 102(d) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3512(d)) provides that “[t]he statement of administrative action approved by the Congress under section 101(a) shall be regarded as an authoritative expression by the United States concerning the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding in which a question arises concerning such interpretation or application.” See also RHP Bearings, Ltd. v. United States, 288 F.3d 1334, 1344 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The Office implemented this provision in the URAA for the further limited examination of certain applications filed before June 8, 1995, in a then new 37 CFR 1.129(a). See Changes to Implement 20-Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 FR 20195 (Apr. 25, 1995), 1174 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 15 (May 2, 1995) (final rule) (Twenty-Year Term Final Rule). With respect to the question of whether the Office action following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) would be made final, the preamble to the Twenty-Year Term Final Rule indicated that: The next [Office] action following timely payment of the fee set forth in [37 CFR] 1.17(r) will be equivalent to a first action in a continuing application. * * * Thus, under [37 CFR] 1.129(a), if the first submission after final rejection was initially denied entry in the application because (1) new issues were raised that required further consideration and/or search, or (2) the issue of new matter was raised, then the next action in the application will not be made final. Likewise, if the second submission after final rejection was initially denied entry in the application because (1) new issues were raised that required further consideration and/or search, or (2) the issue of new matter was raised, then the next action in the application will not be made final.

See Changes to Implement 20-Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 FR at 20199, 1174 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 18. This statement of Office practice was subsequently incorporated into the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). See MPEP 706.07(g) (8th ed. 2001) (Rev. 2, May 2004).

It has now been a decade since the change to twenty-year patent term in the URAA. Nevertheless, there are still applications filed before June 8, 1995, pending before the Office in which a second (or both first and second) submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) may be filed, though the Office now receives fewer than 100 submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a) each year. This final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) is having a greater than anticipated (in 1995) effect in working against the completion of prosecution of applications filed before June 8, 1995. In addition, a review of the Statement of Administration Action reveals that the final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) (treating such Office action as the equivalent to a first action in a continuing application) was not the contemplated implementation of the transitional procedure provided for in § 532(a)(2)(A) of the URAA. See Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Statement of Administrative Action, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, at 1006, reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4298 (“[t]he [Office] will consider the merits of the first and second such submission, to the extent that such submissions would have been entitled to consideration if made prior to final rejection. The [Office] will modify such final rejection or allow such application, as appropriate, based upon consideration of such submissions”). Therefore, the Office is changing its final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) to bring about the completion of prosecution of applications to which the transitional procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(a) applies.

Under the final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) now being adopted by the Office: The next Office action following timely filing of a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) (and payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r)) will be equivalent to the next Office action following a reply to a non-final Office action. Under existing second Office action final practice, such an Office action on the merits shall be made final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant's amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). See MPEP 706.07(a). Any information disclosure statement submitted under 37 CFR 1.129(a) without the statement specified in 37 CFR 1.97(e) will be treated as though it had been filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) (in view of applicant's payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r)).

Under § 532(a)(2)(A) of the URAA (and the Statement of Administration Action), an applicant whose application is eligible for the transitional further limited examination procedure set forth in 37 CFR 1.129(a) is entitled to consideration of two after final submissions. Thus, if such an applicant has filed one submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) and the application is again under a final rejection, the applicant is entitled to only one additional submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a). If such an applicant has filed two submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a) and the application is again under a final rejection, § 532(a)(2)(A) of the URAA (and the Statement of Administration Action) and 37 CFR 1.129(a) do not entitle the applicant to consideration of any additional submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a). The applicant is, of course, entitled to consideration of an additional submission if the submission meets the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.116.

The Office recognizes that its former final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) resulted in some applicants effectively receiving consideration of more than two submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a). Section 532(a)(2)(A) of the URAA and the Statement of Administration Action, however, provide only for consideration of a first and second submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a), and do not contemplate each such submission being treated as the equivalent of a continuing application. That the Office's former final action practice for the Office action immediately following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) resulted in some applicants effectively receiving consideration of more than two submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a) does not require the Office to continue to follow an after final practice having a result not contemplated by § 532(a)(2)(A) of the URAA and the Statement of Administration Action. See In re The Boulevard Entertainment, Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (that the Office has followed an improper practice in certain applications does not require the Office to follow that improper practice in all applications).

Finally, the Twenty-Year Term Final Rule also indicated that the Office action following timely payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(r) will be equivalent to a first action in a continuing application due to the amount of the fee specified in 37 CFR 1.17(r). See Changes to Implement 20-Year Patent Term and Provisional Applications, 60 FR at 20199, 1174 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 18. The fee amount specified in 37 CFR 1.17(r) does not justify a continuation of the final action practice set forth in the Twenty-Year Term Final Rule because: (1) The fee amount at 37 CFR 1.17(r) is no longer equivalent to the fee required for filing an application (the filing, search, and examination fee); and (2) the applications still eligible for submissions under 37 CFR 1.129(a) tend to be more burdensome than the “usual” continuing application (e.g., these applications tend to have more claims, have more continuity information, and have more related copending applications). Therefore, the fee amount specified in 37 CFR 1.17(r) is no longer a sufficient justification for treating the Office action following a submission under 37 CFR 1.129(a) as the equivalent to a first action in a continuing application.

Paperwork Reduction Act: This notice involves information collection requirements which are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection of information involved in this notice has been reviewed and previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0651-0031. The Office is not resubmitting any information collection package to OMB for its review and approval because the changes in this notice do not affect the information collection requirements associated with the information collection under OMB control number 0651-0031.

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

Section 706.07(g) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure will be revised in due course to reflect this change in practice.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the Corporation's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Type of Review: New.

Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: Challenge Grant Application Instructions.

OMB Number: None.

Agency Number: None.

Affected Public: Organizations who are interested applying for Challenge Grant funding.

Total Respondents: 40.

Frequency: On occasion.

Average Time Per Response: Ten (10) hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 400 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

Description: The purpose of these Challenge Grants is to assist nonprofit organizations in securing previously untapped sources of private funds to build sustainable national and community service programs. Organizations receiving funds must either greatly expand services by engaging citizens in meeting community needs or offer new services through expanded citizen engagement.

The Application Instructions submitted as part of this public collection request are pertinent only to the Corporation's online application system, eGrants. As noted in the 60-day notice published on February 14, 2005, use of the government-wide grants application system, Grants.gov, for this competition was dependent upon that system's ability to accommodate the Corporation's specific individualized needs. We are continuing to cooperate with Grants.gov in developing the capability to accept applications through that system. Instructions for applying through Grants.gov will be developed and submitted for approval when that system is compatible with our technical application requirements.

When the Government purchases supplies that are new to the supply system, nonstandard, or modifications of previously shipped items, and different freight classifications may apply, offerors are requested to indicate the full Uniform Freight Classification or National Motor Freight Classification. The information is used to determine the proper freight rate for the supplies.

Respondents: 2,640.

Responses Per Respondent: 3.

Annual Responses: 7,920.

Hours Per Response: .167.

Total Burden Hours: 1,323.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (VIR), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0055, Freight Classification Description, in all correspondence.

Information about participation by the public will be posted at PITAC's Web site (http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac) by April 26, 2005. The agenda for this meeting will be posted at this Web site when it becomes available. Meeting information may also be obtained by calling 703-292-4873 from Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m. eastern time.

On November 12, 2003, the Department of the Army published the final rule in the Federal Register that established the programmatic regulations required by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 as 33 CFR part 385. Section 385.5 of the programmatic regulations requires that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District develop, in consultation with the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, six guidance memoranda for approval by the Secretary of the Army. Guidance memoranda are program-wide procedures and processes needed to guide implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and to ensure that the goals and purposes of the Plan are achieved. The programmatic regulations require that the Secretary of the Army afford the public an opportunity to comment on the Guidance Memoranda prior to their approval. The programmatic regulations also require the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Florida on the Guidance Memoranda. An electronic copy of the guidance memoranda document is available at: http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/progr_regs_guidance_memoranda.cfm.

Current rates for the sale of non-firm energy from Stampede consist of floor and ceiling rates and are designed to recover an annual revenue requirement. The proposed floor rate for non-firm energy from Stampede is 17.89 mills/kilowatthour (mills/kWh) and on average for the 5-year rate period provides sufficient revenue to pay for 96 percent of annual expenses, excluding interest expense. The current ceiling rate was set by a power repayment study and provides sufficient revenues to repay all annual costs, including interest expense, and the investment within the allowable period.

The Central Valley Project (CVP) Power Marketing Plan states that the output from the Washoe Project remaining after meeting project use loads will be marketed to CVP preference customers. Beginning January 1, 2005, the costs remaining after meeting project use requirements are included in the CVP power revenue requirement (PRR) on an annual basis. This situation makes it unnecessary to establish a new proposed ceiling rate for Stampede. Western's Contract No. 94-SAO-00010 with the Sierra Pacific Resources (Sierra) sets the floor rate. Based on estimated expenses and projected revenues generated from the floor rate, Western anticipates including an annual average cost of $401,000 in the CVP PRR for the 5-year rate case period (fiscal year 2006-2010).

To serve project use loads and market the energy from Stampede, Western's contract with Sierra provides for the Stampede Energy Exchange Account (SEEA). SEEA is an annual energy exchange account for Stampede energy. Under this contract, Sierra accepts delivery of all energy generated from Stampede into Sierra's electrical system. The dollar value of the Stampede energy received by Sierra during any month is credited into the SEEA at the floor rate. Western can use the SEEA to benefit project use facilities and market energy from Stampede to preference entities. The formula for the proposed floor rate, per the contract with Sierra, is equal to 85 percent of the then effective, non-time differentiated rate provided in Sierra's California Quarterly Short-Term Purchase Price Schedule for as-available purchases from qualifying facilities with capacities of 100 kilowatts (kW) or less. This proposed floor rate is used to calculate the value of the SEEA and determines the benefit of Stampede power for project use loads. Western applies the ratio of projected project use costs to the projected revenue recorded in the SEEA to determine a non-reimbursable percentage. This non-reimbursable percentage is then applied to the appropriate power-related costs to determine the reimbursable costs. The reimbursable costs are reduced by revenues from sales made at the floor rate. Under the 2004 CVP Power Marketing Plan, the remaining reimbursable costs and the estimated energy remaining after meeting project use service are then transferred to the CVP PRR.

The propose rate formula for Stampede power is:

Western will review the total PRR for Stampede annually in or around April of each year. According to Contract No. 94-SAO-00010 that governs SEEA administration, in April of each year, Western is notified of the balance of the SEEA. According to the rate procedures for the CVP, Western will review the CVP PRR in March and September of each year. Western will analyze the CVP financial data from October through February, to the extent information is available, as well as forecasted data for March through September. In the case of Stampede, Western will use the disposition of the SEEA account through February and estimate March through September to determine the amount of costs to be included in the CVP PRR. Again, in September when the next review occurs, Western will use the same methodology to include costs in the CVP PRR. Western estimates the Stampede Annual Transferred PRR for October 2005 through September 2006 to be $401,000.

A comparison of existing and proposed rates follows:

Stampede is a feature of the Washoe Project authorized by Congress in 1956 and is located on the Little Truckee River in Sierra County, California. The powerplant has a maximum operating capability of 3,650 kW with an estimated annual generation of 11 million kilowatthours (kWh). Since Stampede has an installed capacity of less than 20,000 kW and generates less than 100 million kWh annually for sale, the proposed rates constitute a minor rate adjustment. Western has determined that it is not necessary to hold a public information or comment forum for this proposed minor rate adjustment as defined by 10 CFR part 903. After review of public comments, and possible amendments or adjustments, Western will recommend the Deputy Secretary of Energy approve proposed rates for non-firm energy from Stampede on an interim basis.

These proposed rates for non-firm energy for Stampede are being established under the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152); the Reclamation Act of 1902 (ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388), as amended and supplemented by subsequent laws, particularly section 9(c) of the Reclamation Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)); and other acts that specifically apply to the project involved.

By Delegation Order No. 00-037.00, effective December 6, 2001, the Secretary of Energy delegated: (1) The authority to develop power and transmission rates to Western's Administrator; (2) the authority to confirm, approve, and place such rates into effect, on an interim basis, to the Deputy Secretary of Energy; and (3) the authority to confirm, approve, and place into effect, on a final basis, to remand or to disapprove such rates to the Commission. Existing Department of Energy (DOE) procedures for public participation in power rate adjustments (10 CFR part 903) were published on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37835).

All brochures, studies, comments, letters, memorandums, or other documents that Western initiates or uses to develop the proposed rates are available for inspection and copying at the Sierra Nevada Regional Office, located at 114 Parkshore Drive, Folsom, California. Many of these documents and supporting information are also available on the Web site under the “Current Rates” section located at http://www.wapa.gov/sn/customers/rates/#currentrates/.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires Federal agencies to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis if a final rule is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and there is a legal requirement to issue a general notice of proposed rulemaking. This action does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis since it is a rulemaking of particular applicability involving rates or services applicable to public property.

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.); Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); and DOE NEPA Regulations (10 CFR part 1021), Western has determined this action is categorically excluded from preparing an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement.

Western has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866; so this notice requires no clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

Western has determined this rule is exempt from congressional notification requirements under 5 U.S.C. 801 because the action is a rulemaking of particular applicability relating to rates or services and involves matters of procedure.

Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.

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

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

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

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

EPA has established official public dockets for the ICRs listed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, section II. B. The official public docket for each ICR consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICR, any public comments received, and other information related to each ICR. The official public docket for each ICR is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is (202) 566-1514. An electronic version of the public docket for each ICR is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, to submit or to view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

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

The listed ICRs address Clean Air Act information collection requirements in standards (i.e., standards) which have mandatory recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Records collected under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) must be retained by the owner or operator for at least two years and the records collected under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) must be retained by the owner or operator for at least five years. In general, the required collections consist of emissions data and other information deemed not to be private.

In the absence of such information collection requirements, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act.

The Agency computed the burden for each of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for the currently approved Information Collection Requests (ICRs) listed in this notice. Where applicable, the Agency identified specific tasks and made assumptions, while being consistent with the concept of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that EPA is planning to submit the following 36 continuing Information Collection:

(1) NESHAP for Steel Pickling, HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCC); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0047; EPA ICR Number 1821.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0419; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(2) NESHAP for Portland Cement (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0040; EPA ICR Number 1801.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0416; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(3) NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0034; EPA ICR Number 1081.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0043; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(4) NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0025; EPA ICR Number 1057.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0041; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(5) NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts N and Na); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0044; EPA ICR Number 1069.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0029; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(6) NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart TTT); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0046; EPA ICR Number 1856.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0414; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(7) NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0016; EPA ICR Number 1054.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0022; expiration date November 30, 2005.

(8) NESHAP for Source Categories Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0030; EPA ICR Number 1871.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0420; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(9) NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0029; EPA ICR Number 1557.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0220; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(10) NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0024; EPA ICR Number 0746.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0251; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(11) NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0037; EPA ICR Number 0660.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0107; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(12) NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR part 60, Subpart XX); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0017; EPA ICR Number 0664.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0006; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(13) NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GGG); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0018; EPA ICR Number 0983.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0067; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(14) NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0027; EPA ICR Number 1131.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0054; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(15) NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0048; EPA ICR Number 1964.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0496; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(16) NESHAP for Asbestos (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0019; EPA ICR Number 0111.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0101; expiration date March 31, 2006.

(17) NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0038; EPA ICR Number 0663.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0001; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(18) NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DD); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0026; EPA ICR Number 1130.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0082; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(19) NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0039; EPA ICR Number 1055.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0021; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(20) NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HH); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0028; EPA ICR Number 1167.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0063; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(21) NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart I); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0045; EPA ICR Number 1127.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0083; expiration date April 31, 2006.

(22) NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0031; EPA ICR Number 1938.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0505; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(23) NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0043; EPA ICR Number 2034.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0510; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(24) NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0049; EPA ICR Number 1976.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0509; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(25) NESHAP for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVV); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0035; EPA ICR Number 1891.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0428; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(26) NESHAP for Metal Furniture Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRRR); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0041; EPA ICR Number 1952.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0518; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(27) NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLLLL); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0051; EPA ICR Number 2029.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0520; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(28) NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0033; EPA ICR Number 2027.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0516; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(29) NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0032; EPA ICR Number 1951.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0511; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(30) NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing Quenching and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0050; EPA ICR Number 1995.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0521; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(31) NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0023; EPA ICR Number 2071.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0522; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(32) NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0022; EPA ICR Number 2040.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0515; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(33) NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0021; EPA ICR Number 2022.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0508; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(34) NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0020; EPA ICR Number 1541.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0183; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(35) NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart NNNN); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0042; EPA ICR Number 1954.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0457; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(36) State and Federal Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce and 40 CFR Part 62, Subpart HHH); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0036; EPA ICR Number 1899.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0422; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(1) NESHAP for Steel Pickling, HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCC); María Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1821.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0419; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(2) NESHAP for Portland Cement (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1801.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0416; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(3) NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1081.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0043; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(4) NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1057.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0041; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(5) NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts N and Na); María Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1069.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0029; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(6) NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart TTT); María Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1856.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0414; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(7) NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J); Dan Chadwick of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7054 or via e-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1054.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0022; expiration date November 30, 2005.

(8) NESHAP for Source Categories Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1871.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0420; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(9) NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1557.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0220; expiration date October 31, 2005.

(10) NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0746.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0251; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(11) NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0660.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0107; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(12) NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart XX); Dan Chadwick of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7054 or via e-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0664.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0006; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(13) NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GGG); Dan Chadwick of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7054 or via e-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0983.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0067; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(14) NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1131.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0054; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(15) NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH); María Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1964.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0496; expiration date December 31, 2005.

(16) NESHAP for Asbestos (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M); Dan Chadwick of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7054 or via e-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0111.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0101; expiration date March 31, 2006.

(17) NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 0663.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0001; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(18) NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DD); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1130.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0082; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(19) NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1055.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0021; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(20) NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HH); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1167.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0063; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(21) NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart I); Maríe Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1127.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0083; expiration date April 31, 2006.

(22) NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1938.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0505; expiration date April 30, 2006.

(23) NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2034.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0510; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(24) NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); María Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1976.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0509; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(25) NESHAP for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVV); Gregory Fried of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7016 or via e-mail to: fried.gregory@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1891.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0428; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(26) NESHAP for Metal Furniture Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRRR); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1952.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0518; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(27) NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLLLL); Maríe Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2029.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0520; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(28) NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMMMM); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2027.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0516; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(29) NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1951.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0511; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(30) NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing Quenching and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC); Maríe Malavé in the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7027 or via e-mail to: malave.maria@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1995.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0521; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(31) NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2071.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0522; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(32) NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2040.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0515; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(33) NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ); Learia Williams of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-4113 or via e-mail to: williams.learia@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 2022.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0508; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(34) NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF); Dan Chadwick of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7054 or via e-mail to chadwick.dan@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1541.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0183; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(35) NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart NNNN); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via e-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1954.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0457; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(36) State and Federal Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce and 40 CFR Part 62, Subpart HHH); Gregory Fried of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-7016 or via e-mail to: fried.gregory@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1899.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0422; expiration date May 31, 2006.

(1) NESHAP for Steel Pickling, HCl Process Facilities and Hydrochloric Acid Regeneration Plants (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCC); EPA ICR Number 1821.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0419; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are facilities that pickle steel using hydrochloric acid or regenerate hydrochloric acid.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Steel Pickling, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCC, were proposed on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 49051), and promulgated on June 22, 1999 (64 FR 33202). This standard establishes limits for hydrochloric acid emissions from continuous and batch pickling lines and acid regeneration units and limits for chlorine emissions from acid regeneration units. Also, operational and equipment standards are established for stationary acid storage vessels.

The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements outlined in the standard are the same as those required for other NESHAP standards. Plants must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards by monitoring their control devices and performing annual emissions testing. Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A), respondents submit one-time notifications of applicability and a one-time report on the performance test results for the primary emission control device. Plants also must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction Plan. Sources are required to submit semiannual reports including periods of exceedances or a statement of compliance certifying that no exceedances have occurred. The standard also requires the owner or operator to submit a written maintenance plan for each emission control device. Records shall be maintained for a period of five years. Records of the most recent two years of operation must be maintained onsite.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 71 with 231 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 25,104 hours. On average, each respondent reported 3.3 times per year and spent 109 hours preparing each response.

The total annualized cost for continuous emissions monitoring was $8,388, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $830 for and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $7,558.

(2) NESHAP for Portland Cement (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLL); EPA ICR Number 1801.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0416; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners or operators of portland cement manufacturing plants.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Portland Cement were promulgated on June 14, 1999. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that apply to all NESHAP sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing.

Respondents submit notifications and reports of performance test results. Respondents must also: Develop and implement a startup, shutdown and a malfunction plan; submit semiannual reports; develop and implement an operations and maintenance plan; conduct and report the results of an annual combustion system inspection.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 107 with 214 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 53,181 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.0 times per year and 249 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $685,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $685,000.

(3) NESHAP for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N); EPA ICR Number 1081.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0043; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are each glass melting furnace that uses commercial arsenic as a raw material. These standards do not apply to pot furnaces. In addition, rebricking is not considered construction or modification for the purposes of this standard.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart N) were proposed on July 20, 1983, and promulgated on August 4, 1986. The standards were amended on May 31, 1990, to add an alternative test method. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 61, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart N.

In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 28 with 31 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 4,524 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.1 times per year and 146 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $98,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $98,000.

(4) NSPS for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H); EPA ICR Number 1057.10; OMB Control Number 2060-0041; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are any sulfuric acid plants.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart H) were proposed on August 17, 1971 and promulgated on December 23, 1971. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart H. These standards apply to any sulfuric acid facility commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after the date of proposal.

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 106 with 212 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 23,320 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.0 times per year and 110 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $477,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup cost and operation and maintenance costs of $477,000.

(5) NSPS for Primary and Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts N and Na); EPA ICR Number 1069.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0029; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are sources with basic oxygen process furnace shops.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Primary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces (BOPF) (40 CFR part 60, subpart N) were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on March 8, 1974. On January 20, 1983, amendments to the standards of performance for primary emissions from BOPF, merged with Standards of Performance for Secondary Emissions from Basic Oxygen Process Steelmaking Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart Na). Subpart Na is applicable to any top-blown BOPF, hot metal transfer station or skimming station for which construction, reconstruction, or modification commenced after January 20, 1983.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subparts N and Na. NSPS standards require sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to BOPF shops subject to NSPS subparts N and Na provide information on the operation of the emissions control device and compliance with the mass and visible emission standards. Semiannual reports of measurements that average 10 percent below the average measurements obtained during performance tests are required.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was four with ten responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 1,012 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.5 times per year and spent 101 hours preparing each response.

The total annualized cost for continuous emissions monitoring was $25,794, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $18,000 and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of $7,794.

(6) NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelters (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart TTT); EPA ICR Number 1856.05; OMB Control Number 2060-0414; expiration date is October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are sources with primary lead smelters.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Lead Smelters, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT, were proposed on April 17, 1998 (63 FR 19200), and promulgated on June 4, 1999 (64 FR 30204). On February 12, 1999, the Agency publicized a supplemental standard for ferroalloys, mineral wool, primary copper, primary lead and wool fiberglass which enhanced the requirements for bag leak detection systems in 40 CFR 63.1625 and 40 CFR 63.1655 by including an enforceable operating limit in this standard.

The monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements outlined in the standard are similar to those required for other NESHAP standards. Plants must demonstrate compliance with the emission standards by monitoring their control devices and performing annual emissions testing. Consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A), all sources subject to this standard are required to submit one-time notifications of applicability; a one-time report on performance test results for the primary emission control device; an initial report specifying the intended methods of compliance; standard operating procedure manuals for baghouses and fugitive dust control; and a semiannual report that includes a summary of the monitoring results, any baghouse leak detection system alarms and corrective actions. Sources must also maintain records of production for unrefined lead, copper matte, and copper species; the date and times of bag leak detection system alarms and the corrective action taken; baghouse inspection and maintenance; any records required as part of the source standard operating procedures manuals; and the compliance methods chosen. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was two with four responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 12,273 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.0 times per year and spent 3,068 hours preparing each response. The responses were prepared to meet semiannual reporting requirements.

The total annualized cost associated with continuous emissions monitoring was $6,452 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $4,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $2,452.

(7) NSPS for Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, subpart J), EPA ICR Number 1054.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0022; expiration date November 30, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are petroleum refineries.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Petroleum Refineries was promulgated on March 8, 1974. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart J. In general, all NSPS require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 240 with 240 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 17,359 hours. Each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and the average public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 72 hours per response. The responses were prepared semiannually. There were no capital/startup costs. However, there were operation and maintenance costs in the previous ICR of $91,000.

(8) NESHAP for Source Categories Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology Standards (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YY); EPA ICR Number 1871.04; OMB Control Number 2060-0420; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are plants producing polycarbonates, acrylic and modacrylic fibers, acetal resins and hydrogen fluoride.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Source Categories: Generic Maximum Achievable Control Technology (hereafter, this subpart is referred to as the “Generic MACT”) were proposed on October 14, 1998 at 63 FR 55178 and promulgated on June 29, 1999 at 64 FR 34854. The standards apply to hazardous air pollutant emissions in four source categories: polycarbonates production, acrylic and modacrylic fibers Production, acetal resins production and hydrogen fluoride production. On November 2, 2001, the Agency promulgated wastewater provisions amendments to the Generic MACT applicable to wastewater streams for the first three categories. The last category does not have wastewater streams. On June 7, 2002, the Agency made additional amendments as a direct ruling to the Generic MACT to clarify definitions and the recordkeeping provisions related to how readily accessible records should be maintained.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart YY. In general, NESHAP standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. The specific monitoring and recordkeeping requirements vary for each source category depending on the types of emissions control equipment and monitoring equipment used to comply with the Generic MACT standards for their category. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all sources subject to NESHAP.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 10 with 30 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 4,077 hours. On average, each respondent reported 3.0 times per year and 136 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $107,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $107,000.

(9) NSPS for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW); EPA ICR Number 1557.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0220; expiration date October 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are municipal solid waste landfills.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW) were proposed on May 30, 1991 and promulgated on March 12, 1996. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart WWW. Owners and operators of the affected facilities must make initial reports when a source becomes subject to this standard: (1) To conduct and report on performance tests, (2) report of annual or periodic emission rates, (3) report on design plans, (4) report on equipment removal and closure, (5) maintain records of the reports, system design and performance tests, monitoring and exceedances, plot map, and well locations. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specific to municipal solid waste landfills.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 175 with 299 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 3,390 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.7 times per year and 11 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared annually and quarterly. The total annualized cost was $107,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $105,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $2,000.

(10) NSPS for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU); EPA ICR Number 0746.06; OMB Control Number 2060-0251; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are calciners and dryers at mineral processing plants. Entities subject to NSPS 40 CFR part 60, subpart LL for metallic mineral processing plants are not subject to this standard.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUU) were proposed on April 23, 1986, and promulgated on September 28, 1992. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU. NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 165 with 342 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 6,506 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.1 times per year and 19 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $115,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $8,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $107,000.

(11) NSPS for Metal Coil Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TT); EPA ICR Number 0660.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0107; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners or operators of metal coil surface coating facilities.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Metal Coil Surface Coating were promulgated on November 1, 1982. These standards apply to metal coil surface coating facilities commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after January 5, 1981.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A that apply to all NSPS sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions and quarterly or semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make the following one-time-only reports: Notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of a startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Where compliance is achieved through the use of low volatile (VOC)coatings without emission control devices, or through the use of higher VOC content coating in conjunction with emission control devices, each owner or operator shall include in the initial compliance report the weighted average of the VOC content of coatings used during the period of each calendar month. When compliance is achieved using an emission control device, each owner or operator shall include in the initial compliance report the overall VOC destruction rate used to attain compliance and the combustion temperature of the thermal incinerator, or the gas temperature both upstream and downstream of the incinerator catalyst bed. The standards also require reports of incinerator temperature drop.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 165 with 404 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 14,531 hours. On average, each respondent reported approximately 2.4 times per year and 36 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $318,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $28,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $290,000.

(12) NSPS for Bulk Gasoline Terminals (40 CFR Part 60, subpart XX), EPA ICR Number 0664.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0006; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are Bulk Gasoline Terminals which deliver liquid product into gasoline tank trucks.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Bulk Gasoline Terminals were promulgated on August 18, 1983, and amended on December 22, 1983. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart XX. Owners or operators of the affected facilities subject to NSPS subpart XX must make the following one-time only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and the results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 40 with 40 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 11,420 hours. Each respondent provided 1.0 responses per year. The average public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 286 hours per response. The responses were prepared at one time only. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(13) NSPS for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries (40 CFR Part 60, subpart GGG), EPA ICR Number 0983.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0067; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are compressors and all equipment within a process unit at petroleum refineries.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Equipment Leaks of VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) in Petroleum Refineries were promulgated on May 30, 1984. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GGG. Facilities subject to this NSPS require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to NSPS subpart GGG provide information on which components are leaking VOCs. NSPS subpart GGG references the compliance requirements of NSPS subpart VV. Owners or operators are required to periodically record information identifying leaking equipment, repair methods used to stop the leaks, and dates of repair. The responses were prepared weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, annually and one time only for initial notifications. In addition, semiannual reports are required to measure compliance with the standards of NSPS subpart VV as referenced by NSPS subpart GGG.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 48 with 102 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 6,137 hours. Each respondent provided 2.1 responses per year. The average public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 60 hours per response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(14) NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC); EPA ICR Number 1131.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0054; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are the glass melting furnaces located at a glass manufacturing plants.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart CC were proposed on June 15, 1979, promulgated on October 7, 1980, and amended on October 19, 1984. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC. These standards apply to each glass melting furnace located at a glass manufacturing plant. NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 45 with 87 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 590 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.9 times per year and seven hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $261,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $261,000.

(15) NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart HHHH); EPA ICR Number 1964.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0496; expiration date December 31, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are component processes at wet-formed fiberglass mat production facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Lead Smelters, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HHHH, were proposed on May 26, 2000 (65 FR 34251), and promulgated on April 11, 2002 (67 FR 17823).

Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise in subpart HHHH. This standard requires sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative; bag leak detection system alarms, including corrective actions; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and calibration; and opacity and visible emissions observations to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 14 with 14 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 2,983 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and spent 213 hours preparing each response.

The total annualized cost for continuous emissions monitoring was $2,333, which was comprised of capital/startup costs only. This cost is based on seven facilities installing continuous emission monitors. There were no operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(16) NESHAP for Asbestos (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M), EPA ICR Number 0111.11; OMB Control Number 2060-0101; expiration date March 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are: (1) Those where demolition and renovation of facilities are taking place, (2) those where disposal of asbestos is taking place, (3) those where asbestos milling, manufacturing and fabricating are taking place, (4) those where asbestos is being used on roadways, (5) those where asbestos waste is being converted, and (6) those where asbestos is used in insulation and sprayed on materials.

Abstract: The NESHAP for Asbestos was promulgated on November 20, 1990. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP at 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A and any changes or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M.

Owners or operators of the affected milling, manufacturing, fabricating, waste disposal, and waste conversion facilities must make the following one-time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

The recordkeeping requirements for the facilities mentioned above consist of the occurrence and duration of any startup and malfunction as described. They include the initial performance test results including information necessary to determine the conditions of the performance test, and performance test measurements and results, including monitoring each potential source of asbestos emissions for visible emissions to the outside air and inspecting air cleaning devices to ensure proper operation. Records of startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions should be noted as they occur. The reporting requirements for this industry include the initial notifications, performance test results and quarterly reports of instances when visible emissions are observed at any time during the quarter.

Owners and operators of demolitions and renovations must notify EPA in advance of the initiation of any asbestos removal work. The notice provides information on the dates of operation, the nature of the removal operation, the quantity of asbestos, and controls to be used. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to ensure compliance with the standard. Demolitions and renovations tend to be short-term projects and it is difficult at best to determine compliance with the standard once the project has been completed. Therefore, it is important that the delegated authority be notified of the changes as necessary when information in the original notification changes. Additionally, without notification of the changes, the Agency or delegated authority may inspect a demolition or renovation site where the project has been delayed. The demolition and renovation standard requires that a representative (such as a foreman or management-level person) trained in the provisions of the standard be present at the facility. Evidence that the required training has been completed is required in order to ensure compliance with this provision of the standard. The standard requires asbestos removal contractors that claim exemption from the wetting provisions because of freezing temperatures to take temperature readings throughout the day and record the information. The provisions require that all containers of asbestos waste be labeled including the name of the waste generator and the location of where the waste was generated. Owners or operators of demolitions and renovations are required to prepare and maintain records of each waste shipment as to its destination, the quantity of waste, and the date of shipment, and to furnish a copy of the record to disposal site owners or operators. The standard also requires that the generators of asbestos waste attempt to reconcile instances in which a signed copy of the waste shipment record is not received from the disposal site and that the generator notify the Agency if delivery to the disposal site cannot be confirmed.

Owners and operators of waste disposal sites are required to document all asbestos waste shipments that are received and send a copy of each record back to the generator. A record of the location and quantity of asbestos in the landfill is required as well as noting the presence and location of asbestos in the landfill property deed. Disposal site owners and operators have to report to EPA any discrepancies between the amount of waste designated on the waste shipment record and the amount actually received, as well as instances of improperly contained waste. An owner or operator of an operation in which asbestos-containing materials are spray-applied must notify EPA in advance of the spraying operation.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, and records.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 9,848 with 123,008 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 342,249 hours. Each responded provided 13 responses per year. The average recordkeeping and reporting burden for this ICR was 2.8 hours per response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(17) NSPS for Beverage Can Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WW); EPA ICR Number 0663.09; OMB Control Number 2060-0001; expiration date April 30, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of beverage can surface coating facilities.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Beverage Can Surface Coating were promulgated on August 25, 1983.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A that apply to all NSPS sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are the pollutants regulated under the standards.

Respondents potentially affected by this action are facilities in the beverage can surface coating industry including: each exterior base coat operation, each over varnish coating operation, and each inside spray coating operation. These standards apply to coating facilities commencing construction, modification or reconstruction after November 26, 1980.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make the following one-time-only reports: notification of the date of construction or reconstruction; notification of the anticipated and actual dates of a startup; notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate; notification of the date of the initial performance test; and results of the initial performance test. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Records must be maintained if the VOC content of coatings is below the specified limits. If one or more coatings are used, the volume weighted average of the total mass of VOC per volume of coating solids must be recorded. When thermal or catalytic incineration is performed, the owner shall keep records of each three-hour period during which the incinerator temperature averaged more than 28 degrees Celsius below the temperature of the most recent performance test at which destruction efficiency was determined. The owners or operators shall identify, record and submit quarterly reports of each instance in which the volume-weighted average of the total mass of VOC per volume of coating solids exceeded the standard. If there are no exceedances reports shall be submitted semiannually. Owners or operators are required to maintain a file of all measurements including the monitoring device, and performance testing measurements; all monitoring device calibration check adjustments and maintenance performed on these systems recorded in a permanent file.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 48 with 123 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 4,642 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.6 times per year and 38 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared quarterly and semiannually. The total annualized cost was $97,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $14,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $83,000.

(18) NSPS for Grain Elevators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DD); EPA ICR Number 1130.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0082; expiration date April 30, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are operations at grain elevators.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for grain elevators were proposed on January 18, 1977 and promulgated on August 3, 1978. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart DD. Owners or operators of the facilities must make one-time-only notifications. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to grain elevators provide information on the operation of the emissions control device and compliance with the opacity standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 132 with 155 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 259 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.2 times per year and 1.7 hours were spent preparing each response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(19) NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BB); EPA ICR Number 1055.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0021; expiration date April 30, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners or operators of kraft pulp mills.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Kraft Pulp Mills were promulgated on February 23, 1978.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A that apply to all NSPS sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities.

Respondents potentially affected by this action are affected facilities at kraft pulp mills including digester systems, brown stock washer systems, multiple effect evaporator systems, recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, lime kilns, and condensate stripper systems that were constructed, modified or reconstructed after September 24, 1976. In pulp mills where kraft pulping is combined with neutral sulfite semi-chemical pulping, the provisions of this subpart are applicable when any portion of the material charged to an affected facility is produced by the kraft pulping operation. A facility may be exempt from the total reduced sulfur (TRS) standard if the facility can demonstrate that TRS from a new, modified or reconstructed brown stock washer cannot be technically nor economically feasiblely controlled.

In addition to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements listed in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), sources are required to record, at least once per shift, the following specific parameters: The opacity of the gases discharged into the atmosphere from any recovery furnace; the concentration of TRS emissions on a dry basis and the percent of oxygen by volume on a dry basis in the gases discharged into the atmosphere; for an incinerator, the combustion temperature at the point of incineration of effluent gases being emitted by the affected facilities; and for any lime kiln or melt discharge tank using a scrubber emission control device, the pressure loss of the gas stream through the control equipment and the scrubbing liquid pressure to the control equipment. Sources are also required to record on a daily basis 12-hour average TRS concentrations and oxygen concentrations (for the recovery furnace and lime kiln) for two consecutive periods of each operating.

Sources must report semiannually measurements of excess emissions as defined by the standard for the applicable affected facility.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 92 with 194 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 12,107 hours. On the average, each respondent reported approximately 2.1 times per year and 62 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden for this collection of information was $3,144,000. This included an annual cost of $300,000 associated with capital/startup costs and $2,844,000 associated with the annual operation and maintenance costs.

(20) NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HH); EPA ICR Number 1167.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0063; expiration date April 30, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are rotary lime kiln used in lime manufacturing.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for the standards published at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart HH were proposed on May 3, 1977, and promulgated on April 26, 1984. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH. The standards do not apply to facilities used in the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp mills. NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 55 with 106 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 4,434 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.9 times per year and 42 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $92,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $15,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $77,000.

(21) NSPS for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart I); EPA ICR Number 1127.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0083; expiration date April 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this standard are emission sources at hot mix asphalt facilities.

Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Hot Mix Asphalt Facilities were proposed on June 11, 1973, and promulgated on July 25, 1977.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart I. NSPS standards require sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to hot mix asphalt facilities include particulate matter and opacity monitoring. Semiannual reports of excess emissions are required. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 2,835 with 3,403 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 10,303 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.20 per year and spent three hours preparing each response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs in the previous ICR.

(22) NESHAP for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA); EPA ICR Number 1938.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0505; expiration date April 30, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are municipal solid waste landfills (MSW) that: (1) Have a design capacity of 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and 2.5 million cubic meters (m3), and (2) emit equal to or greater than 50 tons per year of nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC)or operate as bioreactors.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart AAAA) were proposed on November 7, 2000, and promulgated on January 16, 2003. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAA. Each owner or operator of an MSW landfill affected by the standard is required to submit semiannual compliance reports for control device operating parameters. Owners and operators of affected facilities also have to prepare a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 1,330 with 1,330 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 39,360 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and 30 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $13,000, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $13,000.

(23) NESHAP for the Wood Building Products Surface Coating Industry (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); Docket ID Number OECA-2005-0043; EPA ICR Number 2034.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0510; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of wood building products surface coating facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the wood building products surface coating industry were promulgated on May 28, 2003.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that apply to all NESHAP sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities, and notifications of compliance status.

Respondents are owners or operators of wood building products surface coating facilities. Respondents shall submit notifications and reports of initial and repeat performance test results. Facilities must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and submit semiannual reports of any event where the plan was not followed. Facilities must develop and implement an operations and maintenance plan and conduct and report the results of an annual combustion system inspection. Semiannual reports for periods of operation during which the monitoring parameters are exceeded or reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred also are required.

General requirements applicable to all NESHAP require records of applicability determinations; test results; exceedances; periods of startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions; monitoring records; and all other information needed to determine compliance with the applicable standard.

Subpart WWWW requires respondents to maintain records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each compliance period, mass fraction of organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction of coating solids. If an add-on control device is used, records will need to be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture device, destruction or removal efficiency of the control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records need to be kept of emission calculations, calculations, test results, and other supporting information.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 215 with 430 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 2,176 hours. On average, each respondent reported 2.0 times per year and 5 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $22,000 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $22,000 and no operation and maintenance costs.

(24) NESHAP for Reinforced Plastics Composites Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart WWWW); EPA ICR Number 1976.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0509; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: The entities affected by this action are fugitive emission sources at reinforced plastic composites (RPC) production facilities using resins, gel coats, and cleaning solvents.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for reinforced plastic composites (RPC) production operations and processes, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW, were proposed on August 2, 2001 (66 FR 40323), and promulgated on April 21, 2003 (68 FR 19375).

Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise in subpart WWWW. This standard requires sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative; bag leak detection system alarms, including corrective actions; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and calibration; and opacity and visible emissions observations to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard. Records of such measurements and actions are to be retained two years on-site of the required total five years.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 469 with 548 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 13,785 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.2 times per year and spent 25 hours preparing each response.

The total annualized cost for continuous emissions monitoring was $15,807 which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $15,807.

(25) NESHAP for Publicly Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVV), EPA ICR Number 1891.04, OMB Control Number 2060-0428, expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are publically owned treatment works (POTW) located at a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.

Abstract: The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Publically Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart VVV) were promulgated on October 26, 1999. Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise at subpart VVV. The standard requires that the respondents source submit applications for approval of construction or reconstruction. The information in the initial notification and the application for construction or reconstruction. Respondents are also required to submit one-time reports of (1) start of construction for new facilities and (2) anticipated and actual start-up dates for new facilities. Subpart VVV also requires affected sources to submit a notification of compliance status. This notification must be signed by a responsible company official who certifies its accuracy and certifies that the source has complied with the standards.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection were six with six responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 216 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and 36 hours were spent preparing each response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated wit this ICR.

(26) NESHAP for Metal Furniture Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RRRR); EPA ICR Number 1952.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0518; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of metal furniture surface coating facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Metal Furniture Surface Coating were promulgated on May 23,2003.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that apply to all NESHAP sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities, and notifications of compliance status.

Respondents are owners or operators of metal furniture surface coating facilities. Respondents shall submit notifications and reports of performance test results. Facilities must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and submit semiannual reports of any event where the plan was not followed. Facilities must develop and implement an operations and maintenance plan and conduct and report the results of an annual combustion system inspection. Semiannual reports for periods of operation during which the monitoring parameters are exceeded (or reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred) also are required.

General requirements applicable to all NESHAP require records of applicability determinations; test results; exceedances; periods of startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions; monitoring records; and all other information needed to determine compliance with the applicable standard.

Subpart RRRR requires respondents to maintain records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each monthly compliance period, mass fraction organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction solids. If an add-on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each emission calculation for each monthly compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 576 with 576 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 45,672 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and 79 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(27) NESHAP for Asphalt Processing and Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart LLLLL); EPA ICR Number 2029.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0520; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities.

Abstract: Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless specified otherwise in subpart LLLLL. This standard requires sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative; bag leak detection system alarms, including corrective actions; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and calibration; and opacity and visible emissions observations to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 22 with 32 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 1,962 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.5 times per year and 61 hours were spent preparing each response.

The total annualized cost was $277,689, which was comprised of no capital/startup costs and operation and maintenance costs of $277,689.

(28) NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM); EPA ICR Number 2027.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0516; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are flexible polyurethane foam fabrication operations.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication (40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM) were proposed on August 8, 2001, and promulgated on April 14, 2003. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMMMM. For the purposes of this standard, flexible polyurethane foam fabrication is divided into two subcategories: (1) Loop slitter adhesive use and (2) flame lamination. For existing flame lamination facilities, there are no emission limits or monitoring, inspection, reporting, and recordkeeping (MIRR) requirements except for submission of an initial notification. Therefore, each existing flame lamination facilities submits an initial notification and does not perform any other MIRR activities. Flame lamination facilities perform all the activities necessary to comply with the emission limit and MIRR requirements for new flame lamination sources.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was nine with 15 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 1,211 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.7 times per year and 81 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $3,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $1,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $2,000.

(29) NESHAP for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ); EPA ICR Number 1951.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0511; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are paper and other web coating operations.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Paper and Other Web Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJ) were proposed on September 13, 2000, and promulgated on December 4, 2002. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 61, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ.

This standard requires sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative and to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 441 with 1,477 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 41,462 hours. On average, each respondent reported 3.3 times per year and 28 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $2,928,000 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $2,249,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $679,000.

(30) NESHAP for Coke Oven Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart CCCCC); EPA ICR Number 1995.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0521; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this standard are coke oven batteries.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, published at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC, were proposed on July 3, 2001 (66 FR 35325), and promulgated on April 14, 2003 (68 FR 18007). Subsequently, the standard has been revised on several occasions (i.e., through corrections and direct final standard amendments) including April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19885), October 13, 2004 (69 FR 60813 and 69 FR 60837), and January 10, 2005 (70 FR 1670).

Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, the General Provisions, unless as specified otherwise in 40 CFR part 63, subpart CCCCC. This standard requires the respondents to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative; bag leak detection system alarms, including corrective actions; parametric monitoring data; system maintenance and calibration; and opacity and visible emissions observations to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was six with 30 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 2,209 hours. On average, each respondent reported 5.0 times per year and spent 74 hours preparing each response.

The total annualized cost was $83,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $32,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $51,000.

(31) NESHAP for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and Other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO); EPA ICR Number 2071.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0522; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are fabric and other textiles printing, coating and dyeing operations.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Printing, Coating and Dyeing of Fabrics and other Textiles (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart OOOO) were proposed on July 11, 2002, promulgated on May 29, 2003 and amended on August 4, 2004. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOOO.

This standard requires sources to submit initial notifications, conduct performance tests, and submit periodic reports. In addition, sources are required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility; any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative and to demonstrate initial and ongoing compliance with the standard.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 138 with 222 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 29,491 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.6 times per year and 133 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $141,000 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $136,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $5,000.

(32) NESHAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS); EPA ICR Number 2040.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0515; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are refractory products manufacturing facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS) were proposed on June 20, 2002, promulgated on April 16, 2003. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS. Respondents must submit one-time notifications of applicability and reports on initial performance test results. Plants must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan; develop and implement an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan; and submit semiannual reports of any event where the plans were not followed.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was eight with 24 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 726 hours. On average, each respondent reported 3.0 times per year and 30 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $46,000 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $45,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $1,000.

(33) NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ); EPA ICR Number 2022.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0508; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are brick and structural clay manufacturing facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Manufacturing (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ) were proposed on July 22, 2002, promulgated on May 16, 2003. The affected entities are subject to the General Provision of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ. The standard applies to existing large tunnel kilns. The standard also applies to all new or reconstructed tunnel kilns regardless of size. However, the emission limits in the standard are different for new small and new large tunnel kilns. Small tunnel kilns have design capacities of less than 10 tons per hour of fired product, while large tunnel kilns have design capacities greater than or equal to 10 tons per hour of fired product. Respondents must submit one-time notifications of applicability and reports on initial performance test results. Plants must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and submit semiannual reports of any event where the plan was not followed. Respondents must also develop and implement an operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan covering each affected source and each emission control device used for compliance with the standard. Semiannual reports for periods of emission limitation deviations (or reports certifying that no deviations have occurred) also are required.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 77 with 74 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 17,471 hours. On average, each respondent reported 1.0 times per year and 236 hours were spent preparing each response. The total annualized cost was $120,000 which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $115,000 and operation and maintenance costs of $5,000.

(34) NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF); EPA ICR Number 1541.08; OMB Control Number 2060-0183; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of chemical manufacturing plants, coke by-product recovery plants, and petroleum refineries, as well as owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR part 61, subpart FF) were promulgated on March 7, 1990. The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart A and any changes, or additions to the General Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make one-time-only notifications. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Monitoring requirements specific to Benzene Waste Operations provide information on the operation of the vapor control device and compliance with the standard. Quarterly reports of excess emissions are required.

For this standard, there is a tiered threshold for burden. Facilities managing waste containing less than 1 megagram of benzene must simply certify to that affect and maintain documentation to support their finding. Facilities managing more than 1 megagram and less than 10 megagrams of benzene-containing waste must prepare an initial certification, test annually to verify that their waste stream still falls within this range and maintain documentation to support these findings. Finally, facilities managing more than 10 megagrams of waste must submit quarterly and annual reports documenting the results of continuous monitoring.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 240 with 240 responses per year with a total burden of 16,626 hours. Each respondent report 1.0 times per year. The average recordkeeping and reporting burden for this ICR was 71 hours per response. There were no capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR.

(35) NESHAP for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances (40 CFR part 63, subpart NNNN); Leonard Lazarus of the Office of Compliance at (202) 564-6369 or via E-mail to: lazarus.leonard@epa.gov; EPA ICR Number 1954.03; OMB Control Number 2060-0457; expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are owners and operators of large household and commercial appliance surface coating facilities.

Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Surface Coating of Large Household and Commercial Appliances were promulgated on July 23, 2002.

The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that apply to all NESHAP sources. These requirements include recordkeeping and reporting for startup, shutdown, malfunctions, and semiannual reporting. Exceptions to the General Provisions for this source category are delineated in the standard and include initial notifications to the Agency for new, reconstructed and existing affected entities, and notifications of compliance status.

Respondents are owners or operators of large household and commercial appliance surface coating facilities. Respondents shall submit notifications (where applicable) and reports of initial and repeat performance test results. Facilities must develop and implement a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and submit semiannual reports of any event where the plan was not followed. Facilities must develop and implement an operations and maintenance plan and conduct and report the results of an annual combustion system inspection. Semiannual reports for periods of operation during which the monitoring parameters are exceeded (or reports certifying that no exceedances have occurred) also are required.

General requirements applicable to all NESHAP require records of applicability determinations; test results; exceedances; periods of startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions; monitoring records; and all other information needed to determine compliance with the applicable standard.

Subpart NNNN requires respondents to maintain records of all coatings, thinners, and cleaning materials data and calculations used to determine compliance. This information includes the volume used during each monthly compliance period, mass fraction organic HAP, density, and, for coatings only, volume fraction of coating solids. If an add-on control device is used, records must be kept of the capture efficiency of the capture system, destruction or removal efficiency of the add-on control device, and the monitored operating parameters. In addition, records must be kept of each emission calculation for each monthly compliance period and all data, calculations, test results, and other supporting information.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection was 82 with 16 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 7,737 hours. On average, each respondent reported 0.2 times per year and 484 hours were spent preparing each response. The responses were prepared semiannually. The total annualized cost was $3,000, which was comprised of capital/startup costs of $0 and operation and maintenance costs of $3,000.

(36) State and Federal Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ce and 40 CFR Part 62, Subpart HHH), EPA ICR Number 1899.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0422, expiration date May 31, 2006.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators (HMIWI).

Abstract: State and Federal Emission Guidelines for Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators were promulgated on September 15, 1997 (40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce) and August 15, 2000 (40 CFR part 60, subpart HHH). Owners and operators of affected sources are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, the General Provisions, or 40 CFR part 62, subpart A unless specified otherwise at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ce or 40 CFR part 62, subpart HHH. HMIWIs for which construction was commenced on or before June 20, 1996, and burning hospital waste and/or medical infectious waste are subject to specific reporting and recording keeping requirements. Notification reports are required related to the construction, reconstruction, or modification of an HMIWI. Also required are one-time-only reports related to initial performance test data and continuous measurements of site-specific operating parameters. Annual compliance reports are required related to a variety of site-specific operating parameters, including exceedances of applicable limits. Semiannual compliance reports are required related to emission rate or operating parameter data that were not obtained when exceedances of applicable limits occurred.

Co-fired combustors and incinerators burning only pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic waste are required to submit notification reports of an exemption claim, and an estimate of the relative amounts of waste and fuels to be combusted. Co-fired combustors and incinerators are also required to maintain records on a calendar quarter basis of the weight of hospital waste combusted, the weight of medical/infectious waste combusted, and the weight of all other fuels combusted at the co-fired combustor. Incinerators burning only pathological, low-level radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic waste are also required to maintain records of the periods of time when only pathological waste, low-level radioactive waste, and/or chemotherapeutic waste is burned.

Burden Statement: In the previously approved ICR, the estimated number of respondents for this information collection were 189 with 645 responses per year. The annual industry reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information was 105,228 hours. On average, each respondent reported 3.4 times per year and 163 hours were spent preparing each response. There were no capital/startup costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR. However, the operation and maintenance costs associated with continuous emission monitoring in the previous ICR were estimated to be $295,407.

The EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12. On February 25, 2005 (70 FR 9304), EPA sought comments on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). The EPA has addressed the comments received.

The EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0049, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is (202) 566-1742. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above.

Any comments related to this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice. The EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EDOCKET as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EDOCKET. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Although identified as an item in the official docket, information claimed as CBI, or whose disclosure is otherwise restricted by statute, is not included in the official public docket, and will not be available for public viewing in EDOCKET. For further information about the electronic docket, see EPA's Federal Register notice describing the electronic docket at 67 FR 38102 (May 31, 2002), or go to http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Title: National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR part 59, subpart D) (Renewal).

Abstract: The information collection includes initial reports, annual reporting, and recordkeeping necessary for EPA to ensure compliance with Federal standards for volatile organic compounds in architectural coatings. Respondents are manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings. Responses to the collection are mandatory under 40 CFR part 59, subpart D—National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings. All information submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B—Confidentiality of Business Information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 46 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Respondents/Affected Entities: Respondents to this information collection are manufacturers and importers of architectural coatings.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

Frequency of Response: Annual and occasional.

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 22,761.

Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,599,707, which includes $0 annualized capital/startup costs, $0 annual O&M costs, and $1,599,707 annual labor costs.

Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 650 hours in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This decrease is due to adjustments to the estimates.

Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter to NCDENR on April 29, 2005, stating that the MVEB in the submitted Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, and Winston-Salem carbon monoxide maintenance plan updates submitted on March 23, 2005, are adequate. This finding has also been announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm, (once there, click on the “Transportation Conformity” text icon, then look for Adequacy Review of SIP Submissions”). The adequate MVEB are provided in the following tables.

Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.

The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEB are adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 93.118(e)(4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if EPA finds a budget adequate, the Agency may later determine that the SIP itself is not approvable.

EPA has described the process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in guidance (May 14, 1999 memorandum entitled “Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision”). EPA has followed this guidance in making this adequacy determination. This guidance is incorporated into EPA's July 1, 2004, final rulemaking entitled “Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes.”

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to industry, trade associations, and non-governmental organizations that deal with and are interested in international chemicals management. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2005-0029. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

An agenda will be available two weeks prior to the meeting. Inter-sessional working documents are available at http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/meeting/intsession/default.htm. For general and background information on SAICM, see http://www.chem.unep.ch/saicm/default.htm. The meeting is open to the public.

You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI.

The purpose of the Draft Dioxin Inventory Update is to present an inventory of sources and environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds in the United States. This Draft is associated with three distinct reference years: 1987, 1995, and 2000. The presentation of information in this manner permits the ranking of sources by magnitude of annual release and allows for the evaluation of environmental trends over time.

The term “dioxin-like” includes congeners (chemical compounds) of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) having chlorine atoms in the 2,3,7,8 positions on the molecule, and certain coplanar-substituted polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). “Dioxin-like” refers to the fact that these compounds have similar chemical structure and physical-chemical properties and invoke a common battery of toxic responses. Because of their hydrophobic nature and resistance towards metabolism, these chemicals persist and bioaccumulate in fatty tissues of animals and humans. Consequently, the principal route of chronic population exposure is through the dietary consumption of animal fats, fish, shellfish, and dairy products. Dioxin-like compounds are persistent in soils and sediments, with environmental half-lives ranging from years to several decades.

The Draft Dioxin Inventory Update is an update of a previous external review draft report entitled, The Inventory of Sources of Dioxin in the United States (EPA/600/P-98/002Aa), dated April 1998. The 1998 draft inventory presented annual estimates of environmental releases for reference years 1987 and 1995. A meeting of scientific and engineering experts was convened June 3-4, 1998, to review the scientific soundness of EPA's dioxin inventory. Overall, the reviewers found the inventory report to be comprehensive and well documented and the “emission factor approach” that was used to develop the inventory to be scientifically defensible. The review committee recommended that EPA (a) take a less conservative approach for including data on emissions of dioxin-like compounds from sources, especially data from foreign countries and those found in the nonpayer-reviewed literature; (b) adopt a qualitative ranking system that clearly indicates the relative amount of uncertainty behind the calculations of annual releases of dioxin-like compounds; (c) present the inventory of sources and environmental releases specific to the reference years, because technologies and emissions of dioxin from sources changes over time; and (d) present the dioxin inventory as a summary table of sources and estimated annual releases, including quantifiable as well as poorly understood sources. The Draft Dioxin Inventory Update reflects comments made by the review committee and also represents an update with the inclusion of a third reference year, 2000.

One of the preliminary conclusions in the Draft Dioxin Inventory Update is that, between 1987 and 2000, there was an approximately 89% reduction in the release of dioxin-like compounds to the circulating environment of the United States from all known sources combined. Annual emission estimates (TEQDF−WHO98) of releases of CDDs/CDFs to air, water, and land from reasonably quantifiable sources are approximately 1,529 g in reference year 2000; 3,280 g in reference year 1995; and 13,962 g in reference year 1987. In 1987 and 1995, the leading sources of dioxin emissions to the U.S. environment were municipal waste combustors. The inventory also identifies bleached chlorine pulp and paper mills as a significant source of dioxin to the aquatic environment in 1987 but a minor source in 1995 and 2000. The Draft concludes that the major source of dioxin in 2000 was the uncontrolled burning of refuse in backyard burn barrels in rural areas of the United States.

The reduction in environmental releases of dioxin-like compounds from 1987 to 2000 is attributable to source-specific regulations, improvements in source technology, advancements in the pollution control technologies specific to controlling dioxin discharges and releases, and the voluntary actions of U.S. industries to reduce or prevent dioxin releases.

EPA has established an official public docket for information pertaining to the revision of the Draft Dioxin Inventory Update, Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0016. The official public docket is the collection of materials, excluding Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, that is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the Headquarters EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752; facsimile: (202) 566-1753; or e-mail: ORD.Docket@epa.gov.

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

Certain types of information will not be placed in E-Docket. Information claimed as CBI and other information with disclosure restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, also will not be available for public viewing in E-Docket. Copyrighted material will not be placed in E-Docket, but will be referenced there and available as printed material in the official public docket.

For people submitting public comments, please note that EPA's policy makes that information available for public viewing as received at the EPA Docket Center or in E-Docket. This policy applies to information submitted electronically or in paper form, except where restricted by copyright, CBI, or statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment 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 E-Docket. Physical objects will be photographed, where practical, and the photograph will be placed in E-Docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, include the appropriate docket identification number with your submission. Please adhere to the specified submitting period; public comments received or submitted past the closing date will be marked “late” and may only be considered if time permits.

If you submit public comments electronically, 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 these contact details on the outside of any submitted disk or CD-ROM, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD-ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the person submitting the public comments and allows EPA to contact you in case the Agency cannot read your submission due to technical difficulties, or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of the comment will be included as part of the comment placed in the official public docket and made available in E-Docket. If EPA cannot read what you submit due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, it may delay or prohibit EPA's consideration of your comments.

Electronic submission of comments via E-Docket is the preferred method for receiving comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EPA Dockets.” Once in the system, select “search,” and key in Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0016. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact details unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ORD.Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0016. 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 directly to the docket without going through EPA's E-Docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address, and it becomes part of the information in the official public docket and is made available in E-Docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD-ROM mailed to the OEI Docket mailing address. Files will be accepted in WordPerfect, Word, or PDF file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

If you provide comments in writing, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered consecutively, and three copies. For attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the main text, and submit an unbound original and three copies.

The GSAR provision at 552.219-72 requires a contractor (except other than small business concerns) to submit a subcontracting plan when a negotiated acquisition including construction, repair, and alterations and lease contracts (except those solicitations using simplified procedures) meets all four of the following conditions.

1. When the contracting officer anticipates receiving individual subcontracting plans (not commercial plans).

2. When award is based on trade-offs among cost or price and technical and/or management factors under FAR 15.101-1.

3. The acquisition is not a commercial item acquisition.

4. The acquisition offers more than minimal subcontracting opportunities.

Respondents: 1,020.

Responses Per Respondent: 1.

Hours Per Response: 12.

Total Burden Hours: 12,240.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0252, Preparation, Submission, and Negotiation of Subcontracting Plans, in all correspondence.

This information requirement consists of reports that do not impose collection burdens upon the public. These collections require information which is already available to the public at large or that is routinely exchanged by firms during the normal course of business. A general control number for these collections decreases the amount of paperwork generated by the approval process. Since May 10, 1992, GSA has published two rules in the Federal Register that fall under OMB Information Collection number 3090-0250: APD 2800.12A, CHGE 25, Implementation of Public Law 99-506, 56 FR 29442, June 27, 1991; and APD 2800.12A, CHGE 75, Industrial Funding Fee, 62 FR 38475, July 18, 1997.

None.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0250, Zero Burden Information Collection Reports, in all correspondence.

The clause at GSAR 552.238-75, Price Reductions, used in multiple award schedule contracts ensures that the Government maintains its relationship with the contractor’s customer or category of customers, upon which the contract is predicated.

Number of Respondents: 16,680.

Total Annual Responses: 33,360.

Average hours per response: 7.5 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 250,200.

Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 3090-0235, Price Reductions Clause, in all correspondence.

Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Health, as the Director of the National Vaccine Program, on matters related to the program's responsibilities.

Topics to be discussed at the meeting include vaccine supply, adolescent immunization, influenza, and pandemic influenza preparedness. New members will be welcomed to the Committee and updates will be given by various subcommittees and working groups. A tentative agenda will be made available on or about May 15, 2005, for review on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the Humphrey Building. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Any members of the public who wish to have printed material distributed to NVAC members should submit materials to the Executive Secretary, NVAC, through the contact person listed above prior to close of business May 31, 2005. Preregistration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should e-mail nvac@osophs.dhhs.gov.