Title: CSREES Proposal Review Process.

OMB Number: 0524-0041.

Expiration Date of Current Approval: 06/30/2006.

Type of Request: Intent to seek approval for the revision of a currently approved information collection for three years.

Abstract: CSREES is responsible for performing a review of proposals submitted to CSREES competitive award programs in accordance with section 103(a) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(a). Reviews are undertaken to ensure that projects supported by CSREES are of high quality and are consistent with the goals and requirements of the funding program.

Proposals submitted to CSREES undergo a programmatic evaluation to determine worthiness of Federal support. The evaluations consist of a peer panel review and may also entail an assessment by Federal employees and mail-in (ad-hoc) reviews.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected from the evaluations is used to support CSREES grant programs. CSREES uses the results of each proposal evaluation to determine whether a proposal should be declined or recommended for award. When CSREES has rendered a decision, copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers and summaries of review panel deliberations, if any, are provided to the submitting Project Director.

Given the highly technical nature of many of these proposals, the quality of the peer review greatly depends on the appropriate matching of the subject matter of the proposal with the technical expertise of the potential reviewer. In order to obtain this information, an electronic questionnaire is used to collect information about potential panel and ad-hoc reviewers. If the reviewer is already in our database, the questionnaire asks potential reviewers to update their basic biographical information including address, contact information, professional expertise, and their availability to review for CSREES in the future. New reviewers are prompted to complete the questionnaire. This information has been invaluable in the CSREES review process, which has been recognized by the grantee and grantor community for its quality.

The applications and associated materials made available to reviewers, as well as the discussions that take place during panel review meetings are strictly confidential and are not to be disclosed to or discussed with anyone who has not officially been designated to participate in the review process. While each panelist certifies when preparing a review that they do not have a conflict of interest with a particular application and will maintain its confidentiality in the Peer Review System, CSREES collects a certification of the panelist intent at the time of the panel review proceedings to emphasize and reinforce confidentiality not only of applications and reviews but also panel discussions. On the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form, the panelists affirm they understand the conflict of interest guidelines and will not be involved in the review of the application(s) where a conflict exists. Panelists also affirm their intent to maintain the confidentiality of the panel process and not disclose to another individual any information related to the peer review or use any information for personal benefit.

Estimate of Burden: CSREES estimates that anywhere from one hour to twenty hours may be required to review a proposal. Approximately five hours are required to review an average proposal. Each proposal receives an average of four reviews, accounting for an annual burden of 20 hours per proposal. CSREES estimates it receives 4,600 proposals each year. The total annual burden in reviewing proposals is 92,000 hours. CSREES estimates that the potential reviewer questionnaire takes 10 minutes to complete. The database consists of approximately 50,000 reviewers. The total annual burden on reviewers completing the questionnaire is 8,330 hours. CSREES estimates that the potential Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Certification Form takes 10 minutes to complete. The agency has approximately 1,000 panelists each year. The total annual burden of the certification form is 167 hours. The total annual burden of these components of the entire review process is 100,497 hours.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request to OMB for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

AECI proposes to construct and operate a nominal 660-megawatt coal-based electric generating facility at one of two sites in northwest Missouri. Its proposed site is just west of Norborne, Missouri, in Carroll County. The alternate site is west of Big Lake, Missouri, along the Missouri River and just south of U.S. Highway 159 in Holt County. Fuel will be supplied to the plant at either site by rail; competing rail options will be evaluated.

Construction of the project at either site will require the construction of new transmission facilities. Substation upgrades and approximately 135 miles of 345-kV transmission line would be required to connect the new plant to AECI's transmission system. For the proposed Norborne site, one line would go east to the existing Thomas Hill Substation, and one line would go south to Sedalia and then to a new substation in eastern Benton County. For the Holt County site, a double circuit 345-kV line would be required from the plant to the Fairport Substation in DeKalb County and a single circuit 345-kV line from the Fairport Substation to a new substation near Orrick, Missouri, in southwest Ray County. AECI's schedule calls for these facilities to be in commercial operation by May 2011.

Alternatives to be considered by RUS include no action, purchased power, renewable energy sources, distributed generation, and alternative site locations. Comments regarding the proposed project may be submitted (orally or in writing) at the public scoping meetings or in writing no later than September 26, 2005 to RUS at the address provided in this notice.

RUS will use input provided by government agencies, private organizations, and the public in the preparation of a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be available for review and comment for 45 days. A Final EIS will then be prepared that considers all comments received. The Final EIS will be available for review and comment for 30 days. Following the 30-day comment period, RUS will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD). Notices announcing the availability of the Draft and Final EIS and the ROD will be published in the Federal Register and in local newspapers.

Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with all relevant Federal, State and local environmental laws and regulations and completion of the environmental review requirements as prescribed in the RUS Environmental Policies and Procedures (7 CFR part 1794).

The Antitrust Modernization Commission was established to “examine whether the need exists to modernize the antitrust laws and to identify and study related issues.” Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1856. In conducting its review of the antitrust laws, the Commission is required to “solicit the views of all parties concerned with the operation of the antitrust laws.” Id. By this request for comments, the Commission seeks to provide a full opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input regarding certain issues selected for Commission study. From time to time, the Commission may issue additional requests for comment on issues selected for study.

Comments should be submitted in written form. Comments should identify the topic to which it relates. Comments need not address every question within the topic. Comments exceeding 1500 words should include a brief (less than 250 word) summary. Commenters may submit additional background materials (such as articles, data, or other information) relating to the topic by separate attachment.

Comments should identify the person or organization submitting the comments. If comments are submitted by an organization, the submission should identify a contact person within the organization. Comments should include the following contact information for the submitter: an address, telephone number, and e-mail address (if available). Comments submitted to the Commission will be made available to the public in accordance with federal laws.

Comments may be submitted either in hard copy or electronic form. Electronic submissions may be sent by electronic mail to comments@amc.gov . Comments submitted in hard copy should be delivered to the address specified above, and should enclose, if possible, a CD-ROM or a 3 1/2 -inch computer diskette containing an electronic copy of the comment. The Commission prefers to receive electronic documents (whether by e-mail or on CD-ROM/diskette) in portable document format (.pdf), but also will accept comments in Microsoft Word format.

The AMC has issued this request for comments pursuant to its authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Antitrust Modernization Commission Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-273, § 11053, 116 Stat. 1758, 1856; Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., § 10(a)(3).

The Commission requests comment on the following topic.

1. In setting corporate fines for criminal Sherman Act violations, should there be a means for differentiation based on differences in the severity or culpability of the behavior?

A. Do the Sentencing Guidelines provide an adequate method of distinguishing between violations with differing degrees of culpability? For example, should the Sentencing Guidelines provide distinctions between different types of antitrust crimes ( e.g. , price fixing versus monopolization)?

B. The Sentencing Guidelines use 20% of the volume of commerce affected as the starting point for computation of corporate antitrust fines. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2R1.1 (2004). Does the volume of commerce provide an adequate measure for setting fines? If not, what other measure(s) or methods would provide a more appropriate way for the Guidelines to establish fine levels?

2. The Sherman Act provides for a maximum fine of $100 million (or, previously, $10 million). The government may seek criminal fines in excess of that maximum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571(d).

A. Should “twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss” as provided in Section 3571(d) be calculated based on the gain or loss from all coconspirator sales or on only the defendant's sales?

B. Should fines above the statutory maximum, and thus limited by Section 3571(d), be based on 20% of gross sales as provided for in the Sentencing Guidelines, as they are for fines below the statutory maximum, or should they be calculated differently? If differently, how should they be calculated?

On July 1, 2004, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order (69 FR 39903). On July 30, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), FMC requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Shanghai AJ Import and Export Corporation (Shanghai AJ).

On September 22, 2004, the Department published a notice of initiation of this administrative review (69 FR 56745). On March 25, 2005, the Department extended the due date for the preliminary results of this review to August 1, 2005 (70 FR 15293).

On October 13, 2004, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Shanghai AJ and its producer, Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd. (Degussa-AJ), collectively Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ submitted timely responses to the questionnaire in November and December 2004. We issued supplemental questionnaires in March, April, May, and June 2005, and received timely responses to each from Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ.

On June 10, 2005, FMC submitted publicly available information for consideration in valuing the factors of production. Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ submitted information for this purpose on June 20 and 27, 2005. FMC submitted rebuttal comments on June 29 and July 8, 2005.

The products covered by this review are persulfates, including ammonium, potassium, and sodium persulfates. The chemical formula for these persulfates are, respectively, (NH 4 ) 2 S 2 O 8 , K 2 S 2 O 8 , and Na 2 S 2 O 8 . Potassium persulfates are currently classifiable under subheading 2833.40.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Sodium persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheading 2833.40.20. Ammonium and other persulfates are classifiable under HTSUS subheadings 2833.40.50 and 2833.40.60. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we verified information provided by Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ. We used standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the producer's and exporter's facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. The Department conducted the verification at Degussa-AJ's facilities near Shanghai from July 4 through July 6, 2005, and at Shanghai AJ's facilities in Shanghai from July 7 through July 8, 2005. Our verification results are outlined in the verification reports for these two companies. See Memorandum to the File Re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Persulfates from the People's Republic of China - Verification of Shanghai AJ Import & Export Corporation and Degussa-AJ (Shanghai) Initiators Co., Ltd., dated August 1, 2005.

Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act provides that the Department shall apply “facts otherwise available” if, inter alia , necessary information is not on the record or an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested, (B) fails to provide information within the deadlines established, or in the form and manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified as provided by section 782(i) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act further provides that the Department may use an adverse inference in applying the facts otherwise available when a party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information. Section 776(b) of the Act also authorizes the Department to use as adverse facts available (AFA) information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record.

For the reasons explained below, and pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(b) of the Act, the Department has determined to apply partial AFA for certain U.S. sales that Shanghai AJ failed to report. On October 12, 2004, the Department requested that Shanghai AJ report all sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR. In section A(4)(a) of the October 12, 2004, questionnaire, the Department requested that Shanghai AJ describe the date selected as the date of sale to be used in the POR. In section C of the questionnaire, the Department also requested that Shanghai AJ report the date of sale as defined in the Glossary of Terms at Appendix I, which states the Department will normally use the date of invoice, as recorded in the exporter's or producer's records kept in the ordinary course of business. On November 17, 2004, and December 1, 2004, Shanghai AJ submitted a questionnaire response to both sections A and C and responded that its date of sale is the date of invoice.

On March 17, 2005, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire for section A, requesting an explanation for Shanghai AJ's reasons for not choosing the date of the short-term contract as the date of sale, given that Shanghai AJ's original submission stated that it used short-term contracts and that there were rarely changes made to the terms of sale after this date. Shanghai AJ's April 7, 2005, response to the March 17, 2005, supplemental first noted that it had incorrectly described Shanghai AJ as using short-term contracts and that sales were made pursuant to purchase orders. Second, Shanghai AJ's response noted that approximately 40 percent of sales transactions during the POR experienced changes to quantities, destinations, and/or shipping dates between the time of the purchase order and issuance of the invoice. Also, Shanghai AJ's response indicated that “substantial terms of sale, especially sales quantity, were finalized at the time the commercial invoice was issued. Thus, Shanghai AJ believes the invoice date is the most appropriate date of sale pursuant to the definition of the date of sale.” On December 1, 2004, May 6, 2005, and June 7, 2005, Shanghai AJ submitted to the Department what it reported to be all sales of persulfates sold to the United States during the POR, based upon invoice date.

At the beginning of verification, Shanghai AJ provided the Department with its submission of clerical errors and minor corrections. However, during verification, the Department discovered three sales of persulfates to the United States during the POR which were not reported to the Department in either of Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses or its minor corrections. 1 Shanghai AJ explained that it did not report these sales, which it deemed outside the POR, because the sales invoices were reissued to a customer who had requested that all of its sales invoices be issued the same month as the shipment date. In this case, the shipment dates for these three sales were outside the POR. However, the original sales invoices were clearly dated within the POR and Shanghai AJ recorded these sales in its books and records based on the original invoice dates. Moreover, the Department verified that Shanghai AJ did not adjust its books and records for the reprinting of the sales invoices. Therefore, because Shanghai AJ withheld information the Department requested, that is the sales in question, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the Department is applying facts available to those transactions.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, upon having determined to apply facts available pursuant to the statutory requirements of the Act, the Department may use adverse inferences in selecting among the facts otherwise available if the Department determines that the respondent failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information from the Department. We have determined that Shanghai AJ has not acted to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information in this administrative review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that the “best of its ability” standard “requires the respondent to do the maximum it is able to do.” See Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States , 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2003) ( Nippon Steel ). The Department has determined that Shanghai AJ did not act to the best of its ability because it neither included nor notified the Department in a timely manner that it was not including these sales in its filing. This information was within Shanghai AJ's control. The company itself explained that the U.S. sales date should be based on invoice date. The company treated these sales as sales made pursuant to the original invoice date. Under these circumstances, it is fully reasonable for the Department to expect that Shanghai AJ would be forthcoming with this information, and that its failure to do so demonstrates that Shanghai AJ failed to put forth the maximum effort. Nippon Steel , 337 F.3d at 1382; see also Neuberg Fertigung GmbH v. United States , 797 F.Supp. 1020, 1024 (CIT 1992) (“{u}ltimately it is the respondent's responsibility to make sure that {Commerce} understands, and correctly uses, any information provided by the respondent.”)

Section 776(b) of the Act states that AFA may include information derived from the petition, the final determination, a previous administrative review, or other information placed on the record. As AFA for the preliminary results, and in accordance with section 776(b), the Department is applying the highest transaction margin for Shanghai AJ from the current administrative review to Shanghai AJ's unreported sales for the preliminary results.

The Department has treated the PRC as a non-market-economy (NME) country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews. See , e.g. , Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 34130 (June 18, 2004). A designation as an NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act.

It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China , 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) ( Sparklers ); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China , 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) ( Silicon Carbide ). Under this test, exporters in NME countries are entitled to separate, company-specific margins when they can demonstrate an absence of government control over exports, both in law ( de jure ) and in fact ( de facto ). Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of de jure absence of government control over export activities includes: 1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; 2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and 3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. De facto absence of government control over exports is based on four factors: 1) whether an exporter sets its own export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; 2) whether an exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or the financing of losses; 3) whether an exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and 4) whether an exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide , 59 FR at 22587, and Sparklers , 56 FR at 20589.

Based on a review of its responses, and the results of verification, we have concluded that Shanghai AJ conducts its export activities independently of control from central, provincial or local governments in the PRC. Shanghai AJ was established in 1994 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Shanghai Ai Jian Corporation (AJ Corp.). AJ Corp is a public company listed and traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. Shanghai AJ has placed on the record documents to demonstrate the absence of de jure control including its business license and the business license and a list of the shareholders of AJ Corp., as well as copies of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations and the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China . Other than limiting Shanghai AJ to activities referenced in its business license, we found no restrictive stipulations associated with its license. In addition, Article 16 of the PRC Enterprise Legal Person Registration Administrative Regulations expressly recognizes the independent legal status of every company that possesses its own business license, and grants to these enterprises the right to open bank accounts, conduct business activities, and sign contracts. The Foreign Trade Law grants autonomy to foreign trade operations in management decisions and establishes accountability for their own profits and losses. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have preliminarily found an absence of de jure control for Shanghai AJ.

With regard to de facto control, Shanghai AJ reported the following: (1) it sets prices to the United States through negotiations with customers and these prices are not subject to review by any government organization; (2) it does not coordinate with other exporters to set the price or determine to which market companies sell subject merchandise; (3) the PRC Chamber of Commerce does not coordinate the export activities of Shanghai AJ; (4) Shanghai AJ's managers have the authority to contractually bind the company to sell subject merchandise; (5) the general manager of Shanghai AJ is appointed by the managers of AJ Corp., Shanghai AJ's corporate parent; (6) there is no restriction on its use of export revenues; and (7) Shanghai AJ's managers ultimately determine the disposition of the company's profits and Shanghai AJ has not had a loss on export sales in the last two years. Additionally, Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses do not suggest that pricing is coordinated among exporters. Furthermore, our analysis of Shanghai AJ's questionnaire responses reveals no other information indicating government control of export activities. Therefore, based on the information provided, we preliminarily determine that there is an absence of de facto government control over Shanghai AJ's export functions and that Shanghai AJ has met the criteria for the application of separate rates.

In its November 7, 2004, submission, Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ requested clarification from the Department as to whether Degussa Initiators, LLC (Degussa USA), one of Shanghai AJ's U.S. customers, is considered an “affiliate” under the Department's regulations and whether it needed to report Degussa USA's sales of the subject merchandise during the POR. On March 17, 2005, the Department requested that Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ report Degussa USA's sales. Shanghai AJ/Degussa-AJ submitted Degussa USA's sales data on April 14 and May 11, 2005.

Based upon information on the record, we have determined that Shanghai AJ is affiliated with Degussa USA and we have included Degussa USA's sales in our margin calculations. For a full discussion of this issue, see Memorandum from Charles Riggle to Wendy J. Frankel Re: Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Persulfates from the People's Republic of China Affiliation, dated August 1, 2005 (Affiliation Memo).

For the price to the United States, we used, as appropriate, Export Price (EP) or Constructed Export Price (CEP) as defined in sections 772(a) and 772(b) of the Act, respectively. Section 772(a) of the Act defines EP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be sold) before the date of importation by the producer or exporter outside of the United States to an unaffiliated purchaser in the United States or to an unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to the United States, as adjusted under subsection 772(c) of the Act.

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP as the price at which the subject merchandise is first sold in the United States before or after the date of importation, by or for the account of the producer or exporter of such merchandise, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to an unaffiliated purchaser, as adjusted under subsections 772(c) and (d) of the Act. We based CEP on the applicable terms of sale through Degussa USA, Shanghai AJ's affiliate in the United States. See Affiliation Memo.

We calculated EP and CEP, as appropriate, based on the packed prices charged to the first unaffiliated customer in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we calculated the EP and CEP by deducting movement expenses, including inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. inland freight, warehousing, and duties, where appropriate. We valued those movement services provided by market-economy (ME) suppliers and paid for in a ME currency, using the actual expenses incurred. We valued those movement services provided by NME suppliers using surrogate Indian rates. For further discussion of our use of surrogate data in an NME proceeding, as well as selection of India as the appropriate surrogate country, see the Normal Value and Surrogate Values sections of this notice, below.

Section 772(d)(1) of the Act provides for additional adjustments to calculate CEP. Accordingly, where appropriate, we deducted indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) and direct selling expenses (credit) related to commercial activity in the United States. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, where applicable, we made an adjustment for CEP profit.

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that, in the case of an NME, the Department shall determine normal value (NV) using a factors-of-production (FOP) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. Because information on the record does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value and no party has argued otherwise, we calculated NV based on FOP in accordance with sections 773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408(c).

Because we are using surrogate country FOP prices to determine NV, section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires that the Department use values from an ME (surrogate) country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC and that is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. We have determined that India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Egypt are ME countries at a comparable level of economic development to that of the PRC. For a further discussion of our surrogate selection, see the March 7, 2005, memorandum entitled Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, which is available in the Department's Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce building. In addition, according to United Nations export statistics, we found that India exported 555,210 kilograms of comparable merchandise ( i.e. , persulfates based on HTS number 2833.40) in 2003 valued at USD 317,524. See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade. Therefore, India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Additionally, we are able to access Indian data that are contemporaneous with this POR. As in the previous review of this order, we have chosen India as the primary surrogate country and are using Indian prices to value the FOPs. See Memorandum from Tisha Loeper-Viti to Wendy J. Frankel, Preliminary Valuation of Factors of Production (August 1, 2005) (FOP Memo).

We selected, where possible, publicly available values from India that were average non-export values, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. Also, where we have relied upon import values, we have excluded imports from NME countries as well as from South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia. The Department has found that South Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies. The existence of these subsidies provides sufficient reason to believe or suspect that export prices from these countries may be subsidized. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields From the People's Republic of China , 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. Our practice of excluding subsidized prices has been upheld in China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation v. United States , 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1136 (CIT 2003).

To value certain material inputs, sulfuric acid and ammonium sulfate, we used per-kilogram values obtained from the Indian publication Chemical Weekly . We adjusted these values for taxes and to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory. To value anhydrous ammonia, potassium hydroxide, and caustic soda, we used per-kilogram import values obtained from the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India (MSFTI), as published by the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and available from World Trade Atlas , available at http://www.gtis.com/wta.htm. We adjusted these values to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory.

To value electricity, we used the 2000 electricity price data from International Energy Agency, Energy Prices and Taxes - Quarterly Statistics (Second Quarter 2003) . To value water, we used the Revised Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation water rates for June 1, 2003, available at http://www.midcindia.com/water_supply. To value coal, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory.

For labor, we used the regression-based wage rate for the PRC in “Expected Wages of Selected NME Countries,” available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.

For factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and profit values, we used the financial statements of two Indian producers of hydrogen peroxide, Asian Peroxides Ltd. and National Peroxide Ltd. 2 From this information, we were able to determine factory overhead as a percentage of the total raw materials, labor and energy (ML&E) costs; SG&A as a percentage of ML&E plus overhead ( i.e. , cost of manufacture); and the profit rate as a percentage of the cost of manufacture plus SG&A. The Department also used financial statements from these two companies in the 2002-2003 administrative review of persulfates from the PRC. See Persulfates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 70 FR 6836 (Feb. 9, 2005).

The respondent has placed on the record of the current review the financial statements of Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (Gujarat) and Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (Hindustan), both producers of hydrogen peroxide. We have preliminary determined not to use these financial statements. With respect to Hindustan, this company's financial statements indicate that it meets the definition of a “sick” company under the Sick Industrial Companies Act of India. It is the Department's policy to not use the financial statements of a “sick” company for calculating any of the surrogate financial ratios. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China , 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Therefore, we are not using Hindustan's financial statements in our calculations. With respect to Gujarat, we find that production of the comparable merchandise, hydrogen peroxide, comprises only 1.3 percent by volume of the company's total production. The Department has not had sufficient time to determine whether the balance of Gujarat's production is of merchandise that would also be considered comparable to persulfates. For these preliminary results, therefore, we have not used Gujarat's financial statements in our calculation of surrogate financial ratios for the respondent.

For packing materials, we used the per-kilogram values obtained from the MSFTI and made adjustments to account for freight costs incurred between the suppliers and the factory.

To value foreign brokerage and handling, we used an average of the brokerage and handling data reported in Essar Steel's February 28, 2005, public version response submitted in the 2003-2004 antidumping duty administrative review of Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India and Pidilite Industries' March 9, 2004, public version response submitted in the antidumping duty investigation of Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India. To value truck freight, we used the freight rates published by Indian Freight Exchange available at http://www.infreight.com. To value marine insurance, we used a price quote obtained from RJG Consultants and available at http://www.rjgconstultants.com.

Where necessary, we adjusted the surrogate values to reflect inflation/deflation using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as published on the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) website, available at http://www.rbi.org.in. See FOP Memo.

We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:

We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication date of this notice. See 19 CFR § 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with each argument a statement of the issue, a brief summary of the argument, and a table of authorities. Further, we would appreciate it if parties submitting written comments provided an additional copy of the public version of any such comments on a diskette. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). If requested, a hearing will be held 44 days after the publication of this notice or the first workday thereafter. The Department will publish a notice of the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written comments or hearing, within 120 days from publication of this notice.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate for each importer of subject merchandise. Within 15 days of the completion of this review, the Department will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise. We have calculated each importer's duty-assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total quantity of sales examined. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis , the importer-specific rate will be assessed uniformly on all entries made during the POR.

The following cash deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results for all shipments of persulfates from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for Shanghai AJ, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established in the final results of the review; (2) the cash deposit rates for any other companies that have separate rates established in the investigation or a previous administrative review of this case, but were not reviewed in this proceeding, will not change; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC rate, 119.02 percent, the PRC-wide rate established in the less than fair value investigation; and (4) for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

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

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

Since the publication of the preliminary results of this review ( see Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary Rescission of Review , 70 FR 17656 (April 7, 2005) (“ Preliminary Results ”)), the following events have occurred:

We invited interested parties to comment on the preliminary results of this review. On May 9, 2005, we received a case brief from the Carpenter Technology Corp., Crucible Specialty Metals, Electralloy Corp., Empire Specialty Steel, Inc., Slater Steels Corp., and the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO/CLC (collectively, “the petitioners”). On May 20, 2005, we received a rebuttal brief from UGITECH S.A. (“UGITECH”) (formerly known as Ugine Savoie-Imphy S.A.), an Italian exporter/producer of the subject merchandise. At the request of the petitioners, the Department held a public hearing on May 31, 2005.

For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( i.e. , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( i.e. , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections.

The stainless steel bar subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

The issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review is addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Stainless Steel Bar from Italy” from Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated August 5, 2005 (“ Decision Memorandum ”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. Attached to this notice as an appendix is a listing of the issue which parties have raised and to which we have responded in the Decision Memorandum . Parties can find a complete discussion of the issue raised in this review and the corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 of the main Department building (“CRU”). In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Preliminary Results , we are rescinding this review with respect to UGITECH, which reported that it made no shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. As stated in the Preliminary Results , we examined shipment data furnished by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and analyzed UGITECH's quantity and value of sales at verification. See Memorandum to the File , “ Verification of UGITECH S.A.'s No-Shipment Claim ,” (January 13, 2004) (“UGITECH VR”). Based on this information, and for the reasons set forth in the Decision Memorandum , we are satisfied that there were no U.S. shipments of subject merchandise from UGITECH during the POR.

Consistent with the Preliminary Results , we find that UGITECH is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes. Therefore, UGITECH will be assigned the same cash deposit rate with respect to the subject merchandise as the predecessor company, Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. ( i.e. , 33.00 percent). See Stainless Steel Bar from Italy: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 69 FR 32984 (June 14, 2004.

The cash deposit requirement for this review will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the Federal Register . This cash deposit rate shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review involving UGITECH. We will instruct CBP accordingly.

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

On April 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on stainless steel bar from France (70 FR 17411) ( Preliminary Results ). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results . On May 20 and 27, 2005, the parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs, respectively. We have conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

For purposes of this order, the term “stainless steel bar” includes articles of stainless steel in straight lengths that have been either hot-rolled, forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, having a uniform solid cross section along their whole length in the shape of circles, segments of circles, ovals, rectangles (including squares), triangles, hexagons, octagons, or other convex polygons. Stainless steel bar includes cold-finished stainless steel bars that are turned or ground in straight lengths, whether produced from hot-rolled bar or from straightened and cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that have indentations, ribs, grooves, or other deformations produced during the rolling process.

Except as specified above, the term does not include stainless steel semi-finished products, cut length flat-rolled products ( i.e. , cut length rolled products which if less than 4.75 mm in thickness have a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 mm or more in thickness having a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness), products that have been cut from stainless steel sheet, strip or plate, wire ( i.e. , cold-formed products in coils, of any uniform solid cross section along their whole length, which do not conform to the definition of flat-rolled products), and angles, shapes and sections.

The stainless steel bar subject to this order is currently classifiable under subheadings 7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

In the Preliminary Results , we determined that UGITECH is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. Neither party objected to our preliminary finding. Therefore, for the final results, we continue to find that UGITECH is the successor-in-interest to Ugine-Savoie Imphy S.A. for antidumping duty cash deposit purposes. We will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) accordingly.

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this antidumping duty administrative review are addressed in the August 4, 2005, Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Stainless Steel Bar from France ( Decision Memo ), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties have raised and to which we have responded, all of which are in the Decision Memo , is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

Changes from the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations which are detailed in the Decision Memo .

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentage exists:

On July 1, 2002, the Department published a CVD order on PET film from India. See Notice of Countervailing Duty Order: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India , 67 FR 44179 (July 1, 2002) ( PET Film Order ). On July 1, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 69 FR 39903 (July 1, 2004). On July 29, 2004, Jindal Polyester Limited/Jindal Poly Films Limited of India (Jindal) and Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex), Indian producers and exporters of subject merchandise, requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to their exports to the United States. On July 30, 2004, Dupont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film of America, Toray Plastics (America), and SKC America, Inc. (petitioners), requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to Polyplex, Jindal, Ester Industries Ltd. (Ester), Garware Polyester Limited (Garware), Flex Industries Ltd. (Flex), SRF Ltd. (SRF), and MTZ Polyesters Ltd. (MTZ). Also on July 30, 2004, Garware requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India with respect to its exports to the United States. On August 30, 2004, the Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on PET film from India covering Polyplex, Jindal, Ester, Garware, Flex, SRF and MTZ, for the period from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 52857 (August 30, 2004).

On July 29, 2004, Jindal also requested that the Department conduct a changed circumstances review of the CVD order on PET film from India in order to determine whether Jindal Poly Films Limited is the successor-in-interest to Jindal Polyester Limited. On September 13, 2004, the Department decided not to initiate the requested CVD changed circumstances review, and instead decided to examine the name change in the instant CVD administrative review of Jindal. See letter from the Department to Jindal regarding the request for a changed circumstances review, on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B-099 of the main Commerce building.

The Department issued questionnaires to the Government of India (GOI) and all seven respondents. On September 24, 2004, petitioners withdrew their requests for reviews of all seven respondents. On November 1, 2004, Garware withdrew its request to be reviewed. The Department has rescinded its review of all of the named respondents except Jindal and Polyplex. See the “Partial Rescission of Review” section below.

On November 4, 2004, in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.301(d)(4)(i)(B), petitioners timely submitted a new subsidy allegation. Petitioners alleged that respondents received countervailable benefits in the form of duty exemptions under the GOI's Advance License Program (ALP). The Department initially determined on December 10, 2004, that petitioners had failed to sufficiently support their allegation, but provided petitioners with an additional 10 days in which to provide further support of their allegation. See Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga, through Howard Smith, from the team regarding “New Subsidy Allegation” (December 10, 2004). On December 20, 2004, petitioners provided further support of their allegation. On January 4, 2005, Jindal submitted comments opposing the petitioners' allegation. On March 28, 2005, the Department determined that the petitioners had sufficiently supported their allegation, and initiated an investigation of the ALP. See Memorandum to Holly A. Kuga, through Howard Smith, from the team regarding “Advance License Program” (March 28, 2005) (ALP Initiation Memorandum). Throughout this administrative review, the Department has issued supplemental questionnaires to Jindal, Polyplex, and the GOI, and petitioners have submitted comments regarding the respondents' questionnaire responses.

For purposes of the order, the products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

As provided in 19 CFR § 351.213(d)(1), “the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Petitioners withdrew their review request, in its entirety, within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the instant administrative review. Additionally, Garware filed a timely withdrawal of its request to be reviewed. Because no other interested parties requested an administrative review of Garware, Ester, MTZ, SRF, or Flex, the Department is rescinding the instant administrative review of these companies. Although petitioners withdrew their request for a review of Jindal and Polyplex, these two companies timely requested reviews of their sales and thus, the Department has not rescinded its reviews of Jindal and Polyplex.

Under 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(i), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service for renewable physical assets of the industry under consideration (as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, and as updated by the Department of the Treasury). This presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets of the company or industry under investigation. Specifically, the party must establish that the difference between the AUL from the tables and the company-specific AUL or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to manufacture plastic film, such as PET film, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 9.5 years.

In the investigative segment of this proceeding, the Department used a company-specific AUL of 18 years for Polyplex. Because there is no new evidence on the record that would cause the Department to reconsider this decision, in this review, the Department will continue to use an AUL of 18 years in allocating Polyplex's non-recurring subsidies.

This is the first segment of this proceeding in which Jindal has participated. Since 1995, Jindal has depreciated its assets using a straight-line methodology over either 18 or 13.72 years. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(d)(2)(iii), Jindal calculated a company-specific AUL of 17 years. See Jindal's May 16, 2005, submission at exhibit 76. Absent any record evidence to the contrary, we have preliminarily determined to use an AUL of 17 years in allocating Jindal's non-recurring subsidies.

In accordance with 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(i) and consistent with the underlying investigation, for programs requiring the application of a short-term benchmark interest rate, we used as the benchmark the company-specific, weighted average short-term interest rate on comparable commercial loans, as reported by the respondents. Where the company did not report any comparable commercial short-term loans, we used a short term national average interest rate as our benchmark.

In calculating the benefit for rupee-denominated, pre- and post-shipment export financing loans, we used as a benchmark the weighted-average interest rate paid by the company on its inland bill discounting loans. In the most recently completed review of this proceeding, the Department determined that inland bill discounting loans are more comparable to pre- and post-shipment export financing loans than other types of short-term loans. See Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India , 69 FR 51063 (August 17, 2004) ( First PET Film Review - Final ), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum , in the section entitled “Benchmark Interest Rates for Short-term Loans,” and the Department's position in Comment 3. There is no information on the record of this review that would cause the Department to reconsider its decision regarding the pre-and post-shipment export financing loan benchmarks.

For Jindal's and Polyplex's pre-shipment and post-shipment export financing loans that are denominated in U.S. dollars, we used a dollar-denominated short-term interest rate as our benchmark in accordance with 19 CFR § 351.505. This is consistent with the approach taken in the previous segment of this proceeding. See First PET Film Review - Final (where we used U.S. dollar-denominated working capital demand loans (WCDL) as the benchmark).

Polyplex reported two types of company-specific commercial short-term U.S. dollar-denominated loans: (1) WCDLs and (2) a short-term loan from the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI). WCDLs and pre- and post-shipment export financing loans are used to finance both inventories and receivables, whereas the IDBI loan is not used in this manner. In accordance with our regulations, we have continued to use the weighted-average interest rate of the WCDLs as the benchmark interest rate for Polyplex's pre-shipment and post-shipment export financing loans that are denominated in U.S. dollars.

Jindal did not report any U.S. dollar-denominated short-term loans for the POR. As the Department has been unable to identify an appropriate national average dollar-denominated short-term interest rate for India, for this preliminary determination we have used as our benchmark a national average dollar-denominated short-term interest rate for the United States, as reported in the International Monetary Fund's publication International Financial Statistics (May 2004). This is consistent with the approach taken in Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final .

For programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate, or the application of a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate, we used, where available, a discount or benchmark rate equal to the company-specific, weighted-average interest rate on all comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans.

For those years for which we did not have company-specific information, we relied on a comparable rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate from the immediately preceding year as directed by 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(2)(iii). When there were no comparable rupee-denominated, long-term loans from commercial banks during either the year under consideration, or the preceding year, we used national average interest rates pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(ii) for private creditors as reported in the publication, International Financial Statistics (2003). This is consistent with the approach taken in this and other proceedings. See First PET Film Review - Final and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum , in the section entitled “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate.” See also, Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India , 70 FR 13460 (March 21, 2005) ( Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final Determination ). The Department applied rates from International Financial Statistics for 1995 for Jindal.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides short-term pre-shipment financing, or “packing credits,” to exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working capital purposes, i.e. , for purchasing raw materials, warehousing, packing, and transporting merchandise destined for exportation. Companies may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they may draw as needed. Limits on credit lines are established by commercial banks and are based on a company's creditworthiness and past export performance. Credit lines may be denominated either in Indian rupees or in a foreign currency. Companies that have pre-shipment credit lines typically pay interest on a quarterly basis on the outstanding balance of the account at the end of each period. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian companies must, by law, charge interest at rates determined by the RBI.

Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters qualify for this program by presenting their export documents to the lending bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of the goods to the date of realization of the proceeds from the sale to the overseas customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, exporters are required to realize proceeds from their export sales within 180 days after the date of shipment. Post-shipment financing is, therefore, a working capital program used to finance export receivables. In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period of no more than 180 days. If the loans are not repaid within the due date, the exporters lose the concessional interest rate on this financing.

In the investigation, the Department determined that the pre-and post-shipment export financing programs conferred countervailable subsidies on the subject merchandise because: (1) provision of the export financing constitutes a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act); (2) provision of the export financing confers benefits on the respondents under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act because the interest rates given under these programs are lower than commercially available interest rates; and, (3) these programs are specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act because they are contingent upon export performance. See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET Film) , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002) ( PET Film Final Determination ) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum) , at the section entitled “Pre-shipment and Post-shipment Export Financing.” No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of this determination. Therefore, for the purpose of these preliminary results, we continue to find this program countervailable.

The benefit conferred by the pre-and post-shipment loans is the difference between the amount of interest the company paid on the government loan and the amount of interest it would have paid on a comparable commercial loan. Because pre-shipment loans are tied to a company's total exports, we calculated the subsidy rate for these loans by dividing the total benefit by the value of each respondent's total exports during the POR. Because post-shipment loans are tied to shipments to a particular country, we divided the total benefit from the post-shipment loans used in sales to the United States by the value of each respondent's total exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. See 19 CFR § 351.525 (b)(4). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex and Jindal from pre-shipment export financing to be 0.10 and 0.12 percent ad valorem , respectively. We also preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex and Jindal from post-shipment export financing to be 0.21 and 0.15 percent ad valorem , respectively.

Under the Advance License Program (ALP), exporters may import, duty free, specified quantities of materials required to produce products that are subsequently exported. Companies, however, remain contingently liable for the unpaid duties until they have exported the finished products. The quantities of imported materials and exported finished products are linked through standard input-output norms (SIONs) established by the GOI. See GOI response to question seven in the April 21, 2005, submission. During the POR, Polyplex and Jindal used advance licenses to import certain goods duty free.

In the underlying investigation, the Department found that the ALP contained the same features as the ALP examined in Hot-Rolled from India , where the Department determined that advance licenses, which provided for duty exemptions on imported inputs consumed in the production process, were not countervailable because the system was reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, as required under section 351.518 of the Department's regulations. See PET Film Investigation Final at the section entitled “Programs Determined Not to Confer Subsidies;” see also Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India , 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001) ( Hot-Rolled Final Determination ). Petitioners, however, filed a timely new subsidy allegation with respect to the ALP, claiming that the ALP has undergone a number of significant changes since the underlying investigation, and requested that the Department investigate the new version of the program. After considering petitioners' allegation, the Department initiated an investigation of the revised ALP. For a discussion of the Department's decision to initiate an investigation of this program, See ALP Initiation Memorandum.

During the course of investigating the ALP in this administrative review, the Department requested that the GOI submit information regarding both the de jure changes in the policies and procedures related to the ALP and the industry-specific SIONs that are used to determine the amount of imported material required to produce each unit of exported PET film. With respect to the overall program, the Department requested information on the ALP laws and procedures as well as information regarding auditing and tracking activities, domestic suppliers, and deemed exports. With respect to the SIONs, the Department requested that the GOI report the date on which the PET film SIONs were calculated, provide copies of the documents evidencing the calculation of the PET film SIONs, and identify any requirements that the GOI review or revise the SIONs.

While the GOI asserted that the changes between the old 1997-2002 and the new 2002-2007 Export/Import Policy guidelines (under which the ALP regulations are enumerated) were minor, our analysis of the provisions in effect during the POR indicate that there are a number of aspects of the system that undermine its reasonableness and effectiveness. For instance, the GOI could not provide the Department with requested information demonstrating that certain aspects of the ALP were implemented and monitored as intended. The Department requested information on whether the GOI has ever carried out an examination or verification of any producer receiving an Advance License to ensure that inputs listed in the SIONs are actually consumed in the production of exported goods ( see question 31 in the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission). Moreover, the Department noted that if the GOI has carried out such an examination, it should identify when the examination took place and the results of the examination. Despite the Department's request, the GOI did not cite to any specific examination or verification of a producer in any industry. The Department also asked whether the GOI conducts audits that track inputs and exports under the ALP. While the GOI indicated that it monitors certain movements of inputs, it did not demonstrate that a mechanism exists to evaluate SIONs to determine whether they remain reasonable over time ( see question 35 in the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission). In fact, the GOI reported that there were no requirements that it review the SIONs and explained that if a company applies for the creation of a SION and the GOI fails to review the SION within four months of the application, the SION takes effect and all companies in the industry may use the untested SION. However, in its May 16, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response, the GOI stated that new regulations have been introduced as an attempt to address the lack of a requirement that the SIONs be reviewed periodically. See GOI response to questions one and five in the May 16, 2005, submission.

With respect to other systemic issues, the Department asked the GOI to provide information demonstrating that companies benefitting under the ALP are subject to penalties for claiming excessive credits or not meeting their export requirements. The GOI could not identify the number of companies in 2003 (or even one company) that either failed to meet export commitments under the ALP or was penalized for failing to meet the export requirements under the ALP. Additionally, the GOI was unable to provide any specific information regarding the number of companies that applied for, or received, an extension of time to meet their export commitment. In response to these systemic inquiries, the GOI acknowledged that it was unable to document that it had performed any such activities to ensure compliance with the program, noting that it does not maintain these sorts of records centrally. See the GOI's answers to questions 39 through 46 of its April 21, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response and its answers to questions 26 through 31 of its May 16, 2005, supplemental questionnaire response.

Furthermore, the record indicates that the ALP allows companies to meet their export requirements without physically exporting through the use of deemed exports. In reviewing the ten categories of sales/transactions considered deemed exports, we note that several, if not most, of the allowable categories do not appear to have even a tangential link to exports. According to the GOI, eight of the deemed export categories are considered categories of sales “similar to those of physical exports for the purpose of the ALS” (Advance License System). See GOI's answers to questions 53-55 of the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission. However, these allowable categories under the ALP include sales to entities such as domestic fertilizer plants, power plants and refineries, UN-funded projects, nuclear power projects, and “any project or purpose in respect of which the Ministry of Finance, by a notification, permits the import of such goods at zero customs duty.” See Exhibits 12 and 13 of the GOIs April 21, 2005, submission.

With respect to the PET film SIONs applied during the POR, the GOI could not produce documentation indicating: (1) when the PET film SIONs were originally calculated; (2) any documentation demonstrating that the process outlined in its regulations was actually applied in calculating the original PET film SIONs; or (3) any of the supporting documents used in calculating those SIONs. Further, the GOI reported that there were no requirements that it review the SIONs, although, as noted above, the GOI did provide information about possible changes to the ALP that took place after the POR, which may be relevant in subsequent administrative reviews.

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4), the Department will consider the entire amount of an exemption to confer a benefit unless: (1) the government in question applies a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, and the system or procedure is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended, or (2) absent a system that is reasonable and effectively applied, the government in question has carried out an examination to determine which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts. As discussed above, in light of the changes to the ALP in the Export/Import Policy guidelines that affected this administrative review period, the Department has reevaluated the ALP in its entirety to determine whether it meets the regulatory requirements enumerated above. The evidence on the record of this review does not demonstrate that the GOI applies a system or procedure to confirm which inputs are consumed in the production of the exported products and in what amounts, and that the ALP is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended. The GOI has failed to provide information demonstrating that the ALP was monitored and regulated effectively during the POR, as evidenced by the lack of information related to verification or implementation of extensions or penalties. In addition, the system allows for the availability of ALP benefits for a broad category of deemed exports that are not linked to the actual exportation of the subject merchandise, and provides for government discretion to bestow benefits under the program even more broadly. Finally, SIONs are a critical element of the ALP system, linking the amount of materials that may be imported duty-free to the exported finished products that have been produced with such inputs. The GOI could not provide the Department with its SION calculations for PET film or any documentation describing that the process outlined in its regulations was actually applied in calculating the original PET film SIONs. Thus, the Department cannot conclude that the system the GOI has in place with respect to the ALP is reasonable or is applied in a manner that is effective for the purposes intended.

Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the Advance License Program confers countervailable subsidy because: (1) a financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided under the program, as the GOI provides the respondents with an exemption of import duties; (2) the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended under 19 CFR § 351.519(a)(4), to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported products, and thus the entire amount of import duty exemption earned by the respondent constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(E) of the Act; and (3) this program is contingent upon export and, therefore, is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. However, if a party in a future proceeding is able to provide information with respect to the systemic deficiencies identified above, the Department will reevaluate the ALP to determine whether those deficiencies have been overcome.

Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524(c), exemptions of import duties on imports consumed in production provide a recurring benefit. Thus, we treated the benefit provided under the ALP as a recurring benefit. To calculate the subsidy rate, we subtracted from the total amount of exempted duties under the ALP during the POR as an allowable offset the actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act (in order to receive the benefits of the ALP, companies must pay application fees). We then divided the resulting net benefit by the total value of exports of PET film. We preliminarily determined the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex and Jindal under the ALP to be 0.63 and 6.82 percent ad valorem , respectively.

The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties on imports of capital goods used in the production of exported products. Under this program, producers may import capital equipment at reduced rates of duty by attempting to earn convertible foreign currency equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods within a period of eight years. If the company fails to meet the export obligation, the company is subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest.

In the underlying investigation, we determined that the import duty reduction provided under the EPCGS is a countervailable export subsidy because (1) it provides a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, (2) which also constitutes a benefit under section 771(5)(e). Because this program is contingent upon export performance, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See PET Film Final Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination , and accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum , at the section entitled “Analysis of Programs.” No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been provided in this review to warrant a reconsideration of this determination.

In cases where the GOI has formally waived import duties on capital equipment, we treat the full amount of the waived duty as a grant received in the year in which the GOI officially granted the waiver.

Normally, exemptions and excessive rebates of indirect taxes are considered to be recurring benefits and are recognized in the year of receipt. See 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(1). However, the Department's regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to allocate these types of benefits over a number of years. See 19 CFR § 351.524(c)(2). See also Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998) ( CVD Preamble ). In prior segments of this proceeding, we determined that the benefit received from the waiver of import duties under the EPCGS is tied to the purchase of capital assets and it is therefore appropriate to treat the waiver of duties as a non-recurring benefit. See PET Film Final Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination . No new information or evidence of changed circumstances have been presented in this administrative review to warrant reconsideration of these determinations.

In their questionnaire responses, Polyplex and Jindal reported all of their imports of capital equipment under EPCGS licenses and the application fees they paid to obtain those EPCGS licenses. In the investigation, we considered such fees to be an “. . . application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.” Therefore, these fees may be deducted from the value of the benefit when calculating the amount of the countervailable subsidy. See section 771(6)(A) of the Act. See also Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip (PET film) from India , 66 FR 53389 (October 22, 2001) (unchanged by the final determination). Nothing has changed in this administrative review to warrant reconsideration of that determination.

Polyplex and Jindal reported that they imported machinery under the EPCGS in the years prior to and during the POR. For the imported machinery for which Polyplex has met its export requirements, the GOI has completely waived import duties. For some of its machinery imports, however, Polyplex has not yet completed its export requirements as required under the program. Further, Jindal has not yet completed its export requirements for any of its imports of capital machinery. Therefore, although Polyplex and Jindal received an exemption from paying import duties when the capital machinery was imported, for certain licenses the final waiver on the obligation to repay the duties has not yet been granted by the GOI.

To calculate the benefit received from the waiver of the respondents' import duties on their capital equipment imports where the company's export obligation had been met, we considered the total amount of duties waived (net of application fees) to be the benefit. Further, consistent with the approach followed in the underlying investigation, we determined the year of receipt of the benefit to be the year in which the GOI formally waived the respondent company's outstanding import duties. See PET Film Final Determination . Next, we performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2) for each year in which the GOI granted the respondent an import duty waiver. Those waivers with face values in excess of 0.5 percent of each respondent's total export sales in the year in which the waivers were granted were allocated over Jindal's and Polyplex's company-specific AULs, while waivers with face values less 0.5 percent of each respondent's total export sales were expensed in the year of receipt. See “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above.

Although Polyplex submitted a notice to the GOI indicating that it may have met an export obligation on one of its EPCGS licenses, this notice was dated after the end of the POR. Consistent with our approach in the underlying investigation, the prior administrative review, and in the Hot-Rolled Final Determination , we will treat benefits under the EPCGS as a grant only when the GOI has issued a formal waiver applicable to the POR stating that the recipient has completed its export obligations and is waived from paying the outstanding import duties. See PET Film Final Determination . The statement from the GOI included in Exhibit 1 of Polyplex's March 21, 2005, questionnaire response is dated February 4, 2005. Because this date falls after the instant POR, the Department finds that the letter does not demonstrate that Polyplex met an export obligation with respect to the relevant license during the POR.

As noted above, import duty reductions that Polyplex and Jindal received on the imports of capital equipment for which they have not yet met export requirements, may have to be repaid to the GOI if the export requirements under the licenses are not met. Consistent with our practice and prior determinations, we will treat the unpaid import duty liability as an interest-free loan. See 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1); see also First PET Film Review - Final .

The amount of the unpaid duty liabilities to be treated as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or exemption for which the respondent applied, but, as of the end of the POR, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we find the benefit to be the interest that Polyplex and Jindal would have paid during the POR had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction or exemption at the time of importation. See PET Film Final Determination; see also Hot-Rolled Final Determination . Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( i.e. , the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time more than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods ( i.e. , under the EPCGS program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment expires eight years after importation of the capital good).

The benefit received under the EPCGS is the total amount of benefits received on waived duties and the total amount of benefits conferred on Polyplex and Jindal in the form of contingent liability loans. To calculate the net countervailable subsidy rate under this program, we divided the total benefits received by Jindal and Polyplex respectively on all EPCGS licenses containing imports of capital goods used in the production of subject merchandise during 2003 by the total value of each company's export sales of subject and non-subject merchandise PET film. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy for Polyplex and Jindal under the EPCGS to be 3.86 and 2.23 percent ad valorem , respectively.

Under section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the GOI allows exporters to exclude profits derived from export sales from their taxable income. In prior proceedings, the Department found this program to be a countervailable export subsidy, because it provided a financial contribution in the form of a tax exemption, which also constitutes a benefit. The program is specific because the subsidy is contingent upon export performance. See sections 771(5)(D) and (E) and 771(5A)(B) of the Act; see also Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000) and First PET Film Review - Final . No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this proceeding to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

To calculate the benefit under this program, we first calculated the total amount of income tax each company would have paid had it not claimed a tax deduction under section 80HHC during the POR and subtracted from this amount the income taxes actually paid. We then divided this benefit by the free-on-board (fob) value of each company's total exports consistent with 19 CFR § 351.525(b)(2). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy for Polyplex and Jindal under section 80HHC to be 2.64 and 0.25 percent ad valorem , respectively.

Polyplex received a capital infusion of Rs. 2,500,000 in 1989 from the GOI. This subsidy was discovered at verification during the investigation. See PET Film Final Determination . The Department determined at that time that there was insufficient time to establish whether the program is specific under section 771(5A)(D) of the Act. Thus, the Department stated its intention to reexamine the program in a future administrative review pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.311(c)(2). See PET Film Final Determination - Decision Memorandum at the section entitled “Programs Determined Not To Confer Subsidies.” Based on the information obtained during verification in the investigation, the Department determined that a financial contribution was provided by the GOI, pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act, and a benefit, in the amount of the capital subsidy, was received by Polyplex under section 771(E) of the Act.

In the first administrative review, the Department sent questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to determine whether the capital subsidy program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. Neither party was able to provide any information regarding the subsidy. As facts available, the Department determined that the subsidy was specific.

In the instant review, the Department again sent questionnaires to the GOI, and Polyplex, seeking information that would allow it to determine whether the program is specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. As in the first review, Polyplex and the GOI reported that they were unable to provide any information regarding the specificity of this program due to the considerable amount of time that has elapsed since the provision of the subsidy. As no new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented to warrant reconsideration of our determination in the previous segment of this proceeding, for the purpose of these preliminary results, we continue to find, as facts available, that the subsidy is specific under section 771(5A)(A) of the Act. See First PET Film Review - Final .

Because the benefit is provided through a capital infusion, pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.524 (c), this is a non-recurring benefit. Thus, in calculating the subsidy rate for this program, we performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2). Because the grant exceeded 0.5 percent of Polyplex's total sales in 1989, the year in which the capital infusion was received, the benefits were allocated over 18 years, the company-specific AUL. In allocating the benefits, we used the Department's standard allocation methodology for non-recurring subsidies under 19 CFR § 351.524(d). To calculate the net subsidy to Polyplex from this capital subsidy, we divided the benefit allocated to the POR by the company's total sales during the same period. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy provided to Polyplex under this program to be 0.01 percent ad valorem .

For the first time in this proceeding, one of the respondents in this review, Jindal, reported that it has been designated as an export oriented unit (EOU). Companies that are designated as an export oriented unit may receive the following types of assistance in exchange for committing to export all of the products they produce, excluding rejects and certain domestic sales, for five years: (1) duty-free importation of capital goods and raw materials; (2) reimbursement of central sales taxes (CST) paid on materials procured domestically; (3) purchase of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty; and (4) receipt of duty drawback on furnace oil procured from domestic oil companies. Jindal reported receiving benefits through the duty-free importation of capital goods, the reimbursement of CST paid on raw materials and capital goods procured domestically, and the purchase of materials and other inputs free of central excise duty. Jindal did not import raw materials or purchase furnace oil under the EOU program.

The Department previously determined that the EOU program is specific, within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act, because the receipt of benefits under this program is contingent upon export performance.

Under this program, an EOU is entitled to import, duty-free, capital goods used in the production of exported goods in exchange for committing to export all of the products they produce with the exception of sales in the Domestic Tariff Area over five years. The Department previously determined that the duty-free importation of capital goods provides a financial contribution and confers benefits equal to the amount of exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes ( see sections 771(5)(D) and (E) of the Act). See Bottle-Grade PET Resin Final Determination .

Jindal reported that it imported capital goods under this program, but as the EOU only commenced commercial production after the POR, Jindal had not yet been able to meet the export contingency and will owe the unpaid duties if the export requirements are not met. Upon Jindal meeting its export contingency, the Department will treat the unpaid duties as a grant. In the meantime, consistent with 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), until the contingent liability for the unpaid duties is officially waived by the GOI, we consider the unpaid duties to be an interest-free loan made to Jindal at the time of importation. We determined the benefit to be the interest that Jindal would have paid during the POR had it borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction or exemption at the time of importation. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( i.e. , the date of expiration of the time period to fulfill the export commitment) occurs at a point in time that is more than one year after the date of importation of the capital goods ( i.e. , under the EOU program, the time period for fulfilling the export commitment is more than one year after importation of the capital good). We used the weighted-average interest rate on all comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans for the year in which the capital good was imported as the benchmark. See the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section above for a discussion of the applicable benchmark.

The benefit for each year is the total amount of non-payment of interest on the unpaid duties. To calculate the subsidy rate, we divided the total amount of benefits under the program during 2003 by Jindal's total value of export sales. We preliminarily determined the net countervailable subsidy provided to Jindal through duty-free importation of capital goods under the EOU program to be 6.68 percent ad valorem .

The HIHWNMS Advisory Council was established in March 1996 to assure continued public participation in the management of the Sanctuary. Since its establishment, the Council has played a vital role in the decisions affecting the Sanctuary surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands.

The Council's twenty-four voting members represent a variety of local user groups, as well as the general public, plus ten local, State, and Federal governmental jurisdictions.

The Council is supported by three committees: A Research Committee chaired by the Research Representative, an Education Committee chaired by the Education Representative, and a Conservation Committee chaired by the Conservation Representative, each respectively dealing with matters concerning research, education, and resource protection.

The Council represents the coordination link between the Sanctuary and the State and Federal management agencies, user groups, researchers, educators, policy makers, and other various groups that help to focus efforts and attention on the humpback whale and its habitat around the main Hawaiian Islands.

The Council functions in an advisory capacity to the Sanctuary Manager and is instrumental in helping to develop policies and program goals, and to identify education, outreach, research, long-term monitoring, resource protection, and revenue enhancement priorities. The Council works in concert with the Sanctuary Manager by keeping him or her informed about issues of concern throughout the Sanctuary, offering recommendations on specific issues, and aiding the Manager in achieving the goals of the Sanctuary Program within the context of Hawaii's marine programs and policies.

The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).

The applicant proposes to annually capture up to 5 smalltooth sawfish using bottom longline gear. Animals would be sexed, measured, and tagged with a pop-up satellite archival tag. The research would provide information on the survival rates of smalltooth sawfish captured and released from commercial fishing gear; habitat for adult sawfish; and daily and seasonal movement patterns and migration corridors that could aid in reducing further fishery interactions. The research would be concentrated in areas offshore of the Marquesas Keys, Florida Keys, Florida. The permit would be issued for 5 years.

On October 13, 2004, the Committee received requests from the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the National Textile Association, SEAMS and UNITE HERE requesting that the Committee impose textile safeguard actions on imports from China of men's and boys' cotton and man-made fiber shirts, not knit (Category 340/640), man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses (Category 638/639), and man-made fiber trousers, slacks and shorts (Category 647/648), based on a threat of market disruption.

The Committee determined these requests provided the information necessary for the Committee to consider these requests and solicited public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public Comment on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China , 69 FR 64913 (Category 340/640), 64911 (Category 638/639) & 64915 (Category 647/48) (Nov. 9, 2004).

On December 30, 2004, the United States Court of International Trade preliminarily enjoined the members of the Committee from considering or taking any further action on these requests and any other requests “that are based on the threat of market disruption”. U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel v. United States , 350 F. Supp. 2d 1342 (CIT 2004). On April 27, 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted the U.S. government's motion for a stay of that injunction and ultimately reversed the preliminary injunction. U.S. Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel v. United States , Ct. No. 05-1209, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12751 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2005). Thus, the Committee resumed consideration of these cases.

The public comment period for these three requests had closed prior to December 30, 2004. The Committee did not solicit additional comments for these requests when it published a notice in the Federal Register inviting public comments for other requests with comment periods interrupted by the litigation. See Rescheduling of Consideration of Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China and Solicitations of Public Comments , 70 FR 24397 (May 9, 2005).

On April 6, 2005, the Committee received requests from the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of Textile Organizations, the National Textile Association, and UNITE HERE requesting that the Committee limit imports from China of men's and boys' cotton and man-made fiber shirts, not knit (Category 340/640), man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses (Category 638/639), and man-made fiber trousers, slacks and shorts (Category 647/648) due to the existence of market disruption (“market disruption cases”). The Committee determined these requests provided the information necessary for the Committee to consider the requests and solicited public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public Comment on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China , 70 FR 23100 (Category 340/640), 23130 (Category 638/639) & 23136 (Category 647/48) (May 4, 2005).

On May 18, 2005, the Committee announced its determination that imports of Chinese origin men's and boys' cotton and man-made fiber shirts, not knit, man-made fiber knit shirts and blouses, and man-made fiber trousers, slacks and shorts are, due to a threat of market disruption, threatening to impede the orderly development of trade in these products. See Announcement of Request for Bilateral Textile Consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Establishment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textiles and Textile Products in Categories 301, 340/640, 638/639, and 647/648, Produced or Manufactured in the People's Republic of China , 70 FR 30930 (May 31, 2005).

The Committee's Procedures (68 FR 27787, May 21, 2003) state that the Committee will make a determination within 60 calendar days of the close of the public comment period as to whether the United States will request consultations with China with a view to easing or avoiding market disruption. This 60-day period for the three market disruption cases expired on August 2, 2005. Based on the threat of market disruption, however, the Committee has already requested consultations with China with respect to the categories of products covered by these three cases. See Announcement of Request for Bilateral Textile Consultations with the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Establishment of Import Limits for Certain Cotton and Man-Made Fiber Textiles and Textile Products in Categories 301, 340/640, 638/639, and 647/648, Produced or Manufactured in the People's Republic of China , 70 FR 30930 (May 31, 2005). Thus, there is no need for any further action based on allegations of actual market disruption at this time as to these categories.

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

The deletion of the system notice from the Department of Air Force's inventory is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.

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

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

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

The proposed system reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a (r), of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, were submitted on August 3, 2005, to the House Committee on Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4c of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” dated February 8, 1996 (February 20, 1996, 61 FR 6427).

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

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

PCT applications may be filed for each of the patents as noted above. The Navy intends that licensees interested in a license in territories outside of the United States will assume foreign prosecution and pay the cost of such prosecution.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Impact Evaluation of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing: Baseline Data Collection Instruments.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 6,000.

 Burden Hours: 3,000.

Abstract: Initial data collection for an impact evaluation of a Department program that provides grants to districts to implement student drug testing.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2757. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

On July 26, 2005 RSA published a notice in the Federal Register (70 FR 43132) announcing a public meeting to provide an opportunity for stakeholders in the vocational rehabilitation process to provide RSA with their input on the RSA monitoring process.

In order to accommodate the participation of more individuals and to offer more rooms to participants from out of town at a reduced rate, RSA has changed the location of the meeting to the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

Individuals who wish to register for the public meeting should do so at the following Web site: http://www.dtiassociates.com/rsamonitoring .

Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meetings ( i.e. , interpreting services, assistive listening devices, or material in alternative formats) should notify the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . The meeting locations will be accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Electronic Access to this Document: You may view this document, as well as all other documents this Department published in the Federal Register , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister .

To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

I. General Information

This notice announces one meeting of the BOSC Drinking Water Subcommittee. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Subcommittee's draft report on EPA's Drinking Water Research Program. Proposed agenda items for the conference call include, but are not limited to: discussion of the Subcommittee's draft responses to the charge questions, and approval of the final draft report prior to its submission to the BOSC Executive Committee. The conference call is open to the public.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Edie Coates at 919-541-3508 or coates.edie@epa.gov . To request accommodation of a disability, please contact Edie Coates, preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0009. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Documents in the official public docket are listed in the index in EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EDOCKET. Documents are available either electronically or in hard copy. Electronic documents may be viewed through EDOCKET. Hard copies of the draft agendas may be viewed at the Board of Scientific Counselors, Drinking Water Meetings Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-1752.

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 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. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number (ORD-2005-0009).

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

Public comments submitted on computer disks mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Written public comments mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number (ORD-2005-0009) in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period.

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

i. EDOCKET. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EDOCKET at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, http://www.epa.gov , select “Information Sources,” “Dockets,” and “EDOCKET.” Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0009. The system is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to ORD.Docket@epa.gov , Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0009. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an anonymous access system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM mailed to the mailing address identified in Unit I.B.2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in Word, WordPerfect or rich text files. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.

2. By Mail. Send your comments to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD Docket, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0009.

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. ORD-2005-0009 (note: this is not a mailing address). Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111)

• Animal production (NAICS code 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)

This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0198. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2005-0198. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0198. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency (7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0198.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0198. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the applications.

File Symbol: 71927-R. Applicant: Arcadis Geraghty and Miller, 14497 North Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 240, Tampa, FL 33618. Product Name: DutchTrig. Microbial pesticide. Active ingredient: Verticillium dahliae isolate WCS 850. Proposed classification/Use: Non-food use only involving the American elm.

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2005-0197. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2005-0197. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0197. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0197.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP-2005-0197. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice.

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

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

Bayer CropScience LP is proposing to test 370 acres of the plant-incorporated protectant Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. berliner Cry1Ab protein and the genetic material necessary for its production in cotton plants from February 2006 to March 2007. The Cry1Ab protein is effective in controlling lepidopteran larvae such as bollworm ( Helicoverpa zea ) and tobacco budworm ( Heliothis virescens ) larvae, which are common pests of cotton. In total, the proposed program will be carried out in Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Texas on 370 acres for a total of 4 to 32 g of Cry1Ab protein (or 0.008 to 0.071 pounds of Cry1Ab protein). The planned experimental program includes the following: insect efficacy trials, agronomic performance evaluation, breeding studies, herbicide efficacy evaluations, dissemination studies, production of sample material for regulatory feeding and analytical studies, and seed production trials.

Following the review of the Bayer CropSciences LP application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register .

The specific legal authority for EPA to take this action is under FIFRA section 5.

This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this action, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPP-2005-0122. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

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

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2004-0041. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2004-0041. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0041 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

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

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-20040041 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from June 21, 2005 to July 22, 2005, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

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

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

OMB Control No.: 3060-0454.

Title: Regulation of International Accounting Rates.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 5 respondents; 41 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour per requirement.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 205 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $2,200.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

Needs and Uses: The Commission is revising this collection by mandating electronic filing. This will eliminate paper filings and requires applicants to file electronically all applications and other filings related to international telecommunications services via the user-friendly, Internet-based International Bureau Filing System (IBFS).

Additionally, the Commission plans to develop two new accounting rate change applications that impact this information collection. We do not know the specific time frame for the development of each application. However, the estimated completion date for the applications is December 31, 2008. The development of the applications is contingent upon the availability of budget funds, human resources and other factors. The annual burden hours and costs are unknown at this time because the forms have not been developed by the Commission yet.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0704.

Title: Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace; Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, CC Docket No. 96-6.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 519.

Estimated Time Per Response: .5-120 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 84,337 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission has eliminated the tariff cancellation requirement; therefore, we are decreasing the reported burden hours by 74,598 hours and $435,000 in total annual costs. The OMB is asked to approve this revised collection, when we submit it in 60 days, the removal of the burden hours for that requirement as part of this collection.

These collections of information are necessary to provide consumers ready access to information concerning the rates, terms, and conditions governing the provision of interstate, domestic and interexchange services offered by nondominant interexchange carriers (IXCs) in a detariffed and increasingly competitive environment. In the Second Order on Reconsideration issued in CC Docket No. 96-61, (March 1999), the Commission reinstated the public disclosure requirement and also required that nondominant interexchange carriers that have Internet Web sites to pass this information on-line in a timely and easily accessible manner. These carriers are also required to file annual certifications pursuant to section 254(g); maintain prices and service information; and are forborne from filing certain tariffs. The tariff cancellation requirement has been completed so the burden for that part of this collection has been removed.

OMB Control No.: 3060-0760.

Title: Access Charge Reform, CC Docket No. 96-262.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 17.

Estimated Time Per Response: 3-1,575 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements.

Total Annual Burden: 55,462 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $12,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the OMB after the 60 day comment period because we have revised it to eliminate the cost study and third party disclosure requirements that are no longer needed. The Commission also revises the remaining burden hours and respondent estimates to provide more current and accurate data. Price cap local exchange carriers (LECs) must demonstrate that competitors have made irreversible, sunk investments in the facilities needed to provide services at issue.

In the Fifth Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-262, (August 1999), the Commission modified the rules that govern the provision of interstate access services by those price cap LECs subject to price regulation to advance the pro- competitive, deregulatory national policies embodied in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The pricing flexibility framework adopted in that Order was designed to grant greater flexibility to price cap LECs as competition develops, while ensuring that: (1) Price cap LECs do not use pricing flexibility to deter efficient entry or engage in exclusionary pricing behavior; and (2) price cap LECs do not increase rates to unreasonable levels for customers that lack competitive alternatives.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1085.

Title: Collection of Location Information, Provision of Notice and Reporting on Interconnected Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) E911 Compliance.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 100 respondents; 14,238,254 responses.

Estimated Time Per Response: .09-16 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion and one-time reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 435,894 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $43,162,335.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: On June 3, 2005, the Commission released a First Report and Order in WC Docket No. 04-36 and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 05-116 (Order) in which the Commission established rules requiring providers of interconnected VoIP—meaning VoIP service that allows a user generally to receive calls originating from and to terminate calls to the public switched telephone network (PSTN)—to provide enhanced 911 (E911) capabilities to their customers as a standard feature of service. See IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 05-116 (rel. June 3, 2005). The Order requires collection of information in six requirements:

A. Location Registration. The Order requires providers of interconnected VoIP services to obtain location information from their customers for use in the routing of 911 calls and the provision of location information to emergency answering points.

B. Provision of Automatic Location Information (ALI). In order to meet the obligations set forth in the Order, interconnected VoIP service providers will place the location information for their customers into, or make that information available through, specialized databases maintained by local exchange carriers (and, in at least one case, a state government) across the country.

C. Customer Notification. In order to ensure that consumers of interconnected VoIP services are aware of their interconnected VoIP service's actual E911 capabilities, the Order requires that all providers of interconnected VoIP service specifically advise every subscriber, both new and existing, prominently and in plain language, the circumstances under which E911 service may not be available through the interconnected VoIP service or may be in some way limited by comparison to traditional E911 service.

D. Record of Customer Notification. The Order requires VoIP providers to obtain and keep a record of affirmative acknowledgement by every subscriber, both new and existing, of having received and understood this advisory.

E. User Notification. In addition, in order to ensure to the extent possible that the advisory is available to all potential users of an interconnected VoIP service, interconnected VoIP service providers must distribute to all subscribers, both new and existing, warning stickers or other appropriate labels warning subscribers if E911 service may be limited or not available and instructing the subscriber to place them on and/or near the customer premises equipment used in conjunction with the interconnected VoIP service.

F. Compliance Letter. The Order requires all interconnected VoIP providers to submit a letter to the Commission detailing their compliance with the rules set forth in the Order no later than 120 days after the effective date of the Order. This letter will enable the Commission to ensure that interconnected VoIP providers have achieved E911 compliance by the established deadline.

The Commission sought “emergency” OMB approval for this information collection on June 14, 2005. OMB approval was obtained on June 28, 2005. The Commission now is requesting an extension for this information (no changes) in order to obtain the full three year clearance from OMB.

OMB Control No.: 3060-1081.

Title: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 22.

Estimated Time Per Response: .25-3 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 242 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Commission adopted additional mandatory reporting requirements for this information collection in CC Docket No. 96-45, CC 05-46. These requirements will ensure that eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) continue to comply with the conditions of the ETC designation and that universal service funds are used for their intended purposes. Specifically, each ETC must submit, on an annual basis the following information: (1) Progress reports on the ETC's five-year service quality improvement plan; (2) detailed information on any outage lasting at least 30 minutes; (3) the number of unfulfilled requests for service from potential customers within its service areas; (4) the number of complaints per 1,000 handsets or lines; (5) certification that the ETC is complying with applicable service quality standards and consumer protection rules; (6) certification that the ETC is able to function in emergency situations; (7) certification that the ETC is offering a local usage plan comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC in the relevant service areas; and (8) certification that the carrier acknowledges that the Commission may require it to provide equal access to long distance carriers in the event that no other ETC is providing equal access within the service area.

This is a summary of the Order, DA 05-2000, adopted and released by the Commission's Media Bureau on July 13, 2005. The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, http://www.bcpiweb.com, 1-800-378-3160. Alternative formats (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov, or by calling the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (tty).

1. PBE petitioned for reconsideration of the HDO issued April 9, 2004 (see DA 04-957, 69 FR 23204, April 28, 2004) which had designated for hearing PBE's renewal application regarding NCE station WVPH(FM), Piscataway, NJ, and a competing application filed by KTM for a new NCE station to serve Plainfield, NJ. In the HDO, the Commission's Media Bureau found that no qualifications issues arose regarding the renewal applicant or new station applicant and that conditional grant of both applications would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. Pursuant to 47 CFR 73.561(b)(2) as construed by the staff, the matter was designated for an expedited hearing limited solely to the issue of sharing time.

2. In the Order, the Media Bureau dismissed PBE's petition for reconsideration as unauthorized pursuant to 47 CFR 1.106(a)(1).

3. Also in the Order, in light of certain Commission-level decisions discussed therein, the Media Bureau on its own motion vacated its prior conditional grants of PBE's renewal application and KTM's new station application, returned both applications to pending status, and modified the issue previously specified to include the issue of whether granting both PBE's and KTM's applications would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity better than would operation restricted to PBE. If the ALJ determines that a time sharing arrangement would result in more effective use of the specified channel, he shall also determine the terms and conditions of a time sharing arrangement if the parties do not, either before commencement of the hearing or during the hearing, negotiate a settlement on their own.

4. Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(b), the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send copies of the Order, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties through counsel. PBE and KTM, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.221(c), have already filed their respective written appearances stating an intention to appear on the date fixed for the hearing and present evidence on the issues specified in this Order. PBE and KTM, pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3594, shall give notice of the hearing within the time and in the manner prescribed in 47 CFR 73.3594, and shall advise the Commission of the publication of such notice as required by 47 CFR 73.3594(g).

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the WRC-07 Advisory Committee to provide advice, technical support and recommendations relating to the preparation of United States proposals and positions for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07).

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons of the seventh meeting of the WRC-07 Advisory Committee. The WRC-07 Advisory Committee has an open membership. All interested parties are invited to participate in the Advisory Committee and to attend its meetings. The proposed agenda for the seventh meeting is as follows:

Seventh Meeting of the WRC-07 Advisory Committee, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

September 14, 2005; 11 a.m.-12 noon.

1. Opening Remarks.

2. Approval of Agenda.

3. Approval of the Minutes of the Sixth Meeting.

4. Status of Preliminary Views and Draft Proposals.

5. NTIA Draft Preliminary Views and Proposals.

6. Informal Working Group Reports and Documents relating to:

a. Consensus Views and Issues Papers.

b. Draft Proposals.

7. Future Meetings.

8. Other Business.