Upon investigation, the Administrator determined that U.S. imports of shrimp fell by 7.9 million pounds between 2003 and 2004, a decline of 0.9 percent. Therefore, imports were no longer a contributing factor for program eligibility. An increase in imports is required for re-certifying a petition for TAA.

The meeting is open to the public. Persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff by November 12, 2005. Public will have the opportunity to address the committee at the meeting.

Collection of this information is necessary to document the service of volunteers as required by Federal Personnel Manual Supplement 296-33, Subchapter 3. Agencies are authorized to recruit, train, and accept, with regard to civil service classification laws, rules or regulations, the services of individuals to serve without compensation. Volunteers may assist in any Agency program/project and may perform any activities which Agency employees are allowed to conduct. Volunteers must be at least 14 years of age. Persons interested in volunteering will have to write, call, e-mail, visit an NRCS office, or visit the E-Gov Web site to complete and submit the forms.

Description of Information Collection: NRCS-PER-001, Volunteer Application, and the NRCS-PER-003, Agreement for Sponsored Voluntary Services, are the volunteer application forms. After one of these forms is signed by the volunteer group leader and the NRCS representative, the individual or group is enrolled in the NRCS volunteer program. The forms provide contact information for the volunteer, emergency contact information, and a job description. This form is placed in a volunteer “case file” and will be destroyed 3 years after the volunteer has completed service. In the event that the volunteer is injured, the “case file” will be transferred to an Official Personnel Folder (OPF). NRCS-PER-002, Volunteer Interest and Placement Summary, is an optional form that assists the volunteer supervisor in placing the volunteer in a position that will benefit the Agency and the volunteer. The aforementioned form is placed in a volunteer “case file” and will be destroyed 3 years after the volunteer has completed service. In the event that the volunteer is injured, the “case file” will be transferred to an OPF. NRCS-PER-004, Time and Attendance, is an optional form that assists the volunteer supervisor in documenting hours worked by the volunteer, and may be used to substantiate a Workers' Compensation Claim. This form is placed in a volunteer “case file” and will be destroyed 3 years after the volunteer has completed service. In the event that the volunteer is injured, the “case file” will be transferred to an OPF.

Copies of the Draft EIS are available by request from Marnie Wilson at the address listed above. Basic data developed during the environmental evaluation are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Sylvia Gillen, Utah State Conservationist.

In providing its advice and consent to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Convention) (S. Res. 75, April 24, 1997), the Senate included several conditions. Condition 9 of Senate Resolution 75, titled “Protection of Advanced Biotechnology,” provides that the President shall certify to the Congress on an annual basis that “* * * the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are not being significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, those chemicals and toxins listed in Schedule 1 * * *”. On July 8, 2004, President Bush, by Executive Order 13346, delegated his authority to make the annual certification to the Secretary of Commerce.

In the years 2000 through 2004, BIS solicited comments from the public on the commercial impact of the Convention's Schedule 1 limitations and received no comments. In light of this, the President certified to Congress that firms were not significantly harmed by the Convention's Schedule 1 limitations. The Bureau of Industry and Security is collecting data to assist in determining the impact, if any, that the implementation of the Convention's requirements have had on commercial “Schedule 1” activities through calendar year 2005.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction, commonly called the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), is an international arms control treaty that establishes the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to implement the verification provisions of the treaty. The CWC imposes a number of obligations on countries that have ratified the Convention (States Parties), including enactment of legislation to prohibit the production, storage, and use of chemical weapons, and establishment of a National Authority for liaison with the OPCW and other States Parties. The CWC also requires States Parties to implement a comprehensive data declaration and inspection regime to provide transparency and to verify that both the public and private sectors of States Parties are not engaged in activities prohibited under the CWC.

“Schedule 1” chemicals are those toxic chemicals and precursors identified in the Convention as posing a high risk to the object and purpose of the Convention. The “Schedule 1” chemicals are set forth in the Convention's “Annex on Chemicals,” as well as in Supplement No. 1 to part 712 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations (15 CFR 712).

The “Schedule 1” provisions of the Convention that affect commercial activities are implemented through part 712 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations and parts 742 and 745 of the Export Administration Regulations, both administered by the Bureau of Industry and Security. These regulations:

(1) Prohibit the import of “Schedule 1” chemicals from States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 712.2(a));

(2) Require annual declarations by certain facilities engaged in the production of “Schedule 1” chemicals in excess of 100 grams aggregate per calendar year (i.e., declared “Schedule 1” facilities) for purposes not prohibited by the Convention (15 CFR 712.3(a)(2) and (a)(3));

(3) Require government approval of “declared Schedule 1” facilities (15 CFR 712.3(e));

(4) Provide that “declared Schedule 1” facilities are subject to initial and routine inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (15 CFR 712.3(d) and 716.1(b)(1));

(5) Require 200 days advance notification of establishment of new “Schedule 1” production facilities producing greater than 100 grams aggregate of “Schedule 1” chemicals per calendar year (15 CFR 712.4);

(6) Require advance notification and annual reporting of all imports and exports of “Schedule 1” chemicals to, or from, other States Parties to the Convention (15 CFR 712.5, 742.18(a)(1) and 745.1); and

(7) Prohibit the export of “Schedule 1” chemicals to States not Party to the Convention (15 CFR 742.18(a)(1) and (b)(1)(ii)).

In order to assist in determining whether the legitimate commercial activities and interests of chemical, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical firms in the United States are being significantly harmed by the limitations of the Convention on access to, and production of, “Schedule 1” chemicals, BIS is seeking public comments on any effects that implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention has had on commercial activities involving “Schedule 1” chemicals through calendar year 2005.

All comments must be submitted to the address indicated in this notice. The Department requires that all comments be submitted in written form.

The Department encourages interested persons who wish to comment to do so at the earliest possible time. The period for submission of comments will close on December 6, 2005. The Department will consider all comments received before the close of the comment period. Comments received after the end of the comment period will be considered if possible, but their consideration cannot be assured. The Department will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially because of its business proprietary nature or for any other reason. The Department will return such comments and materials to the persons submitting the comments and will not consider them. All comments submitted in response to this notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying.

The Office of Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, displays public comments on the BIS Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia . This office does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. If you have technical difficulties accessing this Web site, please call BIS's Office of Administration, at (202) 482-0637, for assistance.

Pursuant to section 736 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty orders on Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan. See Antidumping Duty Order; Certain Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India ; 51 FR 17384 (May 12, 1986), Certain Circular Carbon Welded Pipes and Tubes from Taiwan; Antidumping Duty Order , 49 FR 19369 (May 7, 1984), Antidumping Duty Order; Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from Thailand ; 51 FR 8341 (March 11, 1986), Antidumping Duty Order; Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey , 51 FR 17784 (May 15, 1986), Antidumping Duty Orders; Certain Welded Non Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, and Mexico and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain Circular Welded Non Alloy Steel Pipe from Korea , 57 FR 49453 (November 2, 1992); Antidumping Duty Order: Circular Welded Non Alloy Steel Pipe from Taiwan , 57 FR 49454 (November 2, 1992).

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, on August 22, 2000, the Department published the continuation notice of the antidumping duty orders on Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan, after the ITC found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonablely foreseeable time. 1

On July 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of initiation of the second sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act. 2

For each of these sunset reviews, the Department received notice of intent to participate from Allied Tube and Conduit, Copperweld Corporation, IPSCO Tubulars, Leavitt Tube Company, Maverick Tube Corporation, Northwest Pipe Company, Sharon Tube Company, Western Tube and Conduit, and Wheatland Tube Company (collectively, “the domestic interested parties”), within the deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as U.S. producers of the subject merchandise.

On June 29, 2005, we received complete substantive responses to the notice of initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. We did not receive any responses from respondent interested parties to these proceedings. On October 25, 2005, the Department received amendments to the July 29, 2005, substantive responses from the domestic interested parties because Mariuchi American Corporation was erroneously included as one of the domestic interested parties.

Based on these circumstances, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and section 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department has conducted expedited sunset reviews of these antidumping duty orders.

See Appendix 1

All issues raised in these cases are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, (“Decision Memo”), dated October 31, 2005, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Decision Memo include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail if the orders were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in these sunset reviews and the corresponding recommendations in this public memo, which is on file in room B-099 of the main Commerce Building.

In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn, under the heading “November 2005”. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content.

We determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes from India, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the following weighted-average percentage margins:

This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with section 351.305 of the Department's regulations.

Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

This review covers the following four producers/exporters: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret (collectively “Colakoglu”); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret A.S. (collectively “Diler”); Habas Tibbi ve Sinai Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and ICDAS.

On May 6, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent To Revoke in Part , 70 FR 23990 (May 6, 2005) ( Preliminary Results ).

Prior to the preliminary results, the following companies informed the Department that they had no shipments to the United States during the POR: Cebitas Demir Celik Endustrisi A.S. (Cebitas); Cemtas Celik Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Cemtas); Demirsan Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Demirsan); Ege Celik Endustrisi Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Celik); Ekinciler Holding A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik San A.S. (collectively “Ekinciler”); Iskenderun Iron & Steel Works Co. (Iskenderun); Izmir Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Izmir); Kaptan Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret A.S. (Kaptan); Metas Izmir Metalurji Fabrikasi Turk A.S. (Metas); Nurmet Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Nurmet); Nursan Celik Sanayi ve Haddecilik A.S. (Nursan); Sivas Demir Celik Isletmeleri A.S. (Sivas); and Tosyali Demir Celik Sanayi A.S. (Tosyali). We reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data and confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from any of these companies. We also confirmed with CBP data that Ege Metal Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ege Metal); Kardemir--Karabuk Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Karabuk); Kroman Celik Sanayi A.S. (Kroman); Kurum Demir Sanayi ve Ticaret Metalenerji A.S. (Kurum); and Ucel Haddecilik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Ucel) did not have entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our practice, we are rescinding our review for Cebitas, Cemtas, Demirsan, Ege Celik, Ege Metal, Ekinciler, Iskenderun, Izmir, Kaptan, Karabuk, Kroman, Kurum, Metas, Nurmet, Nursan, Sivas, Tosyali, and Ucel. For further discussion, see the “Partial Rescission of Review” section of this notice, below.

We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In June and July 2005, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e., Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation, Commercial Metals Company (SMI Steel Group), and Nucor Corporation), Diler, Habas, and ICDAS, and rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, Colakoglu, Diler, Habas, and ICDAS.

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.

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

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

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

The Department may revoke, in whole or in part, an antidumping duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described in 19 CFR 351.222. This regulation requires, inter alia, that a company requesting revocation must submit the following: (1) A certification that the company has sold the subject merchandise at not less than normal value (NV) in the current review period and that the company will not sell subject merchandise at less than NV in the future; (2) a certification that the company sold commercial quantities of the subject merchandise to the United States in each of the three years forming the basis of the request; and (3) an agreement to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold subject merchandise at less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). Upon receipt of such a request, the Department will consider: (1) Whether the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, subsequent to the revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; and (3) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). See Sebacic Acid From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination To Revoke Order in Part , 67 FR 69719, 69720 (Nov. 19, 2002).

We have determined that the request from ICDAS meets all of the criteria under 19 CFR 351.222. With regard to the criteria of subsection 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), our final margin calculations show that ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV during the current review period. In addition, ICDAS sold rebar at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews in which it was involved ( i.e. , ICDAS's dumping margin was zero or de minimis ). See 2002-2003 Rebar Final and Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, and Determination Not To Revoke in Part , 68 FR 53127 (Sept. 9, 2003). Also, we find that application of the antidumping duty order to ICDAS is no longer warranted for the following reasons: (1) the company had zero or de minimis margins for a period of at least three consecutive years; (2) the company has agreed to immediate reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed making sales at less than NV; and (3) the continued application of the order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. For further discussion, see Comment 18 of the accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (Decision Memo) from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, dated November 2, 2005. Therefore, we find that ICDAS qualifies for revocation of the antidumping duty order on rebar under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). Accordingly, we are revoking the order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS.

This revocation applies to all entries of subject merchandise that are produced and exported by ICDAS, and are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004. The Department will order the suspension of liquidation ended for all such entries and will instruct CBP to release any cash deposits or bonds. The Department will further instruct CBP to refund with interest any cash deposits on entries made on or after April 1, 2004.

As discussed in the Preliminary Results , we conducted an investigation to determine whether the respondents participating in the review made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning

of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results , except as discussed in the Decision Memo.

We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See section 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.

Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Colakoglu, Diler, Habas and ICDAS made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review and to which we have responded are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. 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.

Based on our analysis of comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.

We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004:

The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for all of Habas's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales and because we have the reported entered value of the U.S. sales, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those sales.

Regarding all of Colakoglu's and Diler's sales, as well as certain of ICDAS's sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis , in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the export prices.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis ( i.e. , less than 0.50 percent). The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP.

Because we have revoked the order with respect to subject merchandise produced and exported by ICDAS, we will order CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for exports of such merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 1, 2004, and to refund all cash deposits collected.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Turkey (except shipments from ICDAS noted above) entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 1) The cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates indicated above (except for ICDAS and Diler, whose weighted-average margins are de minimis , where no cash deposit will be required); 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all others rate established in the LTFV investigation.

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

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this

requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

On July 11, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of review and partial rescission of this administrative review of TRBs from the PRC. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part , 70 FR 39744 (July 11, 2005) (“ Preliminary Results ”). In the Preliminary Results we stated that we would make our final determination for the antidumping duty review no later than 120 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results ( i.e. , November 8, 2005).

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is extending the time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (“TRBs”), from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). This review covers the period June 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004.

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act states that if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time specified, the administering authority may extend the 120-day period, following the date of publication of the preliminary results, to issue its final results by an additional 60 days. Completion of the final results within the 120-day period is not practicable due to issues arising from verification.

Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the final results of review by an additional sixty days until no later than January 7, 2006.

On September 29, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated the countervailing duty investigations of lined paper products from India and Indonesia. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia , 70 FR 58690 (October 7, 2005). Currently, the preliminary determinations are due no later than December 5, 2005.

On October 20, 2005, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (“Petitioner”) submitted a letter requesting that the Department postpone the preliminary determinations of the countervailing duty investigations of certain lined paper products from India and Indonesia by 65 days. Under section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department may extend the period for reaching a preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation until not later than the 130 th day after the date on which the administering authority initiates an investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made under subsection (b) (section 703(b) of the Act). Accordingly, we are extending the due date for the preliminary determinations by 65 days to no later than February 6, 2006.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act.

The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) was established in 1981 to protect the near shore waters of the California Coast north and west of San Francisco, and the offshore Farallon Islands. The Sanctuary includes nursery and spawning grounds for commercially important species, over 33 species of marine mammals, and 15 species of breeding seabirds. The Farallon Islands themselves contain the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the contiguous United States. Key habitats include coastal beaches, rocky shores, mud and tidal flats, salt marsh, estuaries, and pelagic waters.

Additionally, the area within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) north of the San Mateo/Santa Cruz county boundary is administered by the GFNMS. The legal boundaries of each sanctuary remain as is. The GFNMS is responsible for developing and managing most sanctuary programs within this area, with the exception that the MBNMS is responsible for the Water Quality Protection Program.

The GFNMS Advisory Council was originally chartered in 2001, with seven voting members. It has recently been expanded to 12 voting members. The primary focus of the Council is to advise the Sanctuary Manager regarding the implementation of the sanctuary management plan, in conjunction with the contiguous Monterey Bay and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries.

New Bedford Harbor is located in southeastern Massachusetts at the mouth of the Acushnet River on Buzzards Bay. The Harbor and River are contaminated with high levels of hazardous substances and materials, including PCBs, and as a consequence are on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund National Priorities List. This site is also listed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection as a priority Tier 1 disposal site.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or “Superfund,” 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ) designates as possible natural resource trustees Federal, state, or tribal authorities who represent the public interest in natural resources. The trustees are responsible for recovering funds through litigation or settlement for damages for natural resource injuries. CERCLA requires that any recovered monies be used to “restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of” the natural resources that have been injured by a release of a hazardous substance.

For the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site, there are three natural resource trustees on the Council representing the public interest in the affected natural resources. They are the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Department of the Interior, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Secretary of Commerce has delegated DOC trustee responsibility to NOAA; within NOAA, NMFS has responsibility for natural resource restoration at this site. The Secretary of the Interior has delegated trustee responsibility to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Governor of Massachusetts has delegated trustee responsibility to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs.

To initiate restoration of the New Bedford Harbor Environment the Council previously issued two “Request(s) for Restoration Ideas” in October 1995 (60 FR 52164, October 5, 1995) (Round I) and August 1999 (64 FR 44505, August 16, 1999) (Round II). For each round, restoration ideas were received from the local communities, members of the public, academia and state and federal agencies. The 56 restoration ideas submitted under Round I were the basis for the alternatives listed in the Council's “Restoration Plan for the New Bedford Harbor Environment” (Restoration Plan) that was developed to guide the Council's restoration efforts. An environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared in conjunction with the Restoration Plan to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. A record of decision, issued on September 22, 1998 for both the Restoration Plan and the EIS, provided for implementation of 11 Round I preferred restoration projects through funding provided by the Trust Account.

Thirty-five restoration ideas were submitted to the Council under Round II. Following procedures established in the Restoration Plan/EIS, an environmental assessment was prepared to evaluate the ideas. A public comment period/hearing was held and after consideration of the comments received, the Trustee Council decided to pursue implementation of 17 restoration ideas.

Rather than requesting restoration ideas, Round III solicited grant applications for natural resource restoration projects. This process has the advantage of allowing for faster implementation of projects by having applicants conduct the restoration projects after receiving direct funding through NOAA-issued grants. Further this process allows Trustee Council staff to continue implementation of Round I and Round II projects while still providing oversight to Round III projects.

The Round III solicitation appeared in the Federal Register (70 FR 5191, February 1, 2005), on the World Wide Web on GRANTS.GOV where a Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) was published, and on the Trustee Council's webpage at www.restorenbh.gov . A total of 19 applications were received, but of these, four were rejected for not being related to the New Bedford Harbor restoration activities. Following procedures specified in the FFO, technical reviewers independently rated each application using five evaluation criteria which totalled 100 points. The applications were then ranked by the total score received. In addition to the technical review, a legal review was conducted to ensure the resulting projects were consistent with the requirements of CERCLA. The results of the technical review was provided as a recommendation to the Trustee Council.

The FFO also established in Section V.B. Review and Selection, that the “Council will review the recommendation, accept or modify the recommendations, and make a preliminary determination of the projects it expects to undertake.” Following this, the Council will initiate a 30-day comment period during which a public hearing would be held.

The Council is now seeking public review of the preferred projects and the proposed level of funding for each project. The public is also invited to attend a public hearing (see DATES and ADDRESSES ) to provide oral comment based upon its review of the Trustees' preliminary recommendations.

At the conclusion of the comment period, the Council will consider the comments from the public and its advisors before making final decisions on the projects eligible for funding through the Trust Account.

Prior to final approval for funding, all selected projects require environmental review under applicable law and the submission of detailed scopes of work for Council review and approval. The release of funds may be conditioned on the results of project activity such as feasibility studies or assessments. In addition, implementation of the projects may be conditioned or delayed, and the funds therefore held in reserve, until more information becomes available or specific conditions are met. Funds held in reserve will continue to be held in the interest bearing Trust Account, administered by the Court Registry Investment System of the United States District Courts.

Below is a description of the preferred projects proposed by the Council for potential implementation and funding. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared which provides further information on the preferred projects and a discussion of those ideas which are not considered preferred projects. The draft environmental assessment is available at the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) or by accessing the Council website http://www.restorenbh.gov .

The project was composed of four separate subprojects which follow:

The project is located in East Freetown and Acushnet, MA at the headwaters of the Acushnet River. The alternative is to provide funding for the purchase of 88 acres (35.6 hectares) of undisturbed forest and wetlands west of Squam Brook and open the property to the public for passive recreational use. The parcel would also be protected through the attachment of a permanent conservation restriction to the deed. An additional 90 acres (36.4 hectares) east of Squam Brook would be protected through the purchase of a conservation restriction (CR) on the land. This action would prevent any future development of the land and preserve the existing agricultural use (cranberry production) in accordance with Best Management Practices. The eastern portion of the site would remain in private ownership with public access limited by the owners.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved the project for possible implementation pending public comment on its decision and the project. The Trustee Council is considering two options for the project: (1) Purchase and/or CR of the entire property or (2) purchase and/or CR of the western portion of the property only. The western portion is characterized by upland forest and wetlands leading down to an irrigation reservoir and Squam Brook. This second option would not purchase a CR on the eastern portion where there are active cranberry bog operations. The Council favors outright purchase, the second option, to provide greater protection to the headwaters since there is development pressure in this area. The Council is not as interested in the eastern portion unless the potential exists for restoring the natural condition of the wetlands.

This project is located in Acushnet, MA on the Acushnet River at a point where the freshwater portion ends and the tidal estuary begins. Funds would be provided for the fee simple purchase and conservation restriction of 21 acres (8.5 hectares) (consisting of field, forest, riverfront, freshwater pond and marsh) at the Acushnet Sawmill site from its present owners. The site is the location of the first dam on the Acushnet River that is being examined by the Trustee Council and the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries for modifications to restore anadromous fish passage under Round I. There are presently three buildings located on site as well as other structures associated with a once active sawmill and lumberyard. The applicant envisions restoring this site to a natural state through the removal of all the buildings and pavement covering approximately 4 acres (1.6 hectares). While this may be a long-term objective of the applicant, the only action to be taken at this time is the fee simple acquisition and conservation restriction. This action would prevent further development of the site.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved of the project for possible implementation pending public comments on its decision and the project. The Trustee Council is considering two options for the project: (1) Purchase and/or CR of the entire property or (2) purchase and/or CR of the undeveloped portion of the property composed primarily of the eastern portion of the property. The concern over the developed portion is the amount of effort needed to restore the property to natural conditions and the various unknowns associated with the commercial use (e.g. sawmill operations) of the site. The Council has not made a decision on either option and invites public comment.

The project is located in Fairhaven, MA in the Inner Harbor just south of the Route 195 crossing. Funds would be provided for the fee simple purchase and conservation restriction of a 7.68-acre (3.1-hectare) site on the southern portion of a peninsula known as Marsh Island in Fairhaven. (The remaining northern portion of Marsh Island was purchased using Trustee Council funds authorized in Round II. The Trustee Council is investigating the feasibility of restoring the salt marsh that was present before fill was placed on the island.) Prior to the purchase, funds would be provided for a title examination, fair market real estate appraisal, environmental site assessment and survey (if needed).

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved the project for possible implementation subject to consideration of public comment. The Council is concerned about the two existing radio towers on site and will explore with the applicant options for their eventual removal. The Council does not believe the $50,000 for “Restoration Planning and Design” is required since the Council is already funding efforts on Marsh Island revolving around salt marsh restoration.

The project is located on the eastern side of Sconticut Neck, Fairhaven, MA. The overall project goal is to protect 127 acres (51.4 hectares) (comprised of farmland, salt marsh, freshwater wetlands and coastal beach) from future development through a combination of land protection methods. Funding would be used for a fee simple purchase on 40 acres (16.2 hectares) and a conservation restriction would be placed on 16 acres (6.5 hectares). The remaining 71 acres (28.3 hectares) would be acquired using an Agricultural Protection Restriction (APR) through the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). The amount requested from the Trustee Council would be cost shared with $2,050,000 coming from a North Atlantic Wetland Conservation Act oil spill grant, a MDAR grant and other municipal and private sources.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved the project for possible implementation subject to consideration of public comment. The Trustee Council would like clarification on how its funding would be used and for which components of the project. The Council is uncertain whether Council funding would be used to supplement MDAR funding for the APR. The Council is not interested in funding the APR and does not want agricultural use of the Council funded portion of the land.

The project is located in Dartmouth, MA where the Padanaram Causeway crosses Apponagansett Bay. The project would investigate the feasibility of restoring a more natural tidal exchange between inner Apponagansett Bay, outer Apponagansett Bay and Buzzards Bay by installing additional openings in the Padanaram causeway. A feasibility study would be conducted to determine whether modifying the Padanaram causeway will increase tidal flushing with the inner Bay with the goal of restoring upstream degraded resources, including salt marsh and shellfish beds.

The feasibility study would consist of two phases. The first phase would consist of data collection and developing and running a hydrodynamic model. The results of the first phase will describe the modifications to the causeway (such as installing additional culverts in the causeway) necessary to improve the resources of Apponagansett Bay and quantify the effects of such actions. The results of the first phase of the feasibility study would be presented to the Trustee Council. Should the results demonstrate that the project is worth the Council's continued support, the second phase of the feasibility study would be implemented. The second phase consists of the development of conceptual restoration plans that could be used to produce construction cost estimates and discuss regulatory approvals. Once this study is complete, the effects of additional openings in the causeway and the costs of implementing these changes will be known and a preferred restoration alternative will be developed. Funds for the further design, permitting and construction for such a project could be requested in a future Trustee Council funding round.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily chosen to include the study as a preferred study for possible funding and implementation after consideration of public comment. Funding would be provided for the initial feasibility investigation (data gathering and hydrodynamic modeling) and if the results are favorable, and the Trustee Council approves, funding would then be provided for the second phase to produce the conceptual plan.

The project is located on three islands in Buzzards Bay: Bird Island, Marion, Massachusetts; Ram Island, Mattapoisett, Massachusetts; and Penikese Island, Gosnold, Massachusetts. Roseate and common terns were injured while feeding on PCB- contaminated fish in the New Bedford Harbor Environment. The project goal is to rebuild and restore the population of roseate terns (a federally listed endangered species) and common terns through management or enhancement of nesting locations. The management aspect of this project involves moving other species, such as gulls, off the nesting areas and the daily monitoring of the terns that locate at the three islands. The project would also increase nesting habitat on Ram Island by removing an invasive plant Phragmites australis and filling an eroded section of the island.

This idea would extend the work being conducted under restoration funding from Rounds I and II for an additional period of three years. Round I provided funding ($266,400) to implement biological management and monitoring of tern colonies at Bird Island and Ram Island to restore populations of common terns and roseate terns. At Penikese Island, the project focused on reclaiming the island as a nesting site by managing gulls. Preliminary engineering work to stabilize Bird island and toxicological analyses of tern eggs were also funded. Round II funding ($853,600) continued the Round I management efforts at the three islands for an additional six years. Further work was done to assess what needed to be done to improve tern nesting habitat at Bird Island. Samples of unhatched tern eggs were collected for chemical analysis. Overall tern numbers on the islands have increased 59 percent since Trustee Council funding commenced.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily chosen to include the project as a preferred project for possible funding and implementation after consideration of public comment.

The project is located at 246 River Road, New Bedford, MA and is composed of 2.5 acres (1.0 hectares) of city-owned land along the Acushnet River. The project would return a former industrial site to open space including restoring a 23,000-square foot (2,137-square meter) salt marsh on filled tideland and creating walking trails, interpretative signs, canoe/kayak launch, picnic area, play area, lawn and parking area. The Acushnet River along this location has been the subject of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recent cleanup activity involving the removal of bottom sediments and replanting along the shoreline.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved only the wetland restoration component of the project for possible implementation after consideration of public comment. The wetland restoration component will provide a direct benefit to injured natural resources.

The project is located at Round Hill Point, Dartmouth, MA. The project would conduct an investigation exploring the feasibility of restoring up to 24 acres (9.7 hectares) of coastal salt marsh through the removal of significant amounts of fill material and re-grading to historic marsh elevations at the Round Hill Salt Marsh Restoration Site. A phased approach would be taken with Phase I involving a feasibility study and Phase II involving the conceptual design of the proposed project.

Under Phase I, a contractor would be hired to complete a full feasibility study including development of historical background/site history, base mapping (vegetation, topographic and bathymetric maps as necessary), hydrologic and alternatives analyses and cut and fill calculations. Upon completion of Phase I, the feasibility study would be presented to the Trustees for their consideration and approval. If approved by the Trustee Council and project partners, the second Phase (Phase II) would proceed with conceptual design.

Conceptual design would include development of conceptual alternatives and estimates of project costs. Completion of conceptual designs and cost estimates will be used to further develop the project with partners and regulatory authorities and aid in identifying a potential preferred alternative. Upon successful completion through Phase II with a conceptual design, the project team would re-apply for additional Trustee Council funding through future funding opportunities to complete final design, permitting and construction.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily chosen to include the project as a preferred study for possible funding and implementation after consideration of public comment. Funding would be provided for the initial feasibility study. If the results are favorable and the Trustee Council approves, funding would then be provided for the second phase to produce the conceptual design and alternatives analysis.

The project site is located at the entrance to West Island Beach in Fairhaven, MA. The project is intended to increase full tidal exchange to a tidally-restricted 8-acre (3.2-hectare) salt marsh by replacing an undersized culvert with a properly-sized culvert beneath the West Island Beach access road (Fir Street). Requested funds will be used to hire contractors to correctly size and design a culvert that will maximize tidal exchange with the West Island Beach marsh (without adversely affecting nearby properties), obtain all necessary permits and approvals, develop construction drawings, specifications and bid documents, construct the project, and install an interpretive sign that recognizes the contribution of the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council and the project partners.

The Trustee Council has preliminarily approved the idea for possible funding and implementation after consideration of public comment. The Council would be interested in pursuing an expansion of the project through the relocation of the beach parking lot and by removing the fill that was used to create the parking lot and will discuss this alternative with the Town of Fairhaven. Such a project change would require the approval of the Town.

This notice does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared which provides further information on the preferred projects and a discussion of those ideas which are not considered preferred projects. The draft environmental assessment is available at the Council office (see ADDRESSES ) or by accessing the Council's website at http://www.restorenbh.gov .

The membership of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Performance Review Board is as follows:

Stephen M. Pinkos , Chair, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2006.

Vickers B. Meadows , Vice Chair, Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2007.

John J. Doll , Commissioner for Patents, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2007.

Lynne G. Beresford , Commissioner for Trademarks, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2007.

David J. Freeland , Chief Information Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2007.

James A. Toupin , General Counsel, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2006.

Lois E. Boland , Director of International Relations, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2007.

Howard N. Goldberg , Acting Chief Financial Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, Term expires September 30, 2006.

On July 8, 2005, the Committee received a request from the Domestic Manufacturers Committee of The Hosiery Association, the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, the National Council of Textile Organizations, and the National Textile Association requesting that the Committee reapply a twelve-month limit that was established on October 29, 2004, on imports from China of cotton, wool, and man-made socks (Category 332/432 and 632 Part).

The Committee determined that this request provided the information necessary for the Committee to consider the request and solicited public comments for a period of 30 days. See Solicitation of Public Comments on Request for Textile and Apparel Safeguard Action on Imports from China , 70 FR 44565 (August 3, 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. If the Committee is unable to make a determination within 60 calendar days, it will cause to be published a notice in the Federal Register , including the date by which it will make a determination.

The 60-day determination period for this case expired on November 1, 2005. On that date, the United States and China signed an agreement to limit imports of socks from China from November 1 through December 31, 2005. The Committee decided to extend through December 31, 2005, the period for making a determination on this case because of consultations with the Government of China on a broader agreement on textiles.

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.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Evaluation of the Impact of Literacy Interventions in Freshman Academies—Follow-Up Forms for Students and Teachers.

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 2,288.

 Burden Hours: 2,288.

Abstract: The original OMB package requested clearance for the baseline intake and administrative records instruments to be used in the Evaluation of the Impact of Literacy Interventions in Freshman Academies. This package requests clearance for additional follow-up instruments to collect information from teachers and high school ninth-grade students at the end of the school year. The teacher instruments gather data about implementation issues, and the student instrument focuses on student outcomes related to reading attitudes and behaviors. The study has also been expanded to include an additional cohort of students, and thus will examine the impacts of these literacy interventions on student outcomes for two cohorts of students instead of one.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2926. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

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

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, 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: Extension.

Title: Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS).

Frequency: Varies.

Affected Public: Individuals or household; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 6,757.

 Burden Hours: 4,597.

Abstract: PEELS will provide the first national picture of experiences and outcomes of three- to five-year-old children in early childhood special education. The study will inform special education policy development and support Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measurement and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization with data from parents, service providers, and teachers.

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 2861. 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 Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, 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.

The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Type of Review: Extension.

Title: Quarterly Cumulative Caseload Report.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 320.

Burden Hours: 320.

Abstract: State VR agencies who administer vocational programs provide key caseload indicator data on this form, including numbers of persons who are applicants, determined eligible/ineligible, waiting for services, and also their program outcomes. This data is used for program, planning, management, budgeting and general statistical purposes.

Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov , by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2840. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at her e-mail address Sheila.Carey@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.

35 U.S.C. 209(c) provides the DOE with authority to grant exclusive or partially exclusive licenses in Department-owned inventions, where a determination can be made, among other things, that the desired practical application of the invention has not been achieved, or is not likely expeditiously to be achieved, under a nonexclusive license. The statute and implementing regulations (37 CFR part 404) require that the necessary determinations be made after public notice and opportunity for filing written objections.

Harbison-Walker Refractories, a business located at Moon Township, Pennsylvania, has applied for an exclusive or partially exclusive license to practice the invention and has a plan for commercialization of the invention.

The proposed license will be exclusive or partially exclusive, subject to a license and other rights retained by the U.S. Government, and subject to a negotiated royalty. The Department will review all timely written responses to this notice, and will grant the license if, after expiration of the 15-day notice period, and after consideration of written responses to this notice, a determination is made, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c), that the license grant is in the public interest.

Section 7(i) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(i), requires that BPA's rates be established according to certain procedures. These procedures include, among other things, publication of this notice of the proposed rates in the Federal Register (Notice); one or more hearings conducted as expeditiously as practicable by a Hearing Officer; public opportunity to provide both oral and written views; data requests and responses and argument related to the proposed rates; and a decision by the Administrator based on the record. This proceeding is governed by § 1010, et seq. , of BPA's Rules of Procedure Governing Rate Hearings, 51 FR 7611 (1986) (BPA Hearing Procedures). These procedures implement the statutory Section 7(i) requirements.

Section 1010.7 of the BPA Hearing Procedures prohibits ex parte communications. The ex parte rule applies to all BPA and all DOE employees. Except as provided below, any outside communications with BPA and/or DOE personnel regarding BPA's rate case by other Executive Branch agencies, Congress, existing or potential BPA customers (including tribes), and nonprofit or public interest groups are all considered outside communications and are subject to the ex parte rule. The general rule does not apply to communications relating to (1) Matters of procedure only (the status of the rate case, for example); (2) exchanges of data in the course of business or under the Freedom of Information Act; (3) requests for factual information; (4) matters for which BPA is responsible under statutes other than the ratemaking provisions; or (5) matters which all parties agree may be made on an ex parte basis. The ex parte rule remains in effect until the Administrator's final ROD is issued, which is scheduled to occur on July 7, 2006.

The Bonneville Project Act, 16 U.S.C. 832, the Flood Control Act of 1944, 16 U.S.C. 825s, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act, 16 U.S.C. 838, and the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839, provide guidance regarding BPA ratemaking. The Northwest Power Act requires BPA to set rates that are sufficient to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the cost of acquiring, conserving and transmitting electric power, including amortization of the Federal investment in the FCRPS over a reasonable period of years, and certain other costs and expenses incurred by the Administrator.

BPA's initial proposed 2007 Wholesale Power Rate Schedules and General Rate Schedule Provisions (GRSPs) are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase as discussed in Part V of this Notice. The studies addressing the factors used to develop these rates are listed in Part IV and will be available for examination on November 21, 2005, at BPA's Public Information Center, BPA Headquarters Building, 1st Floor, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, and will be provided to parties at the prehearing conference to be held on November 21, 2005, beginning at 9:00 am, Pacific Standard Time, Room 223, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon.

You may download copies of the studies and documentation from BPA's Web site at http://www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase or request them (on a CD or hard copy) by calling BPA's document request line toll-free at: 1-800-622-4519.

BPA will release its WP-07 Initial Proposal and supporting documents on November 21, 2005, and expects to publish a final ROD on July 7, 2006. BPA will be conducting a formal evidentiary rate hearing attended by rate case parties. Interested parties must file petitions to intervene in order to take part in the formal hearing. A proposed schedule for the formal hearing is stated below. A final schedule will be established by the Hearing Officer at the prehearing conference.

BPA will also be conducting six public field hearings in cities throughout the Pacific Northwest. Public field hearings are an opportunity for persons who are not parties in the formal rate hearing to have their views included in the official record. Written transcripts will be made at all of the field hearings. The field hearings have been scheduled to take place at the locations, dates, and times specified below. The hearing dates also will be posted on the rate case Web site ( www.bpa.gov/power/rates ) and through announcements in local newspapers. Any changes to the scheduled public hearings will be available on the rate case Web site. The BPA Public Affairs Office also may be contacted for this information at the telephone number previously listed.

The WP-07 rate proceeding is designed to establish rates to replace existing rate schedules and GRSPs. One existing rate schedule, the Firm Power Products and Services rate schedule, was established for 10 years in the 1996 Wholesale Power Rate and Transmission Rate Adjustment Proceeding (WP-96/TR-96) and amended in the 1996 Firm Power Products and Services Rate Schedule Correction Proceeding (FPS-96R). The remaining power rate schedules and GRSPs were established in BPA's 2002 Wholesale Power Rate Adjustment Proceeding (WP-02). All of BPA's power rate schedules expire on September 30, 2006. Accordingly, BPA must conduct a rate case, pursuant to the 7(i) process, in order to comply with its statutory obligations to establish rates to market the power of the FCRPS.

The General Transfer Agreement (GTA) Delivery Charge, was established in the 2006 Transmission Rate Case (TR-06) for the period of October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2007. This power rate case will establish the General Transfer Agreement Delivery Charge for the period of October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2009.

On December 21, 1998, BPA issued the Power Subscription Strategy and Record of Decision (Subscription Strategy). The Subscription Strategy reflected BPA's position on the equitable distribution of Federal power for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-2011 period. The Subscription Strategy was the culmination of a multi-year public process that established BPA's plan for the availability of Federal power post-2001, the products from which customers could choose, along with an outline of the contracts and pricing framework for those products.

The Subscription Strategy provided a marketing framework for the WP-02 power rate case. The WP-02 power rate case developed the rates and rate schedules necessary for the products and contracts that were developed through Subscription. However, the rates established in the WP-02 power rate proceeding applied only to the first five years of the 10-year Subscription contracts. As noted above, the WP-02 power rates applicable to the Subscription contracts are set to expire on September 30, 2006, and must be replaced. The Subscription contracts continue to be the basis for the contractual relationship between BPA and nearly all of its firm power customers.

In addition to revising the rates for the Subscription contracts, BPA is proposing the successor to the Firm Power Products and Services (FPS) rate schedule. The FPS rate schedule is available for the purchase of surplus firm power and other products and services for use inside and outside the Pacific Northwest. The FPS rate schedule and associated GRSPs were established for a 10-year period running from October 1, 1996, to September 30, 2006. The rate schedule and GRSPs were slightly modified in 2000 through a 7(i) process (FPS-96R). The FPS rate schedule is used primarily for the sale at negotiated and/or posted rates of surplus firm power and related products. Unless replaced, BPA would lack a rate schedule to sell surplus power in the West Coast wholesale energy markets.

The Regional Dialogue process began in April 2002 when a group of BPA's Pacific Northwest electric utility customers submitted a “joint customer proposal” to BPA that addressed both near-term and long-term contract and rate issues. Since then, BPA, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council (Council), customers, and other interested parties have worked on these near- and long-term issues. Considering the depth and complexity of many of these issues, BPA concluded it was not practical to resolve all issues before the start of the 2007 rate period. Therefore, BPA determined that it would address the issues in two phases. The first phase of the Regional Dialogue addresses issues that had to be resolved in order to replace power rates that will expire in September 2006. The second phase is expected to be implemented through new power sales contracts and in a future rate case before new power sales contracts go into effect.

BPA issued the Near-Term Policy and Record of Decision on February 4, 2005. The Near-Term Policy has resolved some outstanding issues prior to the start of the 2007 rate period. Those issues include, but are not limited to, the following:

BPA will apply the lowest-cost PF rates to its public agency customers whose contracts contain the lowest-cost PF rate guarantee throughout the remaining term of the Subscription power sales contracts.

BPA will limit the duration of the next rate period to three years, from FY 2007 through FY 2009.

Public customers whose contracts do not contain a guarantee of the lowest cost-based PF rates for FY 2007-2011 will receive the same rate treatment in the FY 2007-2011 period as customers whose contracts contain this guarantee, so long as such customers signed a new contract or amendment by June 30, 2005, extending the term of the agreement through 2011.

Any new or existing public customer whose contract expires in 2006 may select from any of the standard products except Complex Partial (Factoring), Block with Factoring, or Slice. In addition, BPA resolved not to offer contract amendments that would allow changes in the power products and services purchased under a customer's 10-year Subscription contract.

BPA's Subscription contracts with the region's six IOUs require the agency to provide 2,200 aMW of power or financial benefits to the residential and small-farm consumers of these customers during FY 2007-2011. BPA signed agreements in late May 2004, with all six regional IOUs that provide certainty in the amount and manner that benefits will be provided to their residential and small-farm consumers under their Subscription contracts for 2007-2011. These agreements provide certainty by defining benefits based on a methodology that uses independent market-prices in calculating the financial benefits, and establishing a floor of $100 million and a cap of $300 million per year for the financial benefits.

BPA determined that it will provide eligible Pacific Northwest DSIs some level of Federal power service benefits, at a known quantity and capped cost, in the FY 2007-2011 period. In the Near-Term Policy, BPA decided that for the FY 2007-2011 period it would continue the ramp-down in DSI service by providing eligible DSI customers some level of service benefits, at a known quantity and capped cost, at rates no lower than rates paid by BPA's public customers, and under contractual terms no better than those offered to other customers. In order to provide an opportunity for additional dialogue with (and among) customers in the hope of achieving consensus for a balanced and durable solution for service to the DSIs, BPA noted in the Near-Term Policy that it reserved for later decision: (1) The actual level of service benefits it would provide; (2) the eligibility criteria it would apply in determining which DSIs would qualify for such service benefits; and (3) the mechanism or mechanisms it would use to deliver those service benefits. See Section 4, below, for a description of that later decision.

The Near-Term Policy established parameters for service to the DSIs which were addressed in Bonneville Power Administration's Service to DSI Customers for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 Administrator's Record of Decision (DSI ROD) (June 30, 2005).

In the DSI ROD, BPA determined to offer the aluminum company DSIs power sales contracts for an aggregate 560 aMW of benefits at a capped $59 million cost. In addition, BPA offered a 17 aMW surplus firm power sales contract for Port Townsend Paper Company through the local public utility under the FPS rate (or the IP rate if viable) at a price approximately equivalent to, but in no case less than, its lowest-cost PF rate.

BPA decided to allocate a share of the 560 aMW service benefits to each DSI aluminum company for purposes of making an initial offer of service, but the creditworthiness of each DSI, on a prospective basis, will determine whether BPA executes a contract with that company. In addition, each DSI aluminum company must demonstrate that it is operational. Because of the financial risks inherent in providing actual power and in order to meet the known and capped cost prerequisite, BPA determined that the default delivery mechanism would be to monetize the value of the below-market power sales to provide service benefits through cash payments. However, BPA retains an option to provide actual power in-lieu of monetizing the transaction.

In January 2005, BPA initiated an extensive and in depth process to examine the PBL's program levels. This Power Function Review (PFR) provided customers and constituent's significant opportunity to provide input into the policy choices that drive program cost projections to be used in BPA's initial power rate proposal. The PFR focused on nine major cost areas:

a. Army Corps of Engineer and Bureau of Reclamation operation and maintenance costs and capital investments;

b. Columbia Generating Station operation and maintenance costs and capital investments;

c. Conservation program costs;

d. Fish and wildlife program expenses and capital investments;

e. Internal operations costs charged to power rates;

f. Renewable program costs;

g. Transmission acquisition costs;

h. Risk mitigation packages and tools; and

i. Federal and Non-Federal debt service and debt management.

Two main areas, (1) debt service and debt management and (2) risk mitigation, were discussed but not decided in the PFR. The PFR involved technical staff meetings, management level discussions, and regional public meetings. In total, BPA held seven technical meetings, five formal discussion sessions with utility managers and five regional public meetings that involved general managers representing public customers, and customer representatives representing customers and constituent groups. During this five-month review, interested persons submitted a total of 94 written comments to BPA about the issues under discussion. At the close of the comment period, BPA issued a draft close-out letter with proposed program cost levels, delineated the consequences and opportunities of further reductions, and sought comment on those proposed levels. BPA received a number of additional written comments on the draft close-out letter. A final close-out letter was issued June 24, 2005. The PFR resulted in $96 million in reductions per year in forecasted program level cost estimates.

In the close-out letter, BPA responded to the comments provided on the draft and laid out the program level cost estimates that would be used in BPA's WP-07 Initial Proposal. In addition, BPA committed to revisit many of the program areas when more information is known. BPA will hold discussions separately from the rate case proceedings to share the updated forecasts, define associated policy choices, and solicit feedback from customers and constituents before they are incorporated into the final rates.

In the fall of 2004, BPA established a post-2006 conservation workgroup. The conservation workgroup was composed of over 65 utility representatives and conservation stakeholders. The purpose of the workgroup was to discuss and develop BPA's conservation program for the post-2006 time frame. In January 2005, the workgroup provided BPA with recommendations and comments on how BPA should design its conservation program.

On March 28, 2005, BPA issued its Post-2006 Conservation Program Structure Proposal for review and a 30-day comment period. BPA received 56 comments on the proposal. On June 28, 2005, BPA issued its response to the comments along with its final decision on the design and scope of the Post-2006 proposal.

The proposal described the approach of the conservation programs that BPA will offer during the FY 2007 through 2009 timeframe. The decisions in the Post-2006 proposal have been used as inputs in the development of BPA's WP-07 Initial Proposal.

BPA is committed to marketing its power and transmission services separately in a manner that is modeled after the regulatory initiatives adopted in 1996 by FERC to promote competition in wholesale power markets. The Commission's initiatives in Orders 888  1 and 889  2 directed public utilities regulated under the Federal Power Act to separate their power merchant functions from their transmission reliability functions; unbundle transmission and ancillary services from wholesale power services; and set separate rates for wholesale generation, transmission, and ancillary services. Although BPA is not required by law to follow the Commission's regulatory directives that promote competition and open access transmission service, BPA elected to separate its power and transmission operations and unbundle its rates in a manner consistent with the directives concerning open access transmission service. BPA develops its transmission rates in separate proceedings from its power rates.

On February 2, 2005, BPA's Transmission Business Line (TBL) initiated a rate case to establish transmission rates for the FY 2006-2007 transmission rate period. Prior to the initiation of that rate case, TBL held several public meetings with customers over the period July through September 2004 to discuss transmission costs, revenues, and rate design issues for the FY 2006-2007 rate period. The customers expressed interest in meeting with TBL to develop a settlement for the FY 2006-2007 rate period. TBL continued meetings with customers between October and early December 2004, resulting in a Settlement Agreement. TBL's initial rate proposal reflected the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

On June 20, 2005, BPA issued the Final Transmission Proposal-Administrator's Record of Decision that adopted the transmission and ancillary services rates as reflected in the Settlement Agreement. Final approval of these TBL rates was issued by FERC on September 29, 2005. The TBL rate case settlement established formula rates for ancillary services and some transmission rates that incorporate ancillary services. For FY 2007, these formula rates will be affected by the pricing of generation inputs to ancillary services that will be determined in this PBL rate case. The pricing of generation inputs to ancillary services determined in this rate case also will be a factor in TBL's rates in FY 2008-2009.

Many of the decisions that guide BPA's power marketing policies have been made or will be made in other public review processes. This section provides guidance to the Hearing Officer as to those matters that are within the scope of the rate case, and those that are outside the scope.

As described above, the program level expense estimates, except those decided elsewhere, have already received extensive public review and comment in the PFR process. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions on spending levels, as included in BPA's revenue requirements for FYs 2007 through 2009. However, as noted above, BPA did commit to revisit many of the program areas where final results were not known at the time the final report was issued and will hold discussion separately from the rate case proceeding to share the updated forecasts, define associated policy choices, and solicit feedback from customers and constituents before they are incorporated into the final rates. Excepted from this direction due to their variable nature, dependency on BPA's rate case models, and/or timing, are: (1) Forecasts of short-term purchase power costs; (2) capital recovery matters such as interest rate forecasts, scheduled amortization, depreciation, replacements, and interest expense; and (3) risk mitigation packages and tools.

As detailed above, BPA issued the Near-Term Policy on February 4, 2005. The Policy resolved a number of policy decisions that impact the design and features of BPA's WP-07 Initial Proposal. Those issues include but are not limited to, decisions on the availability of the lowest cost PF rate to public customers, term of the rate period, IOU and DSI service options, and the availability of products for new or existing customers. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions made in the Near-Term Policy ROD.

The DSI Service decisions finalized and established the manner and method by which BPA would provide service and benefits to its DSI customers. The decisions in that ROD resolved the method and level of service to be provided DSIs in the FY 2007-2011 period. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's decisions made in the DSI ROD.

In addition to the program cost decisions, the PFR close-out letter also included transmission acquisition program cost level decisions. This program represents the cost associated with services necessary to deliver energy from generating resources to markets and loads. These costs include: transmission expenses; ancillary services; real power losses; generation integration costs associated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation transmission facilities; and metering and communication requirements. In addition to these decisions, BPA determined the mechanism for modeling the variability in transmission expenses for the upcoming rate period.

Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's transmission acquisition program level estimates or the modeling used to calculate the variability of the transmission expense.

The only issue associated with the transmission acquisition program within the scope of this rate case is the risk analysis associated with modeling the transmission expense. In the PFR close-out letter, BPA agreed to model the transmission expense based on the full distribution of secondary sales rather than the average transmission expense. This issue will be addressed in the risk analysis portion of the rate case.

BPA's Power Business Line (PBL) provides a portion of the FCRPS's available generation to the TBL to enable TBL to meet its various transmission requirements. TBL uses the generation inputs to provide ancillary and control area services. To recover the costs associated with providing these generation inputs, PBL assigns a portion of the FCRPS costs to the transmission function. The cost allocations PBL is proposing to use to determine the generation input costs and associated unit costs to the TBL is a matter that is included within the scope of this rate proceeding.

Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing that seek in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of any other issues related to the generation inputs. This includes, but is not limited to, issues regarding the level or quality of the generation inputs that TBL requests from PBL. These determinations are generally made by TBL in accordance with industry, reliability, and other compliance standards and criteria, and are not matters appropriate for the rate case.

On June 20, 2005, BPA issued the Final Transmission Proposal ROD in TBL's rate case, which received final approval on September 29, 2005. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek in any way to revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of issues determined in the TBL rate case. That proceeding addressed, among other things, transmission and ancillary service rate levels, the $1.5 million payment from TBL to PBL for Attachment K redispatch for FY 2006-2007, and the GTA Delivery Charge for FY 2007.

Through the post-2006 workgroup collaboration, customers and constituents provided input on the development of BPA's post-2006 conservation approach. Pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing that seek to in any way revisit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's conservation programs and establishment of expense levels through the Post-2006 Conservation Program Structure Proposal dated June 28, 2005. The Hearing Officer is directed to exclude from the scope of this proceeding evidence regarding BPA's portfolio of conservation programs and the expenses BPA intends to pursue during the upcoming rate period.

During the PFR, and in other forums, BPA provided background information on its internal Federal and non-Federal debt management policies and practices. The discussions of these topics in the PFR and other forums were not intended to seek input from customers and constituents regarding BPA's debt management policies and practices. Rather, these discussions were intended to merely inform interested parties about these matters so that they would better understand BPA's debt structure. Although the PFR close-out letter did not make any decisions regarding BPA's debt management policies and practices, these remain outside the scope of the rate case. Therefore, pursuant to § 1010.3(f) of BPA Hearing Procedures, the Administrator hereby directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record any material attempted to be submitted or arguments attempted to be made in the hearing which seek to in any way visit the appropriateness or reasonableness of BPA's debt management policies and practices.

The Administrator directs the Hearing Officer to exclude from the record all evidence and argument that seek in any way to address the potential environmental impacts of the rates being developed in the 2007 Wholesale Power Rate Case. See Section C, below.

BPA is in the process of assessing the potential environmental effects of its WP-07 Initial Proposal, consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BPA's Business Plan Environmental Impact Statement (Business Plan EIS), completed in June 1995, evaluated the environmental impacts of a range of business plan alternatives that could be varied by applying policy modules, including one for rates. Any combination of alternative policy modules should allow BPA to balance its costs and revenues. The Business Plan EIS also addressed response strategies, including adjusting rates that BPA could pursue if BPA's costs exceeded its revenues. In August 1995, the BPA Administrator issued a Record of Decision (Business Plan ROD) that adopted the Market-Driven Alternative from the Business Plan EIS. This alternative was selected because, among other reasons, it allows BPA to: (1) Recover costs through rates; (2) competitively market BPA's products and services; (3) develop rates that meet customer needs for clarity and simplicity; (4) continue to meet BPA's legal mandates; and (5) avoid adverse environmental impacts. BPA also committed to apply as many response strategies as necessary when BPA's costs and revenues do not balance. Because the WP-07 Initial Proposal likely would assist BPA in accomplishing these goals, the proposal appears consistent with these aspects of the Market-Driven Alternative. In addition, this rate proposal is similar to the type of rate designs evaluated in the Business Plan EIS; thus implementation of this rate proposal would not be expected to result in significantly different environmental impacts from those examined in the Business Plan EIS. Therefore, BPA expects that this WP-07 Initial Proposal will fall within the scope of the Market-Driven Alternative that was evaluated in the Business Plan EIS and adopted in the Business Plan ROD.

As part of the Administrator's ROD that will be prepared regarding this 2007 Wholesale Power Rate Case, BPA may tier its decision under NEPA to the Business Plan ROD. However, depending upon the ongoing environmental review, BPA may, instead, issue another appropriate NEPA document.

BPA distinguishes between “participants in” and “parties to” the 7(i) hearing process. Apart from the formal hearing process, BPA will accept comments, views, opinions, and information from “participants” who are defined in the BPA Hearing Procedures as persons who may submit comments without being subject to the duties of, or having the privileges of, parties. Participants' written and oral comments will be made a part of the official record and considered by the Administrator when making his decision. Participants are not entitled to participate in the prehearing conference; may not cross-examine parties' witnesses, seek discovery, or serve or be served with documents; and are not subject to the same procedural requirements as parties.

The views of the participants are important to BPA. Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by 5 p.m. on February 13, 2006. This date follows the anticipated submission of BPA's and all other parties' direct cases. Written views, supporting information, questions, and arguments should be submitted to BPA Communications at the address listed in Section 2 of this Notice. In addition, BPA will hold six field hearings in the Pacific Northwest region. Participants may appear at the field hearings and present oral statements. The transcripts of these hearings will be part of the record upon which the Administrator makes his final rate decisions.

Persons wishing to become a party to BPA's rate proceeding must notify BPA in writing and file a Petition to Intervene with the Hearing Officer. Petitioners may designate no more than two representatives upon whom service of documents will be made. Petitions to Intervene shall state the name and address of the person requesting party status and the person's interest in the hearing.

Petitions to Intervene as parties in the rate proceeding are due to the Hearing Office by 5 p.m. on November 17, 2005. The petitions should be directed as stated below or may be e-mailed to the following e-mail address: jsanders@bpa.gov: Jennifer Sanders, Hearing Clerk—LP-7, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, OR 97208-3621.

Petitioners must explain their interests in sufficient detail to permit the Hearing Officer to determine whether they have a relevant interest in the proceeding. Pursuant to § 1010.1(d) of BPA Hearing Procedures, BPA waives the requirement in § 1010.4(d) that an opposition to an intervention petition must be filed and served 24 hours before the November 21, 2005, prehearing conference. Any opposition to an intervention petition may instead be made at the prehearing conference. Any party, including BPA, may oppose a petition for intervention. Persons who have been denied party status in any past BPA rate proceeding shall continue to be denied party status unless they establish a significant change of circumstances. All timely applications will be ruled on by the Hearing Officer. Late interventions are strongly disfavored.

The record will comprise, among other things, verbal and written comments made by participants, including the transcripts of all hearings, any written material submitted by the parties, documents developed by BPA staff, BPA's environmental analysis and comments accepted on it, and other material accepted into the record by the Hearing Officer. Written comments by participants will be included in the record if they are received by 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time, on February 13, 2006. The Hearing Officer will then review the record, supplement it if necessary, and will certify the record to the Administrator for decision.

The Administrator will develop final proposed rates based on the entire record, which includes the record certified by the Hearing Officer, as described above. The basis for the final proposed rates first will be expressed in the Administrator's draft ROD. Parties will have an opportunity to respond to the draft ROD as provided in BPA Hearing Procedures. The Administrator will serve copies of the final ROD on all parties. At the conclusion of the rate proceeding, BPA will file its rates with FERC for confirmation and approval at least 60 days prior to October 1, 2006.

BPA must continue to meet with customers in the ordinary course of business during the rate case. To comport with the rate case procedural rule prohibiting ex parte communications, BPA will provide the prescribed notice of meetings involving rate case issues in order to permit the opportunity for participation by all rate case parties. These meetings may be held on very short notice. Consequently, the parties should be prepared to devote the necessary resources to participate fully in every aspect of the rate proceeding and attend meetings any day during the course of the rate case.

BPA is proposing five different rate schedules for its 2007 Wholesale Power Rates. The actual rate schedules and the GRSPs are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase as discussed in Part V of this Notice.

The PF rate schedule is comprised of two rates: the PF Preference rate and the PF Exchange rate.

The PF Preference rate applies to BPA's firm power sales to be used within the Pacific Northwest by public bodies, cooperatives, and Federal agencies. This power is guaranteed to be continuously available. The rate applies to the following products:

The PF Exchange rate applies to sales of power to regional utilities that participate in the Residential Exchange Program established under Section 5(c) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(c).

The New Resource Firm Power (NR) rate applies to net requirements power sales to IOUs for resale to ultimate consumers for direct consumption, construction, test, and start-up, and for station service. NR-07 firm power is also available to public utility customers for serving New Large Single Loads. This rate applies to the following products:

The IP rate is available for discretionary firm power sales to DSI customers authorized by Section (5)(d)(1)(A) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(d)(1)(A).

The FPS rate schedule is available for the purchase of Firm Power, Capacity Without Energy, Supplemental Control Area Services, Shaping Services, and Reservation and Rights to Change Services for use inside and outside the Pacific Northwest. The rates for these products are posted and/or negotiated. BPA is not obligated to enter into agreements to sell products and services under this rate schedule.

The GTA Delivery Charge applies to customers who purchase Federal power that is delivered over non-Federal low voltage transmission facilities. The rate was set in the 2006 TBL Rate Case Settlement and approved by FERC on September 29, 2005, to mirror the Utility Delivery rate from October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2007. The 2006 TBL Rate Case Settlement set the GTA Delivery Charge at $1.119 per kilowatt-month through September 30, 2007. For the period of October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2009, PBL is proposing to continue to set the GTA Delivery Charge to the same rate as TBL's posted Utility Delivery rate. As adjustments are made to the Utility Delivery rate in future TBL rate cases, PBL proposes to reflect these changes in the GTA Delivery Charge.

Several factors present new challenges for BPA to keep its power rates low while fulfilling its mission and meeting its obligations to the U.S. Treasury consistent with sound business principles. Increased market price volatility and six consecutive years of below-average runoff have significantly changed the landscape of risk and uncertainty facing BPA and its stakeholders.

The uncertainty and volatility of market prices are greater today than they have been in the past. As a consequence, the cost of covering the risk BPA faces in crediting a large portion of secondary revenues to power rates before receiving those uncertain funds is now greater. BPA also faces uncertainty around the operational costs for fish programs in FY 2006 and in the FY 2007-2009 rate period. A new Biological Opinion or possible court-ordered change to river operations would directly affect BPA's net revenues. In addition, enhanced risk management practices resulted in analysis that accounts for operational risks not previously modeled as well as a more comprehensive analysis of non-operating risks. Finally, the $325 million Fish Cost Contingency Fund (FCCF) was fully depleted in FY 2003 resulting in the loss of a risk tool that was available to mitigate dry year impacts on fish operations.

These changes create greater risk for BPA, reduce BPA's ability to absorb those risks, increase the costs of managing risks, and/or more fully reflect the costs of managing them. If rates were designed using a traditional approach of adding Planned Net Revenues for Risk (PNRR), these changes would require that power rates be set to recover a much larger “risk premium” than ever before in order to meet the Treasury Payment Probability (TPP) standard which, if this was the sole approach to managing risk, would result in a relatively high rate. Additional cash reserves and/or a more comprehensive risk mitigation package, such as the cost recovery adjustment clauses implemented in the FY 2002-2006 rates, are necessary to address these risks and ensure that BPA can maintain its minimum TPP standard of 92.6%  3 for the rate period.

As noted above, BPA faces a level of uncertainty regarding its assumption concerning river operations as well as direct program costs for fish and wildlife due to the ongoing issues surrounding BPA fish and wildlife obligations. To mitigate against this risk, BPA has proposed a specific rate adjustment (NFB adjustment). In order to balance the need to cover risk with overall rate levels, BPA is proposing to meet its TPP standard through a combination of PNRR, cost recovery adjustment charges, the NFB adjustment and a dividend distribution clause. See Sections 3 and 4, below.

BPA has been meeting with customers and the parties over the last year to explore alternative means of managing risk that would allow the TPP standard to be met with lower rates. BPA has committed to continue these discussions over the next several months in properly noticed meetings to continue to pursue the viability of these options in order to include them in the final studies.

Under Residential Exchange Program (REP) settlement agreements executed by BPA and the IOUs in 2000, BPA originally provided the IOUs 1,000 aMW of power benefits and 900 aMW of monetary benefits for the FY 2002-2006 period. Power sales were originally made at the Residential Load (RL) Firm Power Rate and the PF Exchange Subscription rate. Monetary benefits were originally calculated based on the difference between BPA's RL rate and BPA's then-current rate case 5-year flat block price forecast. The benefits increase to 2,200 aMW for the FY 2007-2011 period either in the form of power or monetary benefits, at BPA's discretion. Based on amendments of the REP settlement agreements in 2004, and the Near-Term Policy, however, BPA will not sell power to the IOUs during FY 2007-2011. BPA therefore is not proposing to establish an RL rate or a PF Exchange Subscription rate for IOU power sales in the WP-07 rate case. Instead, all IOU Settlement benefits for the FY 2007-2011 period are monetary benefits calculated based on the difference between an independent determination of a forecast of a forward flat block market price and BPA's flat PF rate, consistent with the IOU contracts.

BPA is addressing certain inter-business line issues in this 2007 Power Rate Case. These include the generation inputs for: generation supplied reactive and voltage support; operating reserves; regulating reserves; generation and energy imbalance; generation dropping for remedial action schemes; and station service. Segmentation of the Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) facilities will also be addressed. BPA is proposing methodologies to calculate the costs of these services, and forecast revenues, in order to determine BPA's power revenue requirement to be recovered through power rates. These generation costs, or associated unit costs, will be allocated to TBL to support TBL's ancillary services and other operations. Relevant transmission and ancillary service rates for FY 2006-2007 include formulas that allow for the costs and charges developed in this power rate case to be factored into the transmission and ancillary service rates. BPA is also proposing to set a GTA Delivery Charge as determined by the 2006 Transmission rate settlement. This power rate proceeding will establish the GTA Delivery Charge for FY 2008 and 2009.

Consistent with the DSI ROD, BPA is not forecasting direct service under the IP rate to the DSI customers. Instead, BPA plans to offer the DSI aluminum smelters 560 aMW of surplus firm power service benefits for the FY 2007-2011 period at a capped cost of $59 million per year. BPA will offer Port Townsend Paper Company 17 aMW of surplus firm power service benefits, whereupon its local utility will provide power at a utility rate expected to be approximately equivalent to, but in no case lower than, BPA's PF rate. With the DSI aluminum companies, creditworthiness standards must be met or acceptable credit assurances must be provided by those companies qualifying for benefits. In addition, benefits can be monetized under the proposed contracts with these companies, but BPA will retain the right to provide physically delivered surplus power, subject to long-term interruption rights, in lieu of a financial transaction.

BPA is continuing, in general, its existing rate design for its FY 2007-2009 rates, with some changes and modifications as described below. Complete details on these changes are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase as discussed in Part V of this Notice.

BPA is proposing to replace the Conservation and Renewables (C&R) Discount with a Conservation Rate Credit (CRC) program. The CRC will retain many of the features of the C&R Discount including: (1) The credit will remain at 0.5 mills per kWh; (2) monthly bill credits; (3) no decrement to customers' net requirements for CRC participation (including Slice customers); (4) customer flexibility in choosing between several eligible conservation and renewable energy measures; and (5) funding under the CRC for customer renewable resource activities is limited to $6 million annually.

BPA is proposing to continue the DDC with a modification to the Threshold. BPA proposes that there will be a DDC if Accumulated Modified Net Revenues (AMNR) reach the equivalent of $800 million in reserves attributable to PBL.

This is a charge that applies to purchasers of the Complex Actual Partial Service Product under the PF rate schedule. BPA is proposing minor changes to eliminate references to the California Power Exchange.

BPA is proposing to continue the Green Energy Premium (GEP), available to customers purchasing firm power. The GEP is an adjustment to the PF rate when a customer chooses to designate any portion (up to 100 percent) of its Subscription purchase as Environmentally Preferred Power.

The GEP will range from zero to 40 mills per kWh depending on the specific products and associated costs selected by each customer. BPA forecasts an average of $1.4 million of annual revenue from the GEP over the rate period. Revenues from the GEP will support BPA renewable resource facilitation and research and development.

BPA is not proposing to continue the existing LB CRAC in the FY 2007-2009 rate period. However, the LB CRAC contemplates an after-the-fact true-up as soon as the necessary actual data is available after each sixth-month LB CRAC period. The final LB CRAC True-Up is anticipated to occur in December 2006, after the expiration of BPA's current rates on September 30, 2006. Therefore, BPA is proposing to carry over the LB CRAC True-Up provisions in the GRSPs for the FY 2007-2009 rate period to allow for the final True-Up. Implementation will be limited to the true-up for the final 6 months (LBCRAC10 period) of the 2002-2006 rate period. True-Up billing adjustments will be made over twelve months starting in early 2007.

BPA is proposing to continue the Load Variance Charge. This charge covers BPA's cost of meeting customers' load growth for reasons other than annexation or retail access load gain or loss. In addition, it provides Full and Partial Service purchasers the right to deviate from their monthly forecast BPA purchases due to weather, economic business cycles, plant energy consumptions and other reasons. The method for setting the Load Variance charge in this rate proposal differs from the WP-02 rate-setting process. It is no longer based on the cost of put or call options. Instead, load growth is forecast, and the cost is estimated based on a forecast of future market prices. The cost of forecast error is estimated based on an assumption of a two percent forecast error and a forecast of future market prices. The charge is set at 0.53 mills per kWh and is charged against the customer's Total Retail Load.

BPA is proposing four changes to the LDD: (1) BPA proposes to change the eligibility criteria to account for BPA's separation of power and transmission rates which first occurred in 1996, and also to ensure that customers with very low retail rates will not qualify for the LDD; (2) one of the measures used in calculating the LDD is proposed to use “consumers per mile” instead of “meters per mile” to ensure consistency and equity; (3) the term “average retail rate” has been clarified for simplification of the LDD administration; and (4) BPA proposes to amend LDD to ensure it only applies to the qualifying Slice purchaser's net requirements.

BPA is not proposing changes to the methodology for calculating energy charges. There will be two diurnal periods, Heavy Load Hour (HLH) and Light Load Hours (LLH), for each month. BPA is proposing slight changes to the definitions of HLH and LLH to be consistent with NERC definitions. BPA is proposing to revise the definition of HLH and LLH included in the 2006 Transmission General Rate Schedule Provisions for FY 2007 to be consistent with NERC and BPA's proposed definitions in the GRSPs for the power rates. The actual energy charges will be updated consistent with the method used in WP-2002.

BPA is proposing a minor modification to the methodology for calculating the demand charge. There will continue to be 12 monthly demand charges, but the average rate will decrease from $2.00 per kW-month to $1.05 per kW-month. This change is to better reflect the market price for demand with energy.

BPA is continuing the Targeted Adjustment Charge, with some proposed modifications. BPA proposes to exempt PF TAC loads from the PF TAC in any year of the three years of the rate period that the load subject to the TAC is less than 1 aMW. The TAC will apply to the entire load if it exceeds the minimum. Also, the calculation of the PF TAC rate will be based on monthly availability of the Federal Base System (FBS), rather than an annual calculation.

These are penalty charges for Unauthorized Increases in Energy and Unauthorized Increases in Demand for deliveries that exceed contractual entitlements for energy and demand, respectively. BPA is proposing minor changes to the UAI to eliminate references to the California Power Exchange.

BPA is proposing a number of new adjustments and continuing some existing adjustments. Complete details of these adjustments are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase as discussed in Part V of this Notice.

BPA is proposing changes in how it handles its forecasted revenues from providing operating reserves to the TBL. BPA's Open Access Transmission Tariff requires transmission customers serving load with generation located in the Transmission Provider's Control Area to acquire Operating Reserves from the Transmission Provider, from a third party, or by self-supply. The 2002 power rate case estimated total revenue recovered by PBL selling Operating Reserves generation inputs to TBL, assuming all customers purchased Operating Reserves from TBL. The expected revenue from the sale of Operating Reserves was deducted from the overall revenue requirement when determining the cost of the Federal system which is the basis for calculating power rates. During this current rate period, some customers began self-supplying Operating Reserves, and TBL has purchased less generation inputs from PBL. Therefore, PBL did not fully recover expected revenues. To avoid this under-recovery in the FY 2007-2009 rate period and to ensure that revenues are allocated equitably, PBL is proposing to estimate total revenues from the sale of generation inputs to TBL and give a 0.89 mills per kWh credit on the power bills of customers that elect to purchase Operating Reserves from TBL. This will prevent both under-recovery and over-recovery. While BPA proposes not to allocate these revenues or credits to those customers that self-supply Operating Reserves or acquire Operating Reserves from a third party, BPA will consider alternatives to this proposal that address BPA's concerns regarding the proper allocation of costs and revenues.

Prior to the beginning of each fiscal year of the rate period ( i.e. , FY 2007-2009), a forecast of the previous year's end-of-year AMNR will be completed. If the AMNR at the end of the forecast year falls below the defined CRAC Threshold for that fiscal year, the CRAC will trigger, and a rate increase will go into effect beginning in October of the upcoming fiscal year. Any such increase in a fiscal year's rates would remain in effect through September of the following year. This adjustment could occur as early as August 2006 for the rates in effect for FY 2007. The amount of the rate increase is limited to the lower of the annual Maximum Planned Recovery Amount of $300 million or the amount by which AMNRs under run the threshold.

The NFB adjustment results in an upward adjustment to the CRAC Maximum Planned Recovery Amount (Cap) for any year in the rate period if unforeseen fish and wildlife costs arise from a predetermined set of circumstances. The NFB Adjustment calculation will result in an increase in the annual CRAC maximum recovery amount defined in Table A for the next fiscal year following the year the NFB Adjustment was triggered. The NFB Adjustment is applicable to FY 2007—2009. The NFB Adjustment will address increases in financial impacts to the anadromous fish portion of the Fish and Wildlife program only when those impacts result from changes in FCRPS Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance as required by a court order (including court-approved agreements), an agreement related to litigation, a new NMFS FCRPS BiOp, or Recovery Plans under the ESA. Financial impacts include foregone revenue, power purchases, direct program expense, fish credits, COE and BOR O&M, and capital repayment. Financial impacts will be calculated net of forecast 4(h)(10)(C) credits. This adjustment would be calculated at the same time that the calculation of the CRAC would be made.

The following is a list of rates or adjustments that BPA proposes to continue with no changes from current rates. Complete details on the rates or adjustments are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase as discussed in Part V of this Notice.

This is an adjustment that is made to the demand billing factor for certain requirements products.

These are rate options available, at BPA's discretion, to purchasers under the PF and NR rate schedules.

BPA is not proposing any changes to the methodology used to conduct the Slice True-up. However, BPA does clarify in its proposal how certain costs are treated with the Slice Rate and True-up. These include debt optimization, bad debt expenses, augmentation expenses, Conservation Augmentation, IOU and DSI benefits, and Slice implementation expenses.

Section 7(c)(3) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(c)(3), provides that the Administrator shall adjust rates to the DSI customers “to take into account the value of power system reserves made available to the Administrator through his rights to interrupt or curtail service to such direct service industrial customers.” The DSIs may provide two types of reserves: Supplemental Contingency Reserves and Stability Reserves. The WP-07 Initial Proposal reflects Stability Reserves being purchased by the TBL and addressed in TBL's transmission rate case.

The PBL is proposing in this rate case to continue the approach to procure Supplemental Reserves developed in the WP-02 Rate Case. The PBL will purchase the most cost-effective Supplemental Reserves or provide those reserves itself. No Supplemental Reserves are explicitly forecast to be provided by the DSIs in this rate case. Any payment to the DSIs for Supplemental Contingency Reserves will be negotiated within a specified range on an individual customer basis rather than a credit applied to some or all of BPA's DSI load. The maximum amount PBL may pay is $6.96 per kW-month.

The following are rates and adjustments that BPA is proposing to discontinue.

BPA does not forecast any sales under this product.

BPA does not forecast any sales under this product.

BPA is not proposing a FB CRAC for this rate period. See Section 4.b., above, for BPA's risk mitigation.

BPA is not proposing a flexible IP rate in the IP rate schedule as BPA does not forecast any sales under the IP rate schedule.

BPA is not proposing to continue the industrial power targeted adjustment charge as BPA does not forecast any sales under the IP rate schedule.

BPA is proposing to discontinue the NF rate in this rate proposal as it is no longer used.

BPA is proposing to discontinue the RL rate in this rate proposal as it is no longer necessary. See Section 2.b. above.

BPA is not proposing a SN CRAC for this rate period. See Section 4.b., above, for BPA's risk mitigation.

BPA is not proposing stepped rates in this rate proposal because this is only a 3-year, not a 5-year, rate period.

BPA is not proposing a SUMY block charge in this rate proposal.

The IP-07 rate applies to discretionary firm power sales to BPA's DSI customers who purchase under Section 5(d) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839c(d). In this rate proposal, BPA is not forecasting any sales to DSIs under the IP rate but, for various reasons, the IP rate is nonetheless being set according to the rate directives contained in Section 7(c) of the Northwest Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 839e(c).

Section 7(c)(1)(B) provides that after July 1, 1985, DSI rates will be set “at a level which the Administrator determines to be equitable in relation to the retail rates charged by the pubic body and cooperative customers to their industrial consumers in the region.” 16 U.S.C. 839e(c)(1)(B). Pursuant to Section 7(c)(2), the IP rate is to be based on BPA's “applicable wholesale rates” to its preference customers and the “typical margins” included by those customers in their retail industrial rates. 16 U.S.C. 839e(c)(2). Section 7(c)(3) provides that the IP rate is also to be adjusted to account for the value of power system reserves provided through contractual rights that allow BPA to restrict portions of the DSI load. 16 U.S.C. 839e(c)(3). This adjustment is typically made through a value of reserves credit. Continuing past practice and given current circumstances, BPA will not propose a uniform value of reserves credit to be applied against the IP rate. Thus, the IP rate will be set equal to the applicable wholesale rate, plus a typical margin, subject to the floor rate test. As a final step in rate design, BPA develops monthly and diurnally differentiated energy charges and monthly differentiated demand charges based on allocated costs and scaled, based on the results of BPA's rate design.

The typical Industrial Margin is 0.573 mills per kWh. As stated above, a zero value of reserves credit is being forecast in this rate case. Thus, the net margin of 0.573 mills per kWh is added to the seasonal and diurnal PF energy charges to produce the initial IP rate charges.

BPA conducts a Section 7(b)(2) rate test as part of its ratemaking process and if the test “triggers,” the initial IP rate charges are increased. In the current rate case, the 7(b)(2) rate test does trigger and additional costs are allocated to the IP rate pool, substantially increasing the IP rate charges above their initial PF-plus margin level.

In addition, Section 7(c)(2) of the Northwest Power Act requires that IP rates in the post-1985 period “shall in no event be less than the rates in effect for the contract year ending on June 30, 1985.” 16 U.S.C. § 839e(c)(2). Accordingly, a floor rate test is performed to determine if the IP rate has been set at a level below the floor rate. If so, an adjustment is made that raises the IP rate to recover revenues that would be generated by application of the floor rate. Other customer classes are then credited with the increased revenue generated by application of the floor rate test and any resulting adjustment of the IP rate. If the IP rate has been set at a level above the floor rate, no floor rate adjustment is necessary.

The first step in calculating the floor rate is to apply the IP-83 Standard rate charges to test period (FY 2007-2009) DSI billing determinants. The resulting revenue figure is then divided by total IP test period loads to arrive at an average rate in mills per kWh. This rate is reduced by an Exchange Cost Adjustment and a deferral that were included in the IP-83 rate. Both adjustments are made on a mills per kWh basis.

BPA continues to conduct separate rate cases for power and transmission. Therefore, BPA has removed all transmission costs from the IP-83 rate to make a power-only floor rate comparison. These calculations result in a DSI floor rate of 20.97 mills per kWh. Because the proposed IP rate revenues are greater than the floor rate revenues, no adjustment was necessary.

PBL is proposing to rely on a number of elements for its risk mitigation package in its WP-07 Initial Proposal. These include a Cost Recovery Adjustment Clause (CRAC), with the NFB Adjustment and a DDC, as described above, as well as the following:

(1) Starting Reserves. The financial reserves attributable to PBL at the start of the rate period provide some financial protection against the financial uncertainties it faces. Starting financial reserves include the portions attributed to the generation function of cash in the BPA Fund and the deferred borrowing balance. The expected value for starting reserves is currently $381 million at the beginning of FY 2007.

(2) Other Agency Reserves Temporarily Available for Rate-Setting Purposes. BPA will assume that other agency reserves above the level required to meet the transmission function TPP for FY 2006-2007 can be considered for PBL rate-setting purposes to be temporarily available to PBL in FY 2007 only. BPA will ensure that this will not harm the interests of TBL or its customers.

(3) PNRR. The anticipated generation function reserves, with the tools noted above, are not sufficient for the agency to meet its financial objective of a 92.6 percent TPP. As a result, BPA's risk mitigation package includes some PNRR. PNRR is a dollar amount in the generation revenue requirement that generates additional revenue in order to increase the generation function reserves.

The RAM2007 model is a large Excel spreadsheet model that is automated with Visual Basic macros. RAM2007 has three main steps: a Rate Design Step; a Subscription Step; and a Slice Separation Step. The RAM2007 Rate Design Step follows BPA's rate directives by determining the costs associated with the three resource pools (FBS resources, Residential Exchange resources, and new resources) used to serve sales load, and then allocates those costs to the rate pools (PF, IP, and NR). After the initial allocation of costs, the Northwest Power Act requires that some rate adjustments be made, such as those described in Section 7(b) and Section 7(c) of the Act. The RAM2007 performs these rate adjustments including the 7(b)(2) rate test in its Rate Design Step. The Rate Design Step of the RAM2007 concludes with the calculation of the “Rate Design Step” rates. At this point in the modeling, all posted rates are still preliminary except for the PF Exchange rate which is set and is then used to calculate the net cost of any public utility exchange. The Subscription Step calculates rates that will include the costs of the IOU Residential Exchange Program (REP) settlement. The Subscription Step section takes the rates resulting for the Rate Design Step and adjusts them by first subtracting any net cost of the traditional REP for the IOUs that have been included in the Rate Design Step rates, and then adding the costs of the IOU REP settlement. In the Rate Design and Subscription steps, costs were allocated to the various rate pools, including the PF Preference rate pool that contained all firm PF Preference loads. The Slice Separation Step separates out the PF Slice product revenues and firm loads from the overall PF Preference rate pool, leaving the costs that must be covered by the remaining non-Slice product PF Preference load.

The studies that have been prepared to support BPA's 2007 Initial Wholesale Power Rate proposal are described in detail in this section:

Load Resource Study and Documentation (Study about 35 pages, documentation about 120 pages);

Revenue Requirement Study and Documentation (Study about 200 pages, documentation about 450 pages);

Market Price Forecast Study and Documentation (Study about 25 pages, documentation about 400 pages);

Risk Analysis Study and Documentation (Study about 75 pages, documentation about 175 pages);

Wholesale Power Rate Development Study and Documentation (Study about 120 pages, documentation about 600 pages); and

Section 7(b)(2) Rate Test Study and Documentation (Study about 20 pages, documentation about 120 pages).

The Load Resource Study represents the compilation of the load and resource data necessary for developing BPA's wholesale rates. The Study has three major interrelated components: (a) BPA's Federal system load forecast; (b) BPA's Federal system resource forecast; and (c) the Federal system load and resource balances.

The Federal system forecast is composed of customer and group sales forecasts for public utilities and Federal agencies, IOUs, and other BPA contractual obligations.

The Federal system resource forecast includes power generated by both Federal and non-Federal hydro projects, return energy associated with BPA's existing capacity-for-energy exchanges, contracted resources, and other BPA hydro related contracts. The Federal system hydro resource estimates are derived from a hydro regulation study that estimates generation under 50 water years conditions using the operating provisions of the Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement. The seasonal shape and magnitude of the Federal system hydro generation depends on availability of all regional resources and coordination of those resources to meet regional loads.

The projections of Federal system resources are compared with projected Federal system firm loads for each month of Fiscal Years 2007-2009 (October 2007-September 2009) under 1937 water conditions. The resulting load and resource balances yield the firm energy surplus or deficit of the Federal system resources. Similarly, firm capacity surpluses and deficits are determined for the same period.

The purpose of the Revenue Requirement Study is to establish the level of revenues from wholesale power rates necessary to recover, in accordance with sound business principles, the FCRPS costs associated with the production, acquisition, marketing, and conservation of electric power. Generation revenue requirements include: Recovery of the Federal investments in hydrogeneration, fish and wildlife recovery, and energy conservation; Federal agencies' operations and maintenance expenses allocated to power; capitalized contract expenses associated with such non-Federal power suppliers as Energy Northwest; other purchase power expenses, such as short-term power purchases; power marketing expenses; cost of transmission services necessary for the sale and delivery of FCRPS power; and all other power-related costs incurred by the Administrator pursuant to law.

Cost estimates reflect the results of the Power Function Review and certain components of the Subscription Strategy. The repayment studies reflect updated actual and projected repayment obligations and accommodate the on-going implementation of BPA's Debt Optimization Program. All new capital investments are assumed to be financed from debt or appropriations. The adequacy of projected revenues to recover rate test period revenue requirements and to recover the Federal investment over the prescribed repayment period is tested and demonstrated for the generation function.

The Market Price Forecast Study estimates the variable hourly cost of the marginal resource for transactions in the wholesale energy market. The specific market used in this analysis is the Mid-Columbia trading hub in the State of Washington.

The Market Price Forecast is used for two purposes in BPA's rate case. First, it is the basis for approximating the prices BPA may experience when selling to or buying from the wholesale power market. The Market Price Forecast estimates are therefore used to inform, but not directly set, the price used in BPA's surplus or net secondary revenue forecast. Second, the Market Price Forecast represents BPA's marginal cost in acquiring new energy, or the opportunity cost BPA may see in selling wholesale energy. The Market Price Forecast is therefore used in rate design and to send market-based price signals.

The Market Price Forecast uses a production cost model, AURORA, to estimate a market clearing price for wholesale energy. The fundamental assumption underlying AURORA modeling is the existence of a competitive wholesale energy pricing structure in the Western Electricity Coordinating Council Region. The model dispatches resources in a least cost order to meet a specified demand. Short-term prices are set at the variable cost of the marginal generator. Long-term capital investment decisions are based on economic profitability in an unregulated environment. The study will also forecast independent market-price forecasts used for IOU and DSI benefits.

The Risk Analysis Study focuses upon two types of risks and their impacts on BPA's revenues and expenses. The first class of risks is comprised of operating risks such as variations in economic conditions, load, and generation resource capability. These operating risks include the impacts of water supply conditions, alternative hydro operations, and market prices on net revenues. These operating risks are modeled in the Risk Analysis Model (RiskMod). The second class of risks comprises non-operating risks—all the risks included in the rate case risk modeling other than operating risks. This class of non-operating risks also includes uncertainty in achieving cost reductions identified in the Power Function Review. These risks are modeled in the Non-Operating Risk Model (NORM). The outputs from RiskMod and NORM are combined to develop the distribution of net revenues and cash flows that are required as input by the ToolKit Model.

BPA subsequently evaluates the impact that different risk mitigation measures have on reducing net revenue risk by calculating the TPP. The ToolKit Model assesses the impact that the net revenue deviations have on cash reserve levels, calculates the probability that BPA will make each Treasury payment on time and in full. If the TPP is below BPA's three-year 92.6 percent TPP standard, analysts change the combination of risk mitigation tools ( e.g. , Cost Recovery Adjustment Clauses, Planned Net Revenues for Risk, Dividend Distribution Clause, etc.) to meet the TPP standard. The amount of PNRR calculated in the ToolKit Model is included in revenue requirements and, thus, affects the level of the rates calculated in the rates analysis model below.

The Wholesale Power Rate Development Study (WPRDS) is the primary source for details concerning BPA's power rates. It reflects the results of all of the other studies, documents the Rates Analysis Model, and documents the development of rates for BPA's wholesale power products and services. The WPRDS documents the allocation and recovery of Federal power costs, development of the Slice cost table; the development and forecast of inter-business line revenues and expenses (including Generation Input of Ancillary Services, segmentation of COE/Reclamation Transmission Facilities and GTA Delivery Charge), the development of charges for demand, load variance, unauthorized increase usage, excess load factoring, numerous rate provisions ( e.g. the low-density discount, conservation and renewable discount, and rate mitigation), and the development of diurnal energy charges. Notably, one chapter of the WPRDS discusses BPA's risk mitigation package ( i.e. , the CRAC, NFB Adjustment, and DDC). The results of the WPRDS are the wholesale power rate schedules.

Section 7(b)(2) of the Northwest Power Act directs BPA to assure that the wholesale power rates effective after July 1, 1985, to be charged its public body, cooperative, and Federal agency customers (the 7(b)(2) Customers) for their general requirements for the rate period, plus the ensuing four years (in total, this is known as the test period), are no higher than the costs of power would be to those customers for the same time period if specified assumptions are made. The effect of the rate test is to protect the 7(b)(2) Customers' wholesale firm power rates from certain costs resulting from provisions of the Northwest Power Act. The rate test can result in a reallocation of costs from the 7(b)(2) Customers to other rate classes. The Section 7(b)(2) Rate Test Study describes the application and results of the Section 7(b)(2) Implementation Methodology.

The Section 7(b)(2) rate test triggers in this proposal, causing costs to be reallocated in the test period. The PF Preference rate applied to the general requirements of the 7(b)(2) Customers has been partially reduced by the 7(b)(2) amount. Other rates, including the PF Exchange Program rate applied to customers purchasing under the REP and the IP rate to be charged to any DSI taking direct service from BPA during the rate period, have been increased by an allocation of the 7(b)(2) amount. Because, after allocation of the 7(b)(2) amount, there are no REP loads, no power sales to IOUs, and no direct power sales to DSIs, remaining 7(b)(2) amount costs were allocated to the PF Preference rate. This is required by Section 7(a)(1) of the Northwest Power Act, which provides that BPA's power rates must recover BPA's power costs.

BPA's proposed 2007 Wholesale Power Rate Schedules and GRSPs are available for viewing and downloading on PBL's Web site at www.bpa.gov/power/ratecase. A copy of the proposed rate schedules and GRSPs are also available for viewing in BPA's Public Reference Room at the BPA Headquarters, 1st Floor, 905 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a company that exports or engages in wholesale sales of chemical substances or mixtures. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Chemical manufacturing (NAICS 325), e.g., basic chemical manufacturing; resin, synthetic rubber and artificial and synthetic fibers and filaments manufacturing; pesticide, fertilizer, and other agricultural chemical manufacturing; paint, coating, and adhesive manufacturing; soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing, etc.

• Petroleum refineries (NAICS 32411), e.g., crude oil refining, diesel fuels manufacturing, fuel oils manufacturing, jet fuel manufacturing, kerosene manufacturing, petroleum distillation, etc.

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 technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2005-0050. 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 the 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.

This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import pesticide chemicals and other substances. To determine whether you or your business may have an interest in this notice you should carefully examine section 408(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 (Public Law 104-170), 21 U.S.C. 346a(p), and amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Public Law 104-182), 42 U.S.C. 300j-17. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be interested in this action. If you have any questions regarding 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 OPPT-2005-0054. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other related information. 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 are 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 the EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0282.

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/ . A meeting agenda, a list of EDMVAC members and information from previous EDMVS meetings are available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ .

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.

You may submit a request to attend and/or make public comments in the meeting through e-mail, telephone, fax, or hand delivery/courier. We would normally accept requests by mail, but in this time of delays in delivery of government mail due to health and security concerns, we cannot assure your request would arrive in a timely manner. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. Your request must be received by EPA on or before Novemer 28, 2005. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPPT-2005-0054 in the subject line on the first page of your request.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the public is encouraged to submit written comments on the topic of this meeting. The EDMVAC will have a period available during the meeting for public comment. It is the policy of the EDMVAC to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EDMVAC expects that public statements presented at its meeting will be on the meeting topic and not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.

1. Electronically . If you submit an electronic request to attend and/or make public comments in the meeting or comments 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 request or 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 request or comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your request or comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your request or comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your request or comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a request or comment will be included as part of the request or comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your request or comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your request or comment.

i. EPA Docket . You may use EPA's electronic public docket http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting materials. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2005-0054. 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 request.

ii. E-mail . Requests to attend and/or make public comments in the meeting or comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0054. 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 request 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 request 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 by hand delivery, courier, or package service, such as Federal Express, to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Do not submit any disk or CD ROM through the mail. Disks and CD ROMs risk being destroyed when handled as Federal Government mail.

2. Telephone or fax . Telephone or fax your request to participate in the meeting to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2005-0054. 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.

In 1996, through enactment of FQPA, which amended the FFDCA, Congress directed EPA to develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the Administrator may designate. In 1996, EPA chartered a scientific advisory committee, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), under the authority of FACA, to advise it on establishing a program to carry out Congress' directive. EDSTAC recommended a multi-step approach including a series of screens (Tier I screens) and tests (Tier II tests) for determining whether a chemical substance may have an effect similar to that produced by naturally occurring hormones. EPA adopted almost all of EDSTAC's recommendations in the program that it developed, the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), to carry out Congress' directive.

EPA is in the process of developing and validating the screens and tests that EDSTAC recommended for inclusion in the EDSP. In carrying out this validation exercise, EPA is working closely with the Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternate Methods (ICCVAM) and other validation groups, as appropriate. EPA also is working closely with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Endocrine Testing and Assessment Task Force to validate and harmonize endocrine screening tests of international interest.

Finally, to ensure that EPA has the best and most up-to-date advice available regarding the validation of the screens and tests in the EDSP, EPA chartered the Endocrine Disruptor Methods Validation Subcommmittee (EDMVS) of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). The EDMVS convened nine meetings between October 2001 and December 2003. In 2003, NACEPT recommended EDMVS become an Agency level 1 FACA Committee due to the complexity of the recommendations. The EDMVAC was chartered in 2004. The EDMVAC provides independent advice and counsel to the Agency on scientific and technical issues related to validation of the EDSP Tier I screens and Tier II tests, including advice on methods for reducing animal use, refining procedures involving animals to make them less stressful, and replacing animals where scientifically appropriate. EDMVAC and previous EDMVS meeting information and corresponding docket numbers are available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ . You may also go to the EPA Docket at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting materials.

The objectives for the November 30 through December 2, 2005 meeting (docket ID number OPPT-2005-0054) are to review and discuss: EPA's Applied Approach to Validation, Uterotrophic (Tier I Assay, OECD) Peer Review Report, Steriodgenesis (Tier I Assay) Using the H295R Cell Line, Avian 2-Generation (Tier II Assay, OECD) and receive an update on the Pubertal (Tier I) Assays.

A list of the EDMVAC members and meeting materials are available at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ and in the public docket.

You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture chemical substances currently subject to reporting under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR) as amended on January 7, 2003 and codified as 40 CFR part 710. Persons who process chemical substances but who do not manufacture or import chemical substances are not required to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part 710. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• Chemical manufacturers and importers currently subject to IUR reporting, including manufacturers and importers of inorganic chemical substances (NAICS codes 325, 32411).

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. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions at 40 CFR 710.48. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPPT-2005-0008. 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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is convening two workshops to train stakeholders on how to report for the 2006 Partial Updating of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. The EPA is required by section 8(b) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to compile and update an inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States. Every four years, manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances on the Chemical Substance Inventory have been required to report data specified in the TSCA section 8(a) Inventory Update Rule (IUR), 40 CFR part 710. Past updates included information on the chemical's production volume, site-limited status, and plant site information. Amendments to the IUR promulgated in the Federal Register on January 7, 2003 (68 FR 848) (FRL-6767-4) expanded the data reported on certain chemicals to assist EPA and others in screening potential exposures and risks resulting from manufacturing, processing, and use of TSCA chemical substances. At the same time, EPA amended the IUR regulations to increase the production volume threshold which triggers reporting requirements from 10,000 pounds per year to 25,000 pounds per year and established a new higher threshold of 300,000 pounds per year above which manufacturers must report additional information on downstream processing and use of their chemical substances. The 2003 amendments to the IUR also revoked the exemption from reporting for inorganic chemical substances, provided a partial exemption from reporting of processing and use information for chemical substances of low current interest, and continued the current exemption from reporting for polymers, microorganisms, and naturally occurring chemical substances. These changes modify requirements for information collected in calendar year 2005 and submitted in 2006 and thereafter. These workshops may be of interest to persons currently reporting under the IUR and to manufacturers of inorganic chemical substances.

The workshops will include a series of presentations by representatives of EPA on the Instructions for Reporting for the 2006 Partial Updating of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. Subjects discussed will include reporting requirements, instructions for completing the reporting form, how to assert confidentiality claims, how to submit completed reports to EPA, and case studies illustrating different aspects of reporting. During the workshops, persons in attendance will be able to ask questions regarding the material being presented. The purpose of these meetings is to provide training to persons who must report in 2006 under the Inventory Update Rule.

You may register to participate in this meeting by directing your web browser to www.epa.gov/oppt/iur . There is a workshop registration link on this website that will allow you to provide all necessary information for participation. There is no charge for attending this public meeting.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, chemicals, reporting and record keeping requirements.

This general permit covers storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm sewer systems meeting the definition of “small municipal separate storm sewer system” at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(16) and designated under 40 CFR 122.32(a)(1) or 40 CFR 122.32(a)(2). Designation under 40 CFR 122.32(a)(1) applies to small MS4s located in an urbanized area. Designation under 40 CFR 122.32(a)(2) applies to small MS4s determined to need a permit by the Director. A small MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances—including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, manmade channels, or storm drains. This system must be owned or operated by a municipality. A municipality includes the following entities: The United States, a State, city, town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes including special districts under State law such as a sewer, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or a designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CWA that discharges to waters of the United States. A Fact Sheet sets forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal, and policy issues considered in the development of the draft permit. To obtain a paper copy of the documents, please contact Sergio Bosques using the contact information provided above.

When the general permits are issued, the notice of final issuance will be published in the Federal Register . The general permits shall be effective on the date specified in the notice of final issuance of the general permits published in the Federal Register and will expire five years from the effective date of the permit.

This publication satisfies the requirement of the Privacy Act of 1974 that an agency publish a system notice in the Federal Register when there is a revision, change, or addition to the system of records. The FCA did not file a System Report with Congress and the Office of Management and Budget because the changes were minor. There were no significant changes to this system of records. The amended system notice reflects minor changes, which clearly identify the types of Agency records maintained in this system, the purposes for this system of records, and the sources of information.

Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and § 2.34 of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for November 2, 2005), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/11/index.htm . A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room 130-H, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-2222.

Public comments are invited, and may be filed with the Commission in either paper or electronic form. All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, and must be received on or before the date specified in the DATES section.

The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”). The purpose of the proposed Consent Agreement is to remedy the anticompetitive effects that would otherwise result from J&J's acquisition of Guidant Corporation (“Guidant”). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Agreement, J&J is required to (a) grant to a third party a fully paid-up, non-exclusive, irrevocable license, enabling that third party to make and sell drug-eluting stents (“DESs”) with the Rapid Exchange (“RX”) delivery system, (b) divest to a third party J&J's endoscopic vessel harvesting (“EVH”) product line, and (c) terminate its agreement to distribute the proximal anastomotic assist device (“AAD”) of Novare Surgical System, Inc. (“Novare”).

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

Pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated December 15, 2004, J&J proposes to acquire Guidant in exchange for cash and voting securities in a transaction valued at approximately $25.4 billion. The Commission's complaint alleges that the proposed acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by removing an imminent competitor from the U.S. market for DESs and by lessening competition in the U.S. markets for EVH devices and proximal AADs. The proposed Consent Agreement would remedy the alleged violations by replacing the competition that would be lost in these markets as a result of the acquisition.

J&J is a comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of products related to all aspects of human health care. In 2004, J&J generated global sales of $47.3 billion and U.S. sales of $27.7 billion. J&J is divided into three business segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices and Diagnostics. The products impacted by the proposed transaction, DESs, EVH devices, and proximal AADs, fall within J&J's Medical Devices and Diagnostics segment.

Guidant manufactures products in three broad business units: cardiac rhythm management, vascular intervention, and cardiac surgery. In 2004, Guidant's sales were $3.8 billion globally and $2.53 billion in the United States. Guidant's DES program is part of its vascular intervention business unit, and the company's EVH device and proximal AAD are part of the cardiac surgery business unit.

A DES is a medical device typically consisting of a thin, metallic stent coated with an antiproliferative drug and a polymer, mounted on a delivery system. Interventional cardiologists use DESs to treat coronary artery disease, a condition caused by the build up of plaque deposits within one or more coronary arteries leading to reduced blood flow. DESs work by propping open the clogged artery or arteries and eluting a drug, which helps prevent the renarrowing of the artery, called restenosis. DESs are the most effective minimally-invasive method for treating coronary artery disease, and other products and procedures are not economic substitutes for DESs.

DESs are sold mounted on a delivery system used to deploy the DES to the blocked area of the coronary artery. The two most common types of delivery system in the United States are over-the-wire and Rapid Exchange (“RX”). Over-the-wire delivery systems employ a long guidewire and require two operators to implant the DES. In contrast, the RX delivery system employs a shorter guidewire that can be handled by a single operator. RX delivery systems currently are highly preferred by physicians in the United States and are increasing in popularity. Boston Scientific Corporation and Guidant own the intellectual property rights to the RX delivery system in the United States. The companies have cross-licensed each other, and J&J has access to the RX delivery system through an agreement with Guidant. Both DESs currently on the market, J&J's Cypher® and Boston Scientific's Taxus®, are available on the RX delivery system.

The relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the proposed acquisition on the DES market is the United States. DESs are medical devices that are regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Performing the necessary clinical testing and navigating the approval process for the FDA can be burdensome and time-consuming. As such, DESs sold outside of the United States but not approved for sale in the United States do not provide viable competitive alternatives for U.S. consumers.

The U.S. market for DESs is highly concentrated; currently only two firms, J&J and Boston Scientific, have products on the market. Guidant's DES program is still in development, but it is anticipated to be one of at least three entrants, along with Medtronic, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, likely to enter the U.S. market by the end of 2007. Guidant is the only anticipated entrant with rights to the intellectual property necessary to market a DES with the RX delivery system, the dominant delivery system in the United States.

Developing and receiving FDA approval for a DES is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. It can take hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development, significant funding for clinical trials, and an extensive amount of time to even reach the stage of seeking FDA approval. The regulatory process itself can also be time-consuming as the FDA reviews the volumes of materials and data a company submits in support of its application for approval. Considering all these factors, entry into the manufacture and sale of DESs is impossible to achieve within two to three years.

In addition to the regulatory barriers facing firms seeking to enter the DES market, there are substantial intellectual property barriers an entrant must overcome. Firms must invent around or obtain licenses to patents covering nearly every aspect of a DES, including the design of stents, stent delivery systems, and the drugs and polymers used on DESs. Due to the difficulty of entry, firms must commit to entering the market years in advance of any anticipated entry, and timely and sufficient entry in response to a small but significant price increase is impossible.

The proposed acquisition would cause significant competitive harm in the market for DESs by eliminating Guidant as the only potential competitor with the ability to offer a DES on an RX delivery system. As a third RX entrant into the DES market, Guidant likely would increase competition and reduce prices for DESs. Although two other firms, Abbott and Medtronic, are poised to enter the market in the same approximate time frame as Guidant, their lack of access to the RX delivery system makes it unlikely that either company could be a substantial competitive constraint on the DES market in the near term. The proposed acquisition therefore decreases the number of potential DES suppliers with access to the RX delivery system from three to two until at least late 2008, when Guidant's key patents relating to the RX delivery system begin to expire. (The relevant Boston Scientific RX patents begin to expire this year).

The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the market for DESs. Pursuant to the proposed Consent Agreement, the combined J&J/Guidant is required to license Guidant's intellectual property surrounding the RX delivery system at no minimum price to an up-front buyer with a DES program in development no later than ten (10) days after the acquisition is consummated. Through the course of the investigation, Commission staff gathered a great deal of information about each of the companies developing DES products. In particular, staff investigated potential divestiture candidates and concluded that Abbott was among the companies well-positioned to replicate the competitive impact Guidant was likely to have absent the proposed acquisition. The parties have selected Abbott as the up-front buyer for the divestiture package. Abbott is a well-known and respected pharmaceutical and diagnostics company that has a number of vascular devices on the market already or in development. It has experience with both drugs and vascular devices, a highly regarded DES design, a strong and growing vascular sales force, and the necessary manufacturing capabilities. Abbott, therefore, is poised to become a strong competitor in the DES market when it enters in the second half of 2007, approximately the same time as Guidant's anticipated date of entry. Access to the RX delivery system will allow Abbott to replace Guidant as the third entrant into the DES market with an RX delivery system.

The Commission's merger remedies are intended to maintain or to restore the competitive status quo. The Commission does not, as a matter of course, seek to “improve” on pre-transaction competition. Based on the evidence gathered in the investigation, the Commission has determined that the license to Abbott should replicate the competitive conditions in DESs that existed prior to the proposed transaction between J&J and Guidant. As a result, a Commission order requiring licenses to additional parties is not necessary.

Given the uncertainty inherent in a development program, the RX license contemplated by the proposed Consent Agreement is transferable, so that if Abbott's DES program is not successful, it will have the incentive and ability to transfer the RX license to another firm developing a DES, ensuring that a successful third DES firm is able to enter the market with an RX delivery system in the relevant timeframe. The proposed Consent Agreement also requires the parties to enter into a covenant not to sue Abbott in relation to certain intellectual property rights regarding stent design, stent coating and the use of certain drugs on a stent.

EVH devices are used in coronary artery bypass graft (“CABG”) surgery to remove a patient's leg vein, arm artery, or other blood vessel that is then used as a conduit to bypass one or more blocked coronary arteries. EVH devices allow for a minimally-invasive procedure requiring only one to three small incisions. EVH has several clinical benefits over the other methods of vessel harvesting (the open method and bridging) both of which are much more invasive, leave large, unsightly scars and carry a greater risk of infection. Surgeons and physician's assistants would not switch to these other methods of vessel harvesting even if the price of using EVH devices increased by five to ten percent.

As with DESs, the United States is the relevant geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the proposed acquisition on the EVH device market. EVH devices are also medical devices subject to regulation by the FDA. Receiving FDA approval to market an EVH device in the United States can be a lengthy process, but is necessary in order to sell the devices in the Unites States. EVH devices sold outside of the United States but not approved by the FDA for sale in the United States therefore do not provide viable competitive alternatives for U.S. consumers.

The U.S. market for EVH devices is highly concentrated with J&J and Guidant as the only competitors until very recently, when Terumo Corporation entered. Guidant currently dominates the market with over eighty percent market share. Terumo received FDA approval for its device in January, 2005 and has yet to generate significant sales.

Firms seeking to enter the market for EVH devices face regulatory hurdles and significant intellectual property barriers, both of which make entry into the market for EVH devices in the next two to three years highly unlikely. In addition, while the use of EVH devices in CABG surgery is increasing, the number of overall CABG surgeries appears to be decreasing due to, among other things, the increase in stenting procedures; this steady decline in the number of CABG procedures being performed in the United States makes it less likely that firms would choose to enter the EVH device market in response to a modest increase in the price of the devices.

The proposed acquisition would constitute a virtual merger to monopoly in the market for EVH devices and is likely to lead to increased prices and decreased innovation in the market for those devices. Until recently, Guidant and J&J were the only two firms to offer an EVH device in the United States, and while Terumo recently entered, it is likely that it will take several years before Terumo's device has a significant impact on the market for EVH devices.

The proposed Consent Agreement effectively remedies the proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the market for EVH devices by requiring J&J to divest its EVH product line to a Commission-approved buyer at no minimum price. J&J has reached an agreement to divest the EVH business to Datascope. Datascope, a diversified medical device company, has a line of products used in cardiac surgery, including products used in CABG procedures. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, J&J is required to accomplish the divestiture of its EVH product line no later than fifteen (15) business days after the acquisition is consummated.

The proposed Consent Agreement permits the Commission-approved buyer of the EVH product line assets to enter into a supply agreement with J&J for a period of up to two (2) years. The supply agreement may be necessary because of the need to recreate or move manufacturing and/or packaging equipment and to allow time for the acquirer to receive approval from the FDA to begin manufacturing and/or packaging EVH device kits in its own facility. This supply agreement may also be necessary to allow J&J to supply certain components of the EVH devices until the acquirer is able to procure similar components from third-party vendors.

In addition, the proposed Consent Agreement permits J&J to provide certain transitional services to the Commission-approved buyer of the EVH product line assets. These transitional services may be necessary for a smooth transition of the product line to the acquirer and to ensure continued and uninterrupted service to customers during the transition.

Surgeons use proximal AADs in CABG procedures to avoid the need to clamp the aorta when attaching a harvested vessel to it. If a proximal AAD is not used, the surgeon must use a clamp to stop the flow of blood to a segment of the aorta while the harvested vessel is surgically attached. Using a clamp can cause calcified plaque particles to dislodge from the aorta and travel through the blood stream to the brain, risking neurological dysfunction or stroke.

The proper geographic market in which to analyze the effects of the proposed transaction on the market for proximal AADs is the United States. Proximal AADs are medical devices that must be approved by the FDA before being marketed in the United States. As with other medical devices, the clinical testing and regulatory approval process for proximal AADs can be costly and time-consuming, preventing proximal AADs approved outside of the United States but not approved within the United States from serving as a competitive alternative for U.S. consumers.

There are currently three firms in the U.S. market for proximal AADs, making it a highly concentrated market. The evidence indicates that J&J and Guidant's manual proximal AADs are each others' closest competitors. Medtronic also participates in the market with an automatic device that it recently launched in the United States. A fourth firm, St. Jude Medical, removed its automatic device, Symmetry®, from the market last year amidst reports of device failures. J&J's proximal AAD, eNclose®, was developed and is manufactured by Novare; J&J and Novare have a distribution agreement making J&J the sole distributor of eNclose® in the United States.

As with the other medical devices discussed, entry into the market for proximal AADs is difficult, costly, and time-consuming. Additionally, the alleged safety concerns regarding St. Jude's Symmetry device have resulted in greater scrutiny of proximal AADs by the FDA. The increased scrutiny is likely to substantially increase the cost of developing a proximal AAD. In addition, it appears that the publicity surrounding Symmetry's removal from the market has dampened physician enthusiasm for these devices. These developments, along with the declining number of overall U.S. CABG procedures, decrease the likelihood of entry into this market.

The proposed acquisition is likely to cause significant competitive harm in the market for proximal AADs by eliminating competition between J&J and Guidant and reducing the number of competitors in the market from three to two. The evidence has also shown that J&J and Guidant's products are likely each others' closest competitors in the proximal AAD market because they are more similar to each other than to Medtronic's product. The proposed acquisition is therefore likely to enable the combined J&J/Guidant to raise prices for proximal AADs unilaterally.

The proposed acquisition's anticompetitive effects in the market for proximal AADs are remedied by the proposed Consent Agreement's requirement that J&J terminate its distribution agreement with Novare for Novare's proximal AAD, eNclose. It is anticipated that it will take Novare no more than two months to find a new distribution partner for eNclose.

The proposed Consent Agreement contains a provision that allows the Commission to appoint an interim monitor to oversee J&J's compliance with all of its obligations and performance of its responsibilities pursuant to the Commission's Decision and Order. The interim monitor is required to file periodic reports with the Commission to ensure that the Commission remains informed about the status of the divestitures, about the efforts being made to accomplish the divestitures, and the provision of services and assistance during the transition period for the EVH divestiture.

Finally, the proposed Consent Agreement contains provisions that allow the Commission to appoint a divestiture trustee if any or all of the above remedies are not accomplished within the time frames required by the Consent Agreement. The divestiture trustee may be appointed to accomplish any and all of the remedies required by the proposed Consent Agreement that have not yet been fulfilled upon expiration of the time period allotted for each.

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

The public version of the toll will use knowledge based authentication (KBA), to provide the end user access to personalized information about their drug benefit eligibility and enrollment. KBA allows a user to access the system based on what they know without the need for a user id/password. To successfully authenticate, the user will need to provide the following information: Health Insurance Claim Number (HICN), Date of Birth, Last Name, Type of Enrollment, Effective date of enrollment, and Zip Code. This information will then be validated in the CMS Data Center. All data elements must match to successfully authenticate the user. If the authentication fails, the user will be taken directly to the default route and asked to respond to a series of questions in lieu of authentication. They will not be provided with “retry” options. If successfully authenticated, Part D and Part C information will be retrieved from the data center and passed to MPDPF.

CMS has planned to provide the participants of eligibility transactions a query and response solution in a single data center using a three-tier architecture. EBS, the user interface, will have the responsibility of receiving identifying information on Medicare beneficiaries for processing eligibility requests and enrollment assistance with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program. These inbound messages will be sent to EBS for processing of the eligibility request and for securing the information from the CMS CBO/CSR Data Store, and for sending a response back via the internet.

The drug benefit itself is very complex. The user must self-identify him/herself into one of 4 categories in order to get the options applicable in his/her circumstances (full dual subsidy eligible; full subsidy eligible; partial subsidy eligible; no subsidy eligible). CMS knows from prior education and consumer research efforts that it is extremely difficult for persons with Medicare to understand the nuances of these options and to accurately categorize them. This presents a challenge for both the direct beneficiary user and those assisting the beneficiary (CSRs and CBOs). However, CMS data systems contain information that can easily provide the user's categorization and then enable the drug benefit tool to accurately present only those options that are applicable to his/her unique circumstances. This is the primary driver for the development of the eligibility query.

A secondary, but also essential, driver is to provide an efficient means for users to explore their drug benefit choices. We need to ensure that we provide tools that can encourage the maximum number of Medicare beneficiaries to use self-service options given the volume of inquiries we are projecting and the extraordinary costs for servicing those calls. To meet the varying needs of different end-users, two different versions of the MPDPF will be developed: one tool will be used for the Public (including CBOs, and beneficiaries) and the other tool will be dedicated to CSR staffing the call centers that service 1-800-Medicare.

Authority for this system is given under the provisions of Section 101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Public Law 108-173). This new prescription drug benefit program was enacted into law on December 8, 2003, amended Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act), and codified at Title 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 403, 411, 417 and 423 by establishing a new Medicare “Part D” Prescription Drug Benefit program. Part D of Title XVIII of the Act, as amended by the MMA, and its implementing regulations at 42 CFR Parts 403, 411, 417 and 423.

Information collected for this system will include but is not limited to, individuals who voluntarily access and who successfully validate information required by the Web-based Application Systems maintained by CMS. Information collected for this system will include, but is not limited to, last name, gender, HICN, telephone number, geographic location, type of enrollment (Medicare Part A or Part B), and effective date of enrollment in Part A and Part B.

The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release MPDPF information that can be associated with an individual as provided for under “Section III. Proposed Routine Use Disclosures of Data in the System.” Both identifiable and non-identifiable data may be disclosed under a routine use.

We will only collect the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of MPDPF. CMS has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information that will be maintained in the system. Disclosure of information from the system will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure and only after CMS:

1. Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g. , to provide a Web accessible inquiry system that will provide a mechanism to support an individual beneficiary's efforts in performing drug benefit eligibility queries and to enroll them into selected plans.

2. Determines that:

a. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;

b. The purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and

c. There is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).

3. Requires the information recipient to:

a. Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;

b. Remove or destroy at the earliest time all patient-identifiable information; and

c. Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.

4. Determines that the data are valid and reliable.

A. The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine uses in this system meet the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information maintained in the system.

1. To Agency contractors, or consultants who have been contracted by the Agency to assist in accomplishment of a CMS function relating to the purposes for this system and who need to have access to the records in order to assist CMS.

We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which CMS may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing CMS functions relating to purposes for this system.

CMS occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when this would contribute to effective and efficient operations. CMS must be able to give a contractor whatever information is necessary for the contractor to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.

2. To Medicare Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) and Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans (MAPD) directly or through the Enterprise Business Services, a CMS intermediary for the administration of Title XVIII of the Act.

PDPs and MAPDs require MPDPF information in order to establish the validity of evidence or to verify the accuracy of information presented by the individual, as it concerns the individual's entitlement to Part D benefits under the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Program.

3. To a Member of Congress or to a Congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the Congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.

Individuals sometimes request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving some issue relating to a matter before CMS. The Member of Congress then writes CMS, and CMS must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.

4. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when

a. The Agency or any component thereof; or

b. Any employee of the Agency in his or her official capacity; or

c. Any employee of the Agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or

d. The United States Government;

B. Additional Provisions Affecting Routine Use Disclosures. This system contains Protected Health Information (PHI) as defined by HHS regulation “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information” (45 CFR Parts 160 and 164, Subparts A and E, 65 FR 82462 (12-28-00)). Disclosures of PHI authorized by these routine uses may only be made if, and as, permitted or required by the “Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information.”

In addition, our policy will be to prohibit release even of not directly identifiable information, except pursuant to one of the routine uses or if required by law, if we determine there is a possibility that an individual can be identified through implicit deduction based on small cell sizes (instances where the patient population is so small that individuals who are familiar with the enrollees could, because of the small size, use this information to deduce the identity of the beneficiary).

CMS has safeguards in place for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and information security requirements. Employees who maintain records in this system are instructed not to release data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate management, operational and technical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the information and information systems and to prevent unauthorized access.

This system will conform to all applicable Federal laws and regulations and Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards as they relate to information security and data privacy. These laws and regulations include but are not limited to: The Privacy Act of 1974; the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002; the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986; the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996; the E-Government Act of 2002, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, and the corresponding implementing regulations. OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Resources also applies. Federal, HHS, and CMS policies and standards include but are not limited to: All pertinent National Institute of Standards and Technology publications; HHS Information Systems Program Handbook and the CMS Information Security Handbook.

CMS proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. Data in this system will be subject to the authorized releases in accordance with the routine uses identified in this system of records.

CMS will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights of patients whose data are maintained in the system. CMS will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, CMS will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act. CMS, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.

Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115) amended section 514 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions or other requirements.

In a notice published in the Federal Register of February 25, 1998 (63 FR 9561), FDA announced the availability of a guidance entitled “Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards.” The notice described how FDA would implement its standard recognition program and provided the initial list of recognized standards.

In Federal Register notices published on October 16, 1998 (63 FR 55617), July 12, 1999 (64 FR 37546), November 15, 2000 (65 FR 69022), May 7, 2001 (66 FR 23032), January 14, 2002 (67 FR 1774), October 2, 2002 (67 FR 61893), April 28, 2003 (68 FR 22391), March 8, 2004 (69 FR 10712), June 18, 2004 (69 FR 34176), and October 4, 2004 (69 FR 59240), FDA modified its initial list of FDA recognized consensus standards. These notices describe the addition, withdrawal, and revision of certain standards recognized by FDA. The agency maintains “hypertext markup language” (HTML) and “portable document format” (PDF) versions of the list of “FDA Recognized Consensus Standards.” Both versions are publicly accessible at the agency's Internet site. See section VI of this document for electronic access information. Interested persons should review the supplementary information sheet for the standard to understand fully the extent to which FDA recognizes the standard.

FDA is announcing the addition, withdrawal, correction, and revision of certain consensus standards the agency will recognize for use in satisfying premarket reviews and other requirements for devices. FDA will incorporate these modifications in the list of FDA Recognized Consensus Standards in the agency's searchable database. FDA will use the term “Recognition List Number: 013” to identify these current modifications.

In table 1 of this document, FDA describes the following modifications: (1) The withdrawal of standards and their replacement by others, (2) the correction of errors made by FDA in listing previously recognized standards, and (3) the changes to the supplementary information sheets of recognized standards that describe revisions to the applicability of the standards.

In section III of this document, FDA lists modifications the agency is making that involve the initial addition of standards not previously recognized by FDA.

The listing of new entries and consensus standards added as modifications to the list of recognized standards under Recognition List Number: 013, follows:

FDA maintains the agency's current list of FDA recognized consensus standards in a searchable database that may be accessed directly at FDA's Internet site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm . FDA will incorporate the modifications and minor revisions described in this notice into the database and, upon publication in the Federal Register , this recognition of consensus standards will be effective. FDA will announce additional modifications and minor revisions to the list of recognized consensus standards, as needed, in the Federal Register once a year, or more often, if necessary.

Any person may recommend consensus standards as candidates for recognition under the new provision of section 514 of the act by submitting such recommendations, with reasons for the recommendation, to the contact person (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ). To be properly considered such recommendations should contain, at a minimum, the following information: (1) Title of the standard, (2) any reference number and date, (3) name and address of the national or international standards development organization, (4) a proposed list of devices for which a declaration of conformity to this standard should routinely apply, and (5) a brief identification of the testing or performance or other characteristics of the device(s) that would be addressed by a declaration of conformity.

In order to receive “Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards” on your FAX machine, call the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number 321 followed by the pound sign. Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

You may also obtain a copy of “Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards” by using the Internet. CDRH maintains a site on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that you may download to a personal computer with access to the Internet. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes the guidance as well as the current list of recognized standards and other standards related documents. After publication in the Federal Register , this notice announcing “Modifications to the List of Recognized Standards, Recognition List Number: 013” will be available on the CDRH home page. You may access the CDRH home page at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh .

You may access “Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards,” and the searchable database for “FDA Recognized Consensus Standards” through the hyperlink at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/stdsprog.html .

Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register , FDA is publishing a proposed rule to amend the classification regulations for tinnitus masker devices presently classified into class II (special controls: labeling) to designate a special control for the devices. The draft guidance document describes a means by which the device may comply with the requirement of special controls for class II devices. Following the effective date of a final rule based on the proposed rule, any firm submitting a 510(k) premarket notification for the device will need to address the issues covered in the special control guidance. However, the firm need only show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and effectiveness.

This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the agency's current thinking on tinnitus masker devices. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such an approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations.

To receive “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tinnitus Masker Devices” by fax, call the CDRH Facts-On-Demand system at 800-899-0381 or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone. Press 1 to enter the system. At the second voice prompt, press 1 to order a document. Enter the document number (1555) followed by the pound sign (#). Follow the remaining voice prompts to complete your request.

Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may also do so by using the Internet. CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh . A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html . Guidance documents are also available on the Division of Dockets Management Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets .

This draft guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information addressed in the draft guidance document have been approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA under the regulations governing premarket notification submissions (21 CFR part 807, subpart E), under OMB control number 0910-0120. The labeling provisions addressed in the draft guidance have been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0910-0485.

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ), written or electronic comments regarding this document. Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

In the Federal Register of April 28, 2004 (69 FR 23209), FDA published a notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled “Validation of Analytical Procedures for Type C Medicated Feeds” giving interested persons until July 12, 2004, to comment on the draft guidance. FDA received no comments on the draft guidance and no substantive changes were made in finalizing this guidance document.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a collection of information must display a valid OMB control number. The existing valid OMB control numbers for this information collection are 0910-0032 and 0910-0154. This guidance contains no new collections of information.

This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on the topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate method may be used as long as it satisfies the requirements of applicable statutes and regulations.

As with all FDA's guidances, the public is encouraged to submit written or electronic comments with new data or other new information pertinent to this guidance. FDA periodically will review the comments in the docket, and where appropriate, will amend the guidance. The agency will notify the public of any such amendments through a notice in the Federal Register .

Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES ) written or electronic comments on the guidance at any time. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Copies of the guidance document entitled “Validation of Analytical Procedures for Type C Medicated Feeds” may be obtained from the CVM Home Page ( http://www.fda.gov/cvm ) and from the Division of Dockets Management Web site ( http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm ).

TSA invites interested persons to participate by submitting written comments, data, or views. See ADDRESSES above for information on where to submit comments.

With each comment, please include your name and address, identify the docket number at the beginning of your comments, and give the reason for each comment. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the document, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. You may submit comments and material electronically, in person, by mail, or fax as provided under ADDRESSES , but please submit your comments and material by only one means. If you submit comments by mail or delivery, submit them in two copies, in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

If you want TSA to acknowledge receipt of comments submitted by mail, include with your comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.

TSA will file in the public docket all comments received, except for comments containing confidential information and sensitive security information (SSI)  1 , TSA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments and will consider comments filed late to the extent practicable. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date.

Do not submit comments that include trade secrets, confidential commercial or financial information, or SSI to the public regulatory docket. Please submit such comments separately from other comments on the rulemaking. Comments containing this type of information should be appropriately marked as containing such information and submitted by mail the address listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

TSA will not place such comments in the public docket, but rather, will handle these comments in accordance with applicable safeguards and restrictions on access. TSA will hold them in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and place a note in the public docket that TSA has received such materials from the commenter. If TSA receives a request to examine or copy this information, TSA will treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') FOIA regulation found in 6 CFR part 5.

Please be aware that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the applicable Privacy Act Statement published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

You may review the comments in the public docket by visiting the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office is located on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the Department of Transportation address, previously provided under ADDRESSES . Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by—

(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page ( http://dms.dot.gov/search );

(2) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html ; or

(3) Visiting TSA's Law and Policy Web page at http://www.tsa.gov and accessing the link for “Law and Policy” at the top of the page.

In addition, copies are available by writing or calling the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Make sure to identify the docket number(s) of this document.

TSA is altering two existing systems of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. The first, the Transportation Security Threat Assessment System (T-STAS) (DHS/TSA 002), facilitates the performance of threat assessments and employment investigations on individuals who require special access to the transportation system, and was last amended in a notice published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2004 (69 FR 71837).

The second, the Registered Traveler (RT) Operations Files (DHS/TSA 015), relates to a pilot project designed to positively identify certain travelers who volunteer to participate in the program. The program may expedite the pre-boarding process and improve allocation of TSA resources. Information concerning the RT program was last published in the Federal Register on June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30948).

TSA is in the process of improving its direct access to certain governmental databases used in performing security threat assessments in order to more efficiently perform such assessments. The improved access will result in the individuals covered by these databases being added to TSA record systems. Accordingly, TSA is amending the “Categories of individuals covered by the system” portions of T-STAS and RT systems of records by adding, at the end of the list of individuals, a new category to include: “Known or suspected terrorists identified in the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC); individuals identified by TSA who are on the Selectee List because they pose a viable threat to civil aviation or national security; and individuals on classified and unclassified governmental terrorist, law enforcement, immigration, or intelligence databases, including databases maintained by the Department of Defense, National Counterterrorism Center, or Federal Bureau of Investigation.”

TSA is also making further amendments to the “Categories of individuals covered by the system” and to the “Categories of records in the system” in the T-STAS system, which it is not making to the RT system, by expanding and clarifying various sections as follows:

(1) Adding a new category (l) to the categories of individuals, to expressly include individuals seeking to become, or qualified as, known shippers. These individuals are currently covered by category (g) “Other individuals who are connected to the transportation industry for whom TSA conducts security threat assessments to ensure transportation security,” but express identification in a new category (l) will clarify that this system covers these individuals.

(2) Adding the term “shipping venues” to the introductory paragraph of the categories of individuals, and revising category (9) of “Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses” section to reflect that TSA will disclose information to air carriers and indirect air carriers regarding individuals who contract for, or seek access to, transportation infrastructure or assets.

(3) Including in the introductory paragraph of the categories of individuals, individuals seeking, or being provided access to, Sensitive Security Information or Classified information provided in connection with transportation security matters.

(4) Modifying the first sentence of “Categories of individuals covered by this system,” and category (a) of the “Purpose(s)” sections to clarify that the system covers all types of evaluations performed for security purposes.

(5) Revising categories (d) and (p), and adding a new category (u) at the end of the list of records in the “Categories of records in the system,” as follows:

• Current category (d) covers various forms of Government-issued licensing or identification information. The category is being revised to expressly reflect the inclusion of citizenship and immigration records, alien registration numbers, and visa information. These items are currently listed in category (o) and will be repeated in (d) to clarify that such records are not limited to travel documents, as they are listed in category (o).

• Current category (p) covers criminal history records obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This category is being revised to include other criminal history records, such as Department of Defense and some state and local criminal history records. While these records are described in existing category of record (r) “Other information provided by Federal, State, and local government agencies or private entities,” TSA has determined that amending the category of records will clarify that criminal history records from several sources may be part of this system.

• TSA is adding a new category (u) to include suitability testing and results of such testing. This expansion of the category of records is intended to cover any tests that transportation-related employees or contractors may be required to undergo.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) Web site Complaint Questionnaire.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-Pending.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act insures that consumers are provided with greater and timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by abusive practices. The RESPA Web site Complaint Questionnaire will provide for a common website for consumers and settlement service providers to assist in the enforcement of RESPA. Members of the public may submit complaints to HUD. The Federal Government will use the disclosed information to investigate alleged violations of RESPA regulations by settlement service providers.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-1974.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The number of respondents is estimated to be 1,246, generating approximately 1,869 responses annually. The frequency of response is on occasion, and the estimated time needed to prepare the response is approximately 0.33 hours, for total annual burden hours of 617.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is a new collection.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Compromise/Settlement Offer, Personal Financial Statement, Pre-Authorized Debit (PAD), Repayment Agreement, and Compromise Offer/Partial Approval Worksheet.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2502-0483.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: HUD uses the information to analyze debtors' financial positions and then approve settlements, repayment agreements, and pre-authorized electronic payments to HUD.

Agency form numbers, if applicable: HUD-56141, HUD-56142, HUD-56146, HUD-55509, and HUD-92090.

Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response: The estimated total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection is 847, the number of respondents is 800 generating approximately 1,640 annual responses, the frequency of response is on occasion, and the estimated time needed to prepare the response varies from 5 to 30 minutes.

Status of the proposed information collection: This is a revision of a currently approved collection. This revision seeks to consolidate the currently approved information collection requirements of 2502-0424 (Pre-Authorization Debit (PAD) Request) and 2502-0098 (Borrower's Personal Financial Statement for Compromise/Settlement), because all the information collected is related to borrowers who owe money to HUD and HUD's attempts to collect that money.

The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (55 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).

This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the affected agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. , permitting electronic submission of responses.

This Notice also lists the following information:

Title of Proposal: Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Grant Application.

OMB Control Number, if applicable: 2506-0112.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Information is to be used in the rating, ranking, and selection of proposals submitted to HUD by State and local governments, public housing authorities, and nonprofit organizations for awarded funds under the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance programs.

Agency form numbers: HUD-40076--COC, HUD-40076-2, HUD-40085-2, SF-424, HUD-SF424SUPP, HUD-2992, HUD-2880, HUD-96010, HUD-92041.

Members of affected public: Eligible applicants interested in applying for the Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance funds.

Estimation of the total numbers of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

Number of Respondents: 12,770.

Frequency of Response: 1.

Hours of response: 202,251 hours.

Total combined burden hours: 202,251 hours.

Status of the proposed information collection: Reinstatement of previously approved collection number will expire October 31, 2005.

The proposed action is to approve a lease and sublease to allow a 1,150 acre portion of the Campo Indian Reservation to be used for the construction and operation of a solid waste landfill facility. The solid waste landfill facility would require approximately 600 acres of the 1,150 acre lease area. The remaining 550 acres of lease area that surround the proposed facility would be preserved as an undeveloped buffer area. The Campo Indian Reservation, which consists of 15,580 acres in southeastern San Diego County, lies just north of the United States/Mexico border and approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean.

The Campo Band previously entered into a lease agreement with Muht-Hei, Inc. (MHI), pursuant to which MHI would lease a portion of the Campo Indian Reservation for the purpose of constructing and operating a solid waste landfill, recycling facility, and composting facility. The Campo Band originally authorized MHI in 1989 to enter into a sublease with Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (MAWS) for the development of the solid waste landfill facility. The Campo Band requested the BIA approve the lease and sublease for the proposed project. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by BIA, in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project prior to determining whether the proposed lease related to the project should be approved. A Final EIS (FEIS) was released on November 24, 1992. The BIA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) with conditions on April 27, 1993, and approved the lease between the Campo Band and MHI and sublease between MHI and MAWS for the proposed solid waste landfill. The Campo Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) issued a final Authority to Construct Permit (ATC) to MHI and MAWS on April 5, 1994, to construct the proposed solid waste landfill, subject to the conditions of the ROD and ATC.

Subsequently, MAWS failed to proceed with construction of the project and MHI was found in default of the sublease terms. Since that time, MHI has solicited interest from other solid waste landfill developers. In early 2003, MHI began negotiations with BLT Enterprises, Inc. (BLT), Oxnard, California, on the terms of a sublease to develop the solid waste landfill described in the FEIS. Those negotiations were successfully concluded and on December 12, 2004, the Campo Band authorized MHI to enter into a sublease with BLT.

The BIA has decided to prepare a SEIS to address changes in the proposed action, relevant information that has become available, or circumstances that have changed over the years since the FEIS was issued. Areas of concern addressed in the FEIS included land resources, water resources, air quality, living resources, cultural resources, socio-economics, transportation, land use, resource use patterns, noise and other values. The FEIS included five alternatives to the proposed action, as follows: (1) Alternative Site One, (2) Alternative Site Two, (3) Reduced Waste Stream at the Proposed Site, (4) Reduced Area of Disturbance at the Proposed Site, and (5) No Action. The SEIS will incorporate the proposed project description from the FEIS by reference, and will discuss aspects of the project that have changed since the FEIS was released in 1992, any changes in environmental impacts associated with those changes, and changes to alternatives.

Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the BIA address shown in the ADDRESSES section, during business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 1503.1, 1506.6 and 1508.22 of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.l.

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in the BLM Idaho Falls District (IFD), which covers eastern Idaho. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include:

• Orientation for new members.

• A discussion of recreational upgrades to the Blackfoot Reservoir campground and the need to set fees. RAC members will be asked for their input as to an appropriate range of fees for the site, in preparation for a broader public outreach campaign in December and January.

• Updates on Idaho's Sage Grouse Conservation strategy, if completed and released for public review.

• A field trip to the Cress Creek Trail, weather permitting. If remaining indoors, the discussion will also include a brief update on the Upper Snake Field Office South Fork Activity Plan revision.

• Updates on the latest litigation for BLM, and other current issues as appropriate.

• The RAC will set an annual agenda.

• Other items of interest raised by the Council.

Transportation for the field trip will be provided for RAC members. Members of the public wishing to accompany the RAC on the field trip must furnish their own transportation.

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq. Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council's Web page at http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov. (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that Web address.)

Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.

The agenda for this meeting will include: (a) A review of the past meeting and written public comments; (b) remarks from David Eisner, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service and other CNCS staff;(c) status of Council activities including joint projects and the January 2006 National Conference, “Building on Success: Providing Today's Youth With Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow”; (d) a demonstration of the Helping America's Youth state and local strategic planning tool; and (e) other business and announcements.

For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register by calling the Juvenile Justice Resource Center at 301-519-6473 (Daryel Dunston), no later than Monday, November 28, 2005. [ Note: these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. To register online, please go to http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov/meetings.html. Space is limited.

Interested parties may submit written comments by Monday, November 28, 2005, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov. The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. No oral comments will be permitted at this meeting.

Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on August 23, 2005 (70 FR 49319 and 49320). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval.

In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (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 respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Use of NARA Official Seals.

OMB number: 3095-0052.

Agency form number: N/A.

Type of review: Regular.

Affected public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal government.

Estimated number of respondents: 10.

Estimated time per response: 20 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion.

Estimated total annual burden hours: 3 hours.

Abstract: The authority for this information collection is contained in 36 CFR 1200.8. NARA's three official seals are the National Archives and Records Administration seal; the National Archives seal; and the National Archives Trust Fund Board seal. The official seals are used to authenticate various copies of official records in our custody and for other official NARA business. Occasionally, when criteria are met, we will permit the public and other Federal agencies to use our official seals. A written request must be submitted to use the official seals, which we approve or deny using specific criteria.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) considered the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 72.50 for approval of the indirect transfer of Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) License No. SNM-2509 for the Trojan Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). The consent for indirect transfer was requested by letter dated July 12, 2005, by Portland General Electric Company (PGE) and Stephen Forbes Cooper, LLC. (SFC), as Disbursing Agent on behalf of the Reserve for Disputed Claims (Reserve), to facilitate implementation of the transfer of 100% of PGE's common stock held by the Enron Corporation (Enron) to the creditors of Enron. This is to be done by canceling the existing PGE common stock held by Enron and by authorizing and issuing to Enron's creditors new PGE common stock.

PGE is a wholly owned subsidiary of Enron. The circumstances of PGE's request for consent are that all current PGE stock will be cancelled and new PGE stock will be distributed to Enron's creditors as partial settlement of claims brought in Enron's bankruptcy proceeding. A Reserve will hold the new stock in escrow until it is distributed. Voting rights of the new stock will be exercised under direction of the Reserve Overseers, who will exercise their business judgment to maximize the value of the assets. The Reserve Overseers are bound by fiduciary duties in making decisions to vote the stock. The Reserve's role is to disburse the assets to creditors as rapidly as possible, and it will not seek control of PGE. The stock will be widely distributed and no individual will hold more than 5% of the outstanding stock as a result of the distribution. The Bankruptcy Court approved the creation of the Reserve and the distribution of the stock.

The effect of the stock distribution is that PGE will become a stand-alone, publicly traded Oregon corporation. There will be no substantive change in the control or operation of PGE. PGE's name will not change and the current management team will remain in charge of day-to-day operations. The Oregon Public Utilities Commission will continue to exercise oversight of PGE. PGE will remain in control of and operate the Trojan ISFSI.

Under these circumstances, the staff determined that the stock distribution is not a transfer of control within the meaning of 10 CFR 72.50. Therefore, PGE does not require NRC approval for the distribution. The issuance of the new PGE common stock will not change the status of PGE as NRC licensee of the Trojan ISFSI. Control of the 10 CFR part 72 license for the Trojan ISFSI, now held by PGE and its co-owners, will remain with PGE and the same co-owners, and will not be affected by the issuance of the new PGE common stock. Issuance of the new PGE common stock will not affect PGE's technical and financial qualifications and its ability to continue funding its share of the costs of operating, maintaining, and ultimately decommissioning the Trojan ISFSI. No physical changes to the Trojan ISFSI or operational changes are being proposed in the application.

Notice of opportunity for hearing and petition for leave to intervene regarding this action was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 50427) on August 26, 2005. No requests for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene were received within the required 20 days from the date of publication of the notice and no written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305, were submitted or considered by the staff as part of the decisional record.

For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated July 12, 2005, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov .

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continues to prepare and issue Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) documents for fuel cycle facilities. These ISG documents provide clarifying guidance to the NRC staff when reviewing licensee integrated safety analysis, license applications or amendment requests or other related licensing activities for fuel cycle facilities under subpart H of 10 CFR part 70. FCSS-ISG-08 has been issued and is provided for information.

The purpose of this notice is to provide notice to the public of the issuance of FCSS-ISG-08, Revision 0, which provides guidance to NRC staff to address accident sequences that may result from natural phenomena hazards relative to license application or amendment request under 10 CFR Part 70, Subpart H. FCSS-ISG-08, Revision 0, has been approved and issued after a general revision based on NRC staff and public comments on the initial draft.

The document related to this action is available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS ascension number for the document related to this notice is provided in the following table. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the document located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

This document may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Comments on these documents may be forwarded to James Smith, Project Manager, Technical Support Group, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20005-0001. Comments can also be submitted by telephone, fax, or e-mail which are as follows: Telephone: (301) 415-6459; fax number: (301) 415-5370; e-mail: jas4@nrc.gov.

Additional guidance is required to address accident sequences that may result from natural phenomena hazards in the context of a license application or an amendment request under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) part 70, subpart H.

This Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) provides additional guidance for reviewing the applicant's (or licensee's) evaluation of natural phenomena hazards up to and including “highly unlikely” events for both new and existing facilities.

The performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 for facilities processing special nuclear materials require that individual accident sequences resulting in high consequences to workers and the public be “highly unlikely” and that sequences resulting in intermediate consequences to these receptors be “unlikely.” Although the threshold levels that differentiate high consequence events from intermediate consequence events are established in the regulations, the definitions of “highly unlikely” and “unlikely” are not. Definitions of these terms must be described in the integrated safety analysis (ISA) summary submitted by applicants and licensees according to 10 CFR 70.65(b)(9) and subjected to staff approval. Further description of the acceptance criteria for the definitions of these terms can be found in Chapter 3 of NUREG-1520, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for a Fuel Cycle Facility.”

The implementation of these requirements may vary somewhat due to different definitions of likelihood proposed by different applicants (or licensees). 1 The consequence thresholds of the performance requirements (except for chemical releases) are specified quantitatively in the regulation. The regulation and its performance requirements pertain to existing facilities as well as proposed facilities and apply to man-made external hazards and natural phenomena hazards as well as process hazards. However, new facilities and new processes at existing facilities must also address 10 CFR 70.64 requirements which includes the baseline design criterion for natural phenomena hazards (10 CFR 70.64(a)(2)). This baseline design criterion requires that “the design must provide for adequate protection against natural phenomena with consideration of the most severe documented historical events for the site.” The Statement of Considerations (Reference 2) describes the application of the baseline design criteria as consistent with good engineering practice, which dictates that certain minimum requirements should be applied to design and safety considerations. The baseline design criteria must be applied to the design of new facilities and new processes at existing facilities, but does not require retrofits to existing facilities or existing processes ( e.g. , those housing or adjacent to the new processes). Also included in 10 CFR 70.64(b) is a requirement for incorporation of defense-in-depth in design and a requirement to prefer engineered controls over administrative controls.

New structures associated with facilities being reviewed, such as the gas centrifuge facilities and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX), will be designed and constructed to meet the seismic regulatory requirements. Hence, these facilities and additional new facilities to be licensed under 10 CFR part 70 are not expected to present designs with seismic deficiencies. New facilities can also be expected to be above a “highly unlikely” flood such as the PMF and can be expected to withstand tornado winds and missiles, if necessary.

Most structures at existing nuclear fuel cycle facilities are built to a model building code which includes meeting a design basis earthquake having an exceedance probability of 2 × 10 −3 per year to less than 10 −3 per year (Department of Energy (DOE) Standard-1020-2002, Appendix C). Existing facilities are generally sited above the 100-year floodplain and are designed for wind as well as snow and ice loading as specified in applicable building codes. Extreme natural events such as “highly unlikely” floods and/or earthquakes have not been calculated for many existing sites, and it would be expensive and time consuming to do so.

The staff believes that many existing facilities can be shown to be in compliance with, or, at least, near compliance with, the performance requirements of the regulation by accounting for conservatisms in the seismic, flooding, and wind design of the facility. In addition, relatively minor engineered improvements and administrative measures may further enhance safety, at least with respect to the public and other off-site receptors.

Potential damage to and/or failure of items relied on for safety (IROFS) due to ground movement and/or the seismic response of adjacent or interior IROFS must be considered in the ISA/ISA Summary accident sequence evaluations. Damage or failures that also should be considered include:

1. Seismic-induced failure of a facility component which is not an IROFS but which can fall and damage an IROFS, for example, a heavy load drop from a crane on a container.

2. Displacement of adjacent IROFS during a seismic event, causing them to pound together.

3. Displacement of adjacent components resulting in failure of connecting pipes or cables resulting in flooding, fires, and/or releases of radiological or chemical materials.

Seismic event evaluations must also consider potential multiple failure of IROFS. For example, multiple failures of tanks.

DOE has also recognized the difference between earthquake design probability and the probability that a safety component cannot perform its function. To quantify this difference, DOE has developed a risk reduction factor, R, as the ratio between the seismic hazard exceedance probability and the performance goal probability. Conservatism in nuclear facility design arising from factors such as use of prescribed analysis methods, specification of material strengths, and limits on inelastic behavior explains at least part of this apparent reduction in actual risk. This risk reduction factor is discussed in Appendix C of DOE-STD-1020-2002 (Reference 3).

For a consequence to occur to the public or external site workers, licensed material or hazardous chemicals that could affect the safety of licensed material must be released through at least one, and often two, confinement barriers, for example:

1. Storage containers, gloveboxes, tanks, or handling devices,

2. Ventilation system dynamic confinement and filtration, and/or

3. Building structural shell.

Criticalities, on the other hand, may result from the introduction of a moderator or loss of safe geometric control of confined materials.

By using risk reduction factors calculated for a facility and its specific components and/or making estimates of the degree of failure by comparison with the observed behavior of similarly constructed buildings during severe earthquakes, reasonable scenarios can be postulated. These scenarios may not release all the material at risk or present an unimpeded leak path to receptors. For example, some facilities might be able to show that even with an earthquake that is “highly unlikely” only certain types of containers or confinement systems are likely to be breached. If the amount of material contained in such containers is variable, then that probabilistic component may be factored into the overall likelihood of the accident sequence. If employing some of these mitigating considerations to the analysis requires reliance on special containers or procedures, then additional IROFS may also be needed. Another factor to be considered is the likely rate of release based on the damage sustained. For example, some facilities may lose dynamic confinement but maintain building integrity. In some processes, radiological and/or chemically hazardous material is held inside its primary containment at subatmospheric pressure. In these cases, even though the primary containments are inside a structure designed to withstand less than a “highly unlikely” earthquake, the subatmospheric conditions may be sufficient to limit both facility worker and off-site doses in the event of a greater earthquake. For example, an earthquake that results in limited subatmospheric containment losses may allow adequately trained workers to evacuate and/or take mitigative actions. The buildings containing cylinders of liquid UF 6 at gas centrifuge facilities are designed for a “highly unlikely” earthquake. In addition, some buildings at one of the proposed facilities are equipped with a seismically-activated interlock (an IROFS) that will shut off the buildings' heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system during an event, thus limiting any leakage of UF 6 to the outside.

Most fuel cycle licensees do not require large quantities of cooling water and, therefore, do not need to be located near large bodies of water. A site licensed under 10 CFR Part 70 does not need to meet prescriptive flood protection requirements but does have to meet the performance requirements for all credible events including flooding. A site meeting the flood protection requirements of a commercial reactor should be considered as being designed or located adequately to withstand a “highly unlikely” flooding event. NUREG-1407, “Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events for Severe Accident Vulnerability,” Section 2.4, states that the design basis flood (which for river sites is the probable maximum flood) as described in Regulatory Guide 1.59, “Design Basis Flooding for Nuclear Power Plants,” is estimated to have an exceedance frequency of less than 10 −5 per year. Sites that do not meet this level of protection can still meet the 10 CFR 70.61 performance requirements but have to be considered on an individual basis.

In evaluating the effects of flooding on existing facilities, the following flood-related hazards should be considered:

• Inundation and hydrostatic loading

• Dynamic forces

• Wave action

• Sedimentation and erosion

• Ice loading

• Inundation and hydrostatic loading

• Dynamic forces

• Erosion and sedimentation

• Inundation (local ponding) and hydrostatic loading

• Dynamic loads (flash flooding)

• Inundation and hydrostatic loading

• Dynamic forces

• Wave action

Methods for determining these flooding and water-related effects for reactor sites are described in American National Standards Institute/American Nuclear Society 2.8, “Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites.” These methods can be applied to 10 CFR 70.61 analyses with less conservatism in some of these parameters.

A standard siting requirement for residential and commercial developments is to be above the 100-year floodplain. For large river basins, warning time and time to secure materials and evacuate personnel will probably be available. For small streams there may be relatively little warning in regard to thunderstorms and localized rainfall. In such cases, rapid actions may be the only administrative protection available. In evaluating the effectiveness of proposed protection, the effects of inundation, hydrostatic loading, erosion, and sedimentation will need to be evaluated. At a minimum, this would require that criticality events be prevented and materials remain confined within site structures.

At some sites, a delineation of the 500-year floodplain may also be available. If the site is above the 500-year floodplain, flooding may be considered an unlikely event  2 depending on the quality of the estimate. In this category, criticality events should still be prevented, but the breaching of a limited number of material containers may be allowable under the performance requirements (up to 25 rem for the public, up to 100 rem for workers, and a specified release limit) for events, that in terms of likelihood, are between “unlikely” and “highly unlikely.”

In addition to the facility's location relative to the 100-year or 500-year floodplains, the effects of local intense precipitation and snow load should be considered. Local intense precipitation especially with snow can result in roof collapse and localized site flooding. Normally, protection from local precipitation and snow is relatively easy to achieve in roof design and local site drainage design.

Wind design for an existing facility if prescribed by an applicable building code would have an annual exceedance probability of greater than or equal to 2 − 10 −2 . At such relatively high probabilities, tornado design criteria are not specified. However, depending on the geographical location of the facility, the effects of a tornado with an annual exceedance probability of 10 −5 or greater may need to be considered.

Wind forces on walls of structures should be determined using appropriate pressure coefficients, gust factors, and other site-specific adjustments. If the wind is likely to blow inside the structure, either through design or wind-driven missile vulnerability, the effects of wind on internal IROFS requires consideration. If the winds are from a tornado, the effects of the atmospheric pressure change (APC) associated with the tornado must be considered. Normally, ventilation systems are most vulnerable to APC but windows, buried tanks, and sand filters can also be affected.

For straight winds, hurricanes, and weak tornadoes, missile criteria as specified in Table 3-3 of DOE-STD-1020-2002 (Reference 3) may be considered. The missile specified is a 15 pound, 2 inches by 4 inches plank at a specified elevation and impact velocity. For facilities which may be subjected to more severe tornado missiles, the guidance in Tables 3-4 and/or 3-5 of DOE-STD-1020 may be followed. For the tornado, a 3,000 pound automobile rolling and tumbling on the ground should also be considered. For such evaluations, the probability of the entire sequence should be considered, and missile criteria from either Tables 3-4 or 3-5 of DOE-STD-1020 may be used as appropriate.

Existing processes at existing facilities are not required to address 10 CFR 70.64 baseline design criteria. They must still meet the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 including accidents caused by natural phenomena, for which the staff may require additional IROFS to meet the performance requirements. For existing facilities, additional administrative controls/IROFS can be used to meet the performance requirements without the need for design features normally required by accepted engineering practice. For plants where near compliance can be obtained and complete compliance will be relatively costly, an exemption to the regulation may be requested.

As discussed earlier, many existing 10 CFR Part 70 facilities are not designed for an earthquake beyond that specified in applicable building codes. Although this design may provide fairly good seismic protection to the structure, it may not protect internal equipment. Also, an existing facility may not be designed to any specific seismic criteria in which case its ability to withstand earthquakes can only be estimated based on comparison with similar structures or through complex structural analysis. In such cases, licensees may add additional IROFS to meet the performance requirements. An example where such IROFS (procedures and upgrades) may be effectively implemented could be a facility where the consequences of a release of licensed material to the public in a seismic event would be from fires and/or explosions. In this case, fixes such as seismically qualified flammable gas shutoff valves or electrical shutoffs might provide a large decrease in potential seismic consequences.

In regard to flooding, flood elevations beyond that of the 100-year flood may not have been determined for the site. For sites in close proximity to a river, these determinations could be expensive and time consuming. For these cases, flood warning time may allow measures such as moving material at risk and/or blocking doors and openings in the facility structure.

Improving a facility's ability to withstand high winds, rain and snow loads, and exterior fires can likewise be improved with a combination of administrative procedures and engineered improvements. Removing material at risk from under walls or roofs that are not seismically designed can reduce potential releases in case of collapse from winds or roof loads.

Exemptions to the regulation may still be required for existing facilities even with administrative and engineered improvements. In regard to consequences to the public, complete compliance with 10 CFR 70.61 using realistic assumptions should be the goal if obtainable. Compliance with 10 CFR 70.61 regarding consequences to facility workers may require a request for an exemption once personnel protective equipment, emergency procedures, and worker training is accounted for. In evaluating a request for an exemption to the regulation, the expected operational life of the facility should also be factored into the determination of risk.

The design of new processes at existing facilities must address natural phenomena hazards in accordance with 10 CFR 70.64 (a)(2) as well as the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61. Nevertheless, new processes at existing facilities may have the same problems in demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 70.61 in regard to accident sequences initiated by natural phenomena as existing facilities based on the design and/or siting of the original structures. In the case of new processes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff should expect compliance with the performance requirements of 10 CFR 70.61 to the extent possible given the existing facility design and location. New processes at existing facilities also must meet the requirements of 10 CFR 70.64(b) which requires defense-in-depth and a preference for engineered controls over administrative controls. However, structural improvements, permanent flood barriers, and other engineered improvements which could be considered retrofits cannot be required by the staff for application to existing structures. New structural features within existing structures to prevent breaches in containment in the event of natural phenomena hazards may be considered, however. An example might be a seismically-designed vault to hold radioactive materials associated with a new process. In regard to new processes, engineered controls, where feasible, are preferred over administrative procedures that might otherwise be proposed for an existing process with a limited operational lifetime. Such engineered improvements may not be required for licensing but could be scheduled to replace administrative procedures or other long-term compensatory measures on a timely basis after the start of operations. The object is to encourage engineered safety in new processes compared to equivalent existing process while recognizing the restraints of the existing structures and location. Although primarily aimed at reducing risk to the public, the emphasis on engineered safety may also be applied to worker consequences in a way consistent with what has been accepted at other facilities.

10 CFR 70.61 specifies performance requirements associated with risks identified by an ISA.

10 CFR 70.64 specifies requirements for new facilities or new processes at existing facilities including baseline design criteria (a)(2), “Natural Phenomena Hazards.”

In reviewing the applicant's evaluation of the effects of natural phenomena on its facility, it should be recognized that estimates of “unlikely” and “highly unlikely” natural phenomena such as the PMF or SSE may not exist for the particular site. Hence, extrapolation and/or transposition of extreme event estimates made for other relatively nearby facilities (such as power reactor sites) should be allowed where feasible and technically justifiable. In addition, sophisticated probabilistic tools such as Bayesian analysis or Monte Carlo sampling methods need not be employed to improve the estimate of likelihoods of natural phenomena event sequences unless desired by the applicant (or licensee). For the purpose of determining appropriate values of extreme events, deterministic events such as the probable maximum flood or safe shutdown earthquake can be used in place of purely probabilistically determined “highly unlikely” events and may be preferable, depending on the quality of historical data. Where extreme events need to be coupled with other probability-driven mechanisms such as the release fraction or transport pathway, already low likelihood combinations do not have to be made even less likely with the use of conservative parameters.

For existing facilities, due credit should be given to analysis assumptions and administrative controls, emergency procedures, and active engineered controls that do not change the design bases of the facility structures to natural phenomena. If the ISA/ISA Summary demonstrates that the existing facility is near compliance (within an order of magnitude of a likelihood threshold or within 50 percent of meeting a consequence threshold, but not both), an exemption to the regulation may be considered.

An example evaluation for an amendment request is provided in the appendix to this ISG.

This guidance should be used to supplement NUREG-1520, Chapter 3, Integrated Safety Analysis.

(a) Background: The purpose of the Panel is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Congress pursuant to section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. The Panel's statutory charter is to review Federal contracting laws, regulations, and governmentwide policies, including the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and governmentwide contracts. Interested parties are invited to attend the meetings. Opportunity for public comments will be provided at all meetings. At this time, the Panel does not expect to hold public meetings beyond the January 19, 2006 date. Any change will be announced in the Federal Register .

All Meetings —Selected working groups, established at the February 28, 2005 and May 17, 2005 public meetings of the AAP ( see http://www.acqnet.gov/aap for a list of working groups), will report their draft findings and recommendations during these meetings. While the Panel may hear from some additional invited speakers, the focus of these meetings will be discussion of working group findings and recommendations. The Panel welcomes oral public comments at any of these meetings and has reserved one hour for this purpose at each meeting. Members of the public wishing to address the Panel during the meeting must contact Ms. Anne Terry, in writing , as soon as possible to reserve time (see contact information above).

(b) Posting of Draft Reports: Members of the public are encouraged to regularly visit the Panel's Web site for draft reports. Currently, the working groups are staggering the posting of various sections of their draft reports at http://www.acqnet.gov/aap under “Working Group Reports.”

(c) Availability of Materials for the Meetings: Please see the Panel's Web site for any available materials, including draft agendas and minutes ( http://www.acqnet.gov/aap ). Questions/issues of particular interest to the Panel are also available to the public on this Web site on its front page, including “Questions for Government Buying Agencies,” “Questions for Contractors that Sell Commercial Goods or Services to the Government,” “Questions for Commercial Organizations,” and an issue raised by one Panel member regarding the rules of interpretation and performance of contracts and liabilities of the parties entitled “Proposal for Public Comment.” The Panel encourages the public to address any of these questions/issues when presenting either oral public comments or written statements to the Panel.

(d) Procedures for Providing Public Comments: It is the policy of the Panel to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The Panel Staff expects that public statements presented at Panel meetings will be focused on the Panel's statutory charter and working group topics, and not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements, and that comments will be relevant to the issues under discussion.

Oral Comments: Speaking times will be confirmed by Panel staff on a “first-come/first-served” basis. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, oral public comments must be no longer than 10 minutes. Because Panel members may ask questions, reserved times will be approximate. Interested parties must contact Ms. Anne Terry, in writing (via mail, e-mail, or fax identified above for Ms. Terry) at least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Oral requests for speaking time will not be taken. Speakers are requested to bring extra copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the Panel at the meeting. Speakers wishing to use a Power Point presentation must e-mail the presentation to Ms. Terry one week in advance of the meeting.

Written Comments: Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received by the Panel Staff at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information given in this FR Notice in one of the following formats (Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files, in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format).

(e) Meeting Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact Ms. Auletta at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (202-551-5850).

1. SSF III, a Delaware limited partnership, is a closed-end management investment company that is registered under the Act and operates as an “interval fund” under rule 23e-3 under the Act. Partnership interests (“Units”) in SSF III are not registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (“1933 Act”) and are sold in private offerings pursuant to Regulation D under the 1933 Act generally to “accredited investors,” as defined in Regulation D. Each investor in SSF III that pays the Adviser an incentive allocation is also a “qualified client,” as defined in rule 205-3 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (“Advisers Act”). Under SSF III's fundamental policies and rule 23c-3, as well as its partnership agreement (the “Partnership Agreement”), SSF III conducts semi-annual repurchase offers for between 10% and 25% of outstanding Units, as determined by the individual general partners of SSF III (each, an “Individual General Partner,” collectively, the “Board,” and the Board together with the Adviser, the “General Partners”), who are responsible for the overall management and supervision of SSF III. SSF III may also sell Units to existing Unit holders with a limited partnership interest (“Limited Partners,” and together with the General Partners, “Partners”) and other investors in the future. SSF III's investment objectives are to maximize long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in equity securities and securities with equity features, which are traded on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq. As of June 30, 2005, SSF III had approximately 451 Unit holders (92% of whom were qualified purchasers, as defined in section 2(a)(51) of the Act (“Qualified Purchasers,” and such Unit holders, “Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders”)) and approximately $500 million in assets. SSF III's fees and expenses for the year ended December 31, 2004, as a percentage of average net assets, totaled 5.41% (including the Adviser's incentive allocation of 20% of net profits). 1

2. SSF QP, a Delaware limited partnership that was formed on May 17, 2005 to effect the Transaction is excluded from regulation under the Act pursuant to section 3(c)(7) of the Act. 2 SSF QP has the same investment objectives as SSF III. SSF QP will have no assets until after the consummation of the Transaction. SSF QP will have the same administration fee and incentive allocation structure as SSF III. Applicants estimate that the fees and expenses for SSF QP (excluding any incentive allocation to the Adviser but including all other fees) would have been on a pro forma basis approximately 0.81% of average net assets for the calendar year ended December 31, 2004. 3 Beginning June 30, 2006, limited partners of SSF QP may redeem their Units of SSF QP semi-annually on June 30 and December 31 of each calendar year, by providing written notice to the Adviser on or before June 15 or December 15, respectively, of such calendar year. The Adviser has the right to limit the aggregate redemptions of Units of SSF QP by limited partners in any semi-annual fiscal period to 10% of the outstanding Units at the last day of the period (after the redetermination of Units to reflect SSF QP's profit or loss as of the end of such period).

3. The Adviser, a Delaware limited partnership, is registered as an investment adviser under the Advisers Act. The Adviser is the investment adviser to the Funds. The Adviser is also a General Partner of SSF III and will be the general partner of SSF QP upon completion of the Transaction. AWM Investment Company, Inc. (“AWM”) is the general partner of the Adviser and Austin W. Marxe, David Greenhouse and Adam Stettner are limited partners of the Adviser (each, including AWM, a “Principal”). The Adviser and Mr. Marxe each own a general partnership interest in SSF III totaling in the aggregate approximately 7% of outstanding Units. The other Principals each own a limited partnership interest in SSF III totaling approximately less than 1% of outstanding Units.

4. A provision in the applicable Treasury regulations, 4 which has allowed SSF III to operate as a registered investment company but not be taxed as a publicly traded partnership for federal income tax purposes (“Grandfather Clause”), will expire on December 31, 2005. 5 Unless SSF III satisfies a safe harbor in the Treasury regulations, any future determination of whether it would be taxed as a publicly traded partnership would be made by applying a facts-and-circumstances test. To continue to rely on a safe harbor and thereby avoid the uncertainty of a facts-and-circumstances test, SSF III may amend its repurchase policies to, among other things, reduce the repurchase offer amount on a semi-annual and annual basis to, respectively, 5% and 10% of outstanding Units. 6 Amending the repurchase policies as applicants intend to do to qualify for the safe harbor is not satisfactory to the largest Limited Partners, all of whom are Qualified Purchasers, because of the resulting decrease in the liquidity of their Units.

5. Applicants propose to conduct the Transaction to divide SSF III into two separate companies to accommodate the needs of the Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders and those Unit holders that are not Qualified Purchasers (“non-Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders”). 7 Pursuant to the Transaction, SSF III would conduct an exchange offer for the Units of Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders in which they may tender their Units of SSF III and receive, in exchange, Units of SSF QP (“Exchange Tender Offer”). The Exchange Tender Offer will not be a taxable transaction for the Funds. In the Transaction, (a) SSF III would accept from Qualified Purchaser Unit Holders who elect to participate in the Exchange Tender Offer (“Exchanging Holders”) Units of SSF III, (b) SSF III would transfer to SSF QP, on a strict pro rata basis, portfolio securities having a total net asset value (“NAV”) equal to the total NAV of the SSF III Units, as calculated on December 30, 2005 (the “Valuation Date”), tendered in the Exchange Tender Offer, (c) SSF III would receive Units of SSF QP having a total NAV equal to both the total NAV of the SSF III Units tendered by Exchanging Holders and the total NAV of the portfolio securities transferred from SSF III to SSF QP, 8 and (d) SSF III would distribute the SSF QP Units to Exchanging Holders on a pro rata basis. 9

6. Simultaneous with the Exchange Tender Offer, SSF III would conduct a cash repurchase offer (“Cash Repurchase Offer,” and together with the Exchange Tender Offer, the “Offers”), which would constitute the semi-annual cash repurchase offer currently required by rule 23c-3 and SSF III's fundamental policies, as well as by the Partnership Agreement. The Cash Repurchase Offer would enable all Unit holders to tender their Units to SSF III in exchange for a cash payment equal to the NAV of the Units on the Valuation Date. The Cash Repurchase Offer would not be limited by the Exchange Tender Offer. The Cash Repurchase Offer would be for 10% of SSF III's outstanding Units. If Limited Partners tender for repurchase in the Cash Repurchase Offer more than 10% of the outstanding Units, the Board would exercise its discretion to increase the Cash Repurchase Offer by 2% (for a total of 12% of Units outstanding). If Limited Partners tender more than 12% of the outstanding Units in the Cash Repurchase Offer, SSF III will repurchase Units tendered on a pro rata basis. 10 The Individual General Partners, Adviser and Principals will not participate in the Cash Repurchase Offer. Applicants believe that any non-Qualified Purchaser Unit Holder who tenders Units in the Cash Repurchase Offer will be able to receive cash for all Units tendered. The Adviser and two of its Principals, Austin Marxe and David Greenhouse (in their individual capacities), will participate in the Exchange Tender Offer in the same proportion as the Limited Partners after giving effect to the Cash Repurchase Offer, that is, they will exchange Units in the same proportion as the Units held by all Limited Partners (other than Mr. Greenhouse) are exchanged, subject to the Adviser and the Individual General Partners holding collectively at least 1% of SSF III's outstanding Units. Making the Transaction Participation Assumptions, following the Transaction, the Adviser and the Principals collectively would own approximately 7.7% of SSF III's outstanding Units.

7. Applicants propose for the Offers to begin on November 17, 2005, and expire on December 16, 2005. For purposes of both Offers, the NAV of SSF III's Units would be determined on the Valuation Date. Applicants intend to complete the Transaction on December 31, 2005, and to distribute proceeds of the Cash Repurchase Offer by January 6, 2006. Any and all costs and expenses incurred by SSF III in connection with the Cash Repurchase Offer will be incurred before SSF III calculates its NAV, and therefore will be reflected in the NAV, on the Valuation Date. All expenses associated with the Transaction will be paid by the Adviser or SSF QP. No repurchase fees, brokerage commissions, fees or other remuneration will be paid by SSF III, SSF QP or any Unit holder in connection with the Transaction. The Transaction will not be consummated until the Commission has issued an order relating to the application. Applicants have agreed not to make any material changes to the Transaction without prior approval of the Commission or its staff.

8. On May 2, 2005, the Board, including a majority of the Individual General Partners who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Independent General Partners”), approved the Transaction on behalf of SSF III, subject to the Commission issuing an order pursuant to the application. Prior to approving the Transaction, the Board considered other alternatives. Specifically, the Board considered converting SSF III into a “regulated investment company” under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, but rejected the alternative as inconsistent with its operations, including its treatment of operating losses and net capital losses. The Board also considered liquidating SSF III, but rejected the alternative in light of, among other things, the likelihood of liquidation causing Limited Partners to recognize taxable gain. In approving the Transaction, the Board concluded that: (a) The Transaction is consistent with the policies of SSF III, as recited in its registration statement, (b) the terms of the Transaction, including the consideration to be received by the Funds, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and (c) participation in the Transaction is in the best interests of SSF III and its Limited Partners, and the interests of existing Limited Partners of SSF III will not be diluted as a result of the Transaction. Applicants state that the Board, in reaching its conclusions, considered that SSF III is likely to be significantly smaller after the Transaction and that there may, as a result, be a material increase in SSF III's expense ratio. The Applicants estimate, making the Transaction Participation Assumptions and assuming the transactions were consummated on December 31, 2003, that the fees and expenses of SSF III (excluding any incentive allocation to the Adviser but including all other fees) for the calendar year ended December 31, 2004 would have been 1.57% of average net assets, rather than 0.84% of average net assets. Although this relative increase in SSF III's expense ratio of 0.73% may be material, the Applicants state that the Board believes that the benefits of the Transaction to all Partners (including the continued service of the Adviser) outweigh the burden of any such increase in SSF III's expense ratio.

1. Section 17(a) of the Act prohibits any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of that person (“second tier affiliate”), acting as principal, from selling to or purchasing from the registered investment company any security or other property. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines an “affiliated person” as, among other things, any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person; any person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the other person; any officer, director, partner, copartner or employee of the other person; and, if the other person is an investment company, its investment adviser. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines control to mean the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company. Applicants state that the Adviser and Principals may each be deemed to be an affiliated person of SSF III and SSF QP, and that SSF III and SSF QP may be deemed to be affiliated persons of each other as both are under common control of the Adviser and the Principals. Applicants also state that to the extent that an Exchanging Holder owns 5% or more of the outstanding Units of SSF III, the Exchanging Holder could be deemed to be an affiliated person of SSF III (such Exchanging Holder, a “5% Affiliate”), and a second tier affiliate of SSF QP. Thus, applicants state, section 17(a) of the Act may prohibit the Adviser, Principals and 5% Affiliates from purchasing Units of SSF QP from SSF III, and prohibit SSF QP from purchasing portfolio securities of SSF III in exchange for SSF QP Units.

2. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a transaction from the provisions of section 17(a) if the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company concerned and with the general purposes of the Act. Applicants submit that the Transaction has been approved by the Board, including a majority of the Independent General Partners, is reasonable and fair to SSF III and its Unit holders and meets the requirements of section 17(b) of the Act. Applicants state that the Transaction will not result in dilution to Unit holders of SSF III because (a) it will be effected at the NAV of SSF III's Units, which NAV will be calculated in accordance with SSF III's policies and procedures, as set forth in its registration statement, and computed using the same methodologies that SSF III has used to calculate its NAV in connection with each routine repurchase offer since its inception, 11 and (b) it will involve a pro rata transfer of SSF III's portfolio securities to SSF QP. Applicants further state that, prior to the Transaction, any Limited Partner not wishing to remain invested in SSF III or become invested in SSF QP will be able to have his or her Units repurchased for cash at the NAV of the Units, and all expenses of the Transaction will be paid by the Adviser or SSF QP, including the cost of separating SSF III's portfolio between SSF III and SSF QP in the Transaction.

Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Exchange Tender Offer will be effected at the NAV of SSF III's Units determined in accordance with its registration statement under the Act.

2. The sale of portfolio securities by SSF III to SSF QP in the Transaction will comply with the terms of rule 17a-7(c), (d) and (f) under the Act.

3. At its next regular meeting following the Transaction, the Board of SSF III, including a majority of the Independent General Partners, will determine whether the Units were valued in accordance with condition 1 above.

4. SSF III will maintain and preserve for a period of not less than six years from the end of the fiscal year in which the Transaction occurs, the first two years in an easily accessible place, a written record of the Transaction setting forth a description of each security transferred, the terms of the Transaction, and the information or materials upon which the determination required by condition 3 was made.

5. In the Transaction, the portfolio securities will be distributed by SSF III to SSF QP on a pro rata basis, except that cash may be distributed in lieu of fractional shares.