FSMIP is authorized under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq. ). FSMIP provides matching grants on a competitive basis to assist State Departments of Agriculture or other appropriate State agencies in conducting studies or developing innovative approaches related to the marketing of U.S. food and agricultural products. Other organizations interested in participating in this program should contact their State Department of Agriculture's Marketing Division to discuss their proposal.

Proposals are submitted by the State Agency and must be accompanied by completed Standard Forms (SF) 424 and 424A. Note that the SF 424 has been revised and that all applicants now must have a DUNS number and provide additional contact information when applying for this or any other Federal grant program. The revised SF 424 is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/grants_forms.html. AMS will not approve the use of FSMIP funds for advertising or, with limited exceptions, for the purchase of equipment. Detailed program guidelines may be obtained from your State Department of Agriculture, the above AMS contact, or the FSMIP Web site: www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/fsmip.htm.

FSMIP funds can be requested for a wide range of marketing research and marketing service activities, including projects aimed at:

(1) Developing and testing new or more efficient methods of processing, packaging, handling, storing, transporting, and distributing food and other agricultural products;

(2) Assessing customer response to new or alternative agricultural products or marketing services and evaluating potential opportunities for U.S. producers, processors and other agribusinesses, in both domestic and international markets; and,

(3) Identifying problems and impediments in existing channels of trade between producers and consumers of agricultural products and devising improved marketing practices, facilities, or systems to address such problems.

While all proposals which fall within the FSMIP guidelines will be considered, States are encouraged to submit proposals that have regional or national significance and that foster innovation in the following areas:

(1) Market Analysis—collecting and analyzing unique and relevant economic data and transportation and marketing statistics relating to targeted domestic and international markets.

(2) Transportation and distribution—finding ways to improve efficiency and reduce barriers in local, regional, national and international transportation and distribution systems to promote free movement of U.S. food and agricultural products.

(3) Competitiveness and new markets—identifying new opportunities for traditional and non-traditional products and by-products of agricultural production and processing in domestic and international markets. Assessing consumer preferences and consumer response to marketing and labeling claims.

(4) Quality and variety—enhancing the value of food and agricultural products through improvements in product quality and traceability. Using technology to address marketing challenges and opportunities such as developing new products and innovative packaging, or improving handling and storage methods.

Starting in FY 2004, applicants have the option of submitting FSMIP applications electronically through the central Federal grants Web site, http://grants.gov instead of mailing hard copy documents. Applicants considering the electronic application option are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with the Federal grants Web site well before the application deadline and to begin the application process before the deadline. Additional details about the FSMIP application process for all applicants are available at the FSMIP Web site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/fsmip.htm.

FSMIP is listed in the “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance” under number 10.156 and subject agencies must adhere to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination in all federally assisted programs.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex is the major international organization for encouraging fair international trade in food and protecting the health and economic interests of consumers. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. In the United States, USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency manage and carry out U.S. Codex activities.

The Codex Executive Committee (CEC), at its 47th Session in 2000, asked that the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene reconvene to redraft the existing codes on meat hygiene so that they reflect contemporary developments. The CEC also asked that the scope of the existing codes be broadened so as to include poultry meat hygiene. These recommendations were confirmed by the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in July 2001.

Provisional agenda items to be discussed during the public meeting:

1. Draft Code of Hygienic Practice for Meat.

2. Proposed Draft Annex on Risk-Based Post-Mortem Examination Procedures for Meat.

3. Proposed Draft Annex on Microbiological Verification of Process Control of Meat Hygiene.

4. Discussion Paper on Hygiene Provisions for Processed Meat.

At the January 15th public meeting, the agenda items, including U.S. positions, will be described and discussed. Attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Comments may be sent to the FSIS Docket Room (see ADDRESSES ). Written comments should state that they relate to activities of the 10th Session of the Codex Committee on Meat Hygiene (Docket #03-040N).

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information about Listserv, contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

The 2003 FSIS Food Safety Vision Statement states that FSIS is implementing several new initiatives in order to continue towards its vision for food safety, including expediting the review and implementation of safe interventions at slaughter and processing plants. FSIS reviews new technologies that establishments plan to employ to ensure that the use of these technologies is consistent with agency regulations, and that the technologies will not adversely affect product safety, inspection procedures, or the safety of FSIS inspection program personnel. In August 2003, the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture, announced that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) had established a New Technology Staff to streamline the implementation of new technologies in an establishment's operations and to reduce the amount of time it takes the agency to review these new technologies. The New Technology Staff will place significant emphasis on fostering the development and use of new technologies that can help reduce pathogens on meat and poultry products.

One purpose of this public meeting is to promote and facilitate an exchange of the latest information on new and emerging technologies of public health significance. In particular, FSIS will use the meeting to explore how small and very small plants can avail themselves of these technologies in their operations. The Agency also intends to use the meeting to explore ways to reduce the time between the development and implementation of new technologies.

Main topics to be discussed at the public meeting are as follows:

(1) The Agency's new procedures and ways to expedite even further the process for making promising food safety technologies available for use, including ways that FSIS and stakeholders can work together to make emerging technology more widely available. The stakeholders include academia, state governments, industry, consumers, and other government agencies. (2) Emerging technologies that have been commercialized or will soon be commercialized. These new technologies include the following categories:

a. Pre-slaughter operation interventions that treat the animal before slaughter operations begin, such as hide treatment and bacteria exclusion in the animal;

b. Decontamination methods during slaughter and processing operations, such as antimicrobials being used on the carcass;

c. Sanitation interventions to decontaminate product contact surfaces or to treat the environment in the slaughter and processing areas to exclude or remove organisms such as Listeria monocytogenes.

Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update. FSIS provides a weekly Constituent Update, which is communicated via Listserv, a free e-mail subscription service. In addition, the update is available on-line through the FSIS Web page located at http://www.fsis.usda.gov. The update is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and any other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents/stakeholders. The constituent Listserv consists of industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, allied health professionals, scientific professionals, and other individuals that have requested to be included. Through the Listserv and Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience.

For more information contact the Congressional and Public Affairs Office, at (202) 720-9113. To be added to the free e-mail subscription service (Listserv) go to the “Constituent Update” page on the FSIS Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/update/update.htm. Click on the “Subscribe to the Constituent Update Listserv” link, then fill out and submit the form.

On October 10, 2003, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain folding gift boxes from the People's Republic of China (PRC). See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Folding Gift Boxes from the People's Republic of China , 68 FR 58653. We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the preliminary results of review but received no comments. The Department has now completed this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

The products covered by this antidumping duty order are certain folding gift boxes. Certain folding gift boxes are a type of folding or knock-down carton manufactured from paper or paperboard. Certain folding gift boxes are produced from a variety of recycled and virgin paper or paperboard materials, including, but not limited to, clay-coated paper or paperboard and kraft (bleached or unbleached) paper or paperboard. The scope of the order excludes gift boxes manufactured from paper or paperboard of a thickness of more than 0.8 millimeters, corrugated paperboard, or paper mache. The scope of the order also excludes those gift boxes for which no side of the box, when assembled, is at least nine inches in length.

Certain folding gift boxes are typically decorated with a holiday motif using various processes, including printing, embossing, debossing, and foil stamping, but may also be plain white or printed with a single color. The subject merchandise includes certain folding gift boxes, with or without handles, whether finished or unfinished, and whether in one-piece or multi-piece configuration. One-piece gift boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece gift boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Certain folding gift boxes are generally packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, or other packaging materials, in single or multi-box packs for sale to the retail customer. The scope of the order excludes folding gift boxes that have a retailer's name, logo, trademark or similar company information printed prominently on the box's top exterior (such folding gift boxes are often known as “not-for-resale” gift boxes or “give-away” gift boxes and may be provided by department and specialty stores at no charge to their retail customers). The scope of the order also excludes folding gift boxes where both the outside of the box is a single color and the box is not packaged in shrink-wrap, cellophane, other resin-based packaging films, or paperboard.

Imports of the subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 4819.20.00.40 and 4819.50.40.60. These subheadings also cover products that are outside the scope of the order. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

No parties submitted comments on the preliminary results of review. Accordingly, there is no concurrent issues and decision memorandum or analysis memorandum issued with these final results of review. Further, we have made no changes in the calculations since the preliminary results of review.

We determine the following percentage weighted-average dumping margins exist for folding gift boxes for the period August 6, 2001, through December 31, 2002:

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated, whenever possible, an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment value for subject merchandise. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review. We will direct CBP to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's entries during the review period.

The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of folding gift boxes 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 established above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed companies not listed above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other PRC exporters (except for Max Fortune, which was excluded from the antidumping duty order) will be the “PRC-wide” rate; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other non-PRC exporters will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that exporter.

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

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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 Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

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

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

On April 9, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published in the Federal Register the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico (62 FR 17148) (amended May 5, 1997)  1 ( Fifth Review Final Results ).

CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. (CEMEX), GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. (GCCC)  2 , and the Southern Tier Cement Committee (the petitioner) contested various aspects of the Department's Fifth Review Final Results . On June 18, 1999, the Binational Panel (the Panel) issued an order remanding to the Department the Fifth Review Final Results . Specifically, the Panel instructed the Department to implement the following: (1) Exclude the respondents' home-market sales of bagged Type I cement from the foreign like product in the calculation of normal value; (2) re-examine the record evidence to determine whether a constructed-export-price offset should be granted; (3) recalculate the difference-in-merchandise adjustment to reflect the exclusion of home-market sales of bagged cement; (4) correct certain ministerial errors.

On November 15, 1999, the Department issued the final results of redetermination on remand, and on February 10, 2000, the Panel affirmed these results and dismissed the case. See Secretariat File No. USA-97-1904-01. On April 30, 2000, the Department filed an extraordinary challenge petition with the Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC). On October 30, 2003, the ECC determined that the Department's petition did not meet the criteria required for an extraordinary challenge review and thus denied the Department's petition. Therefore, as there is now a final and conclusive ECC decision in this action, we are amending our amended final results of review and we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to liquidate entries subject to this review.

Pursuant to section 516A(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), we are now amending the amended final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico for the period August 1, 1994, through July 31, 1995. Based on the final results of redetermination on remand, the weighted-average antidumping margin for CEMEX and GCCC changes from 73.69 percent to 44.89 percent.

The Department will determine and Customs will assess appropriate antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise exported by firms covered by this review.

We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with section 516A(g) of the Act.

On December 3, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on HRS from India. See Notice of Amended Final Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , 66 FR 60194 (December 3, 2001) ( Amended Final Determination ). On December 2, 2002, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on HRS from India. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 67 FR 71533 (December 2, 2002). On December 30 and 31, 2002, Essar Steel Ltd. (Essar) and Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (Tata), Indian producers/exporters of subject merchandise, requested administrative reviews of their entries during the POR. On January 15, 2003, the Department initiated an administrative review of Essar and Tata. National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation, petitioners in this proceeding, did not request an administrative review. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part , 68 FR 3009 (January 22, 2003).

On January 3, 2003, the Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Essar and Tata. The Department received Essar's responses to the questionnaire in January and February 2003. On January 15, 2003, Essar requested that it be allowed to report cost and home market sales information for periods other than the POR. On February 25, 2003, the Department allowed Essar to limit the reporting period for its home market sales to the period May 1, 2002, through January 31, 2003. On March 5, 2003, Tata withdrew its request for an administrative review. On April 29, 2003, the Department allowed Essar to expand the POR for cost reporting purposes to include the month of April 2001. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Essar in March, April, May, June and July 2003, and received timely responses. On June 27, 2003, Essar requested that it be excluded from reporting sales from stockyards. On August 6, 2003, the Department granted Essar's request regarding its stockyard sales.

On August 27, 2003 and November 4, 2003, the Department published in the Federal Register notices extending the deadline for issuing the preliminary results in this case until no later than November 3, 2003, and December 15, 2003, respectively. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 51557 (August 27, 2003); also see Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review , 68 FR 62430 (November 4, 2003).

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of the order.

Specifically included within the scope of the order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

1.80 percent of manganese, or

2.25 percent of silicon, or

1.00 percent of copper, or

0.50 percent of aluminum, or

1.25 percent of chromium, or

0.30 percent of cobalt, or

0.40 percent of lead, or

1.25 percent of nickel, or

0.30 percent of tungsten, or

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or

0.10 percent of niobium, or

0.15 percent of vanadium, or

0.15 percent of zirconium.

All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of the order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of the order:

The merchandise subject to the order is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by the order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

The POR is May 3, 2001, through November 30, 2002.

As provided in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), “the Secretary will rescind an administrative review under this section, in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Tata withdrew its request for an administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the instant administrative review and no other party requested an administrative review of Tata. Therefore, the Department is rescinding the instant administrative review with respect to Tata.

As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department conducted a verification of the sales and cost information provided by Essar. The Department conducted this verification using standard verification procedures including: on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, examination of relevant sales, cost, production and financial records and selection of relevant source documentation as exhibits. The Department's verification findings are identified in the sales and cost verification memoranda dated December 15, 2003, the public versions of which are on file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B099 of the main Commerce building.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party (A) withholds information requested by the Department, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadline for submission of the information, or in the form and manner requested, (C) significantly impedes an antidumping or countervailing proceeding, or (D) provides information that cannot be verified, the Department shall use, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act provides that if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the party. The Act provides that an adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the petition, a final determination in an antidumping investigation or review, or any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of the Act.

During the administrative review, Essar withheld certain information requested by the Department regarding its relationships with certain companies, and reported information regarding such relationships that does not agree with the Department's verification findings. Moreover, the record indicates that Essar significantly impeded the proceeding with respect to the issue of affiliation and did not cooperate by acting to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's requests for information regarding its relationships with the companies at issue. Therefore, as partial adverse facts available, the Department has preliminarily determined that Essar is affiliated with all of the companies in the Essar Group, as well as the companies identified in footnote 41 of Essar's 2001/2002 Annual Report. Additionally, we applied an adverse inference by determining that Essar did not engage in arm's-length transactions with the Essar Group companies and the footnote 41 companies that it failed to identify as affiliated parties. Specifically, we determined that the costs that Essar incurred as a result of its transactions with these companies are less than the costs it would have incurred had the transactions been conducted with unaffiliated parties. Transactions with these companies affect Essar's general and administrative (G&A) expenses, financing expenses, and manufacturing overhead expenses. As adverse facts available, we recalculated the G&A ratio used by Essar using information contained in Ispat Industries Ltd.'s (Ispat) 2000-2001 financial statements. We also adjusted Essar's manufacturing overhead expenses and financial expenses based on available information regarding the amount by which the costs that Essar incurred as a result of its transactions with affiliated parties are less than market prices. For a complete discussion of our use of adverse facts available, see the memorandum from Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Director, Office IV, to Holly A. Kuga, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, dated December 15, 2003 (Facts Available Memorandum), which is on file in the CRU.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on secondary information rather than on information obtained in the course of an investigation or review, it shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its disposal. The percentage used to increase Essar's manufacturing overhead and financial expenses is not considered secondary information because it is based on information obtained during the course of this review from Essar. Therefore, the Department is not required to corroborate this percentage. With respect to the G&A expenses, we obtained Ispat's 2000-2001 financial statements from the public record of the investigation of certain cold-rolled carbon steel flat products from India. See Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela; Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations , 66 FR 54198, 54207 (October 26, 2001). These financial statements cover the period April 1, 2000, through March 31, 2001, which predates the POR by one fiscal year. Publicly available data from independent sources that relate to the relevant time period are generally considered to be both relevant and reliable because they are contemporaneous with the period under consideration and not generated for purposes of the trade action. Because Ispat is an Indian producer of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products and its 2000-2001 financial statements are publicly available and cover a period close in time to the POR, the Department considers these statements to have probative value, and therefore, to be corroborated.

Essar reported the invoice date for both its home market and U.S. sales to be the date of sale. Although the Department maintains a presumption that the invoice date is the date of sale (19 CFR 351.401(i)), “[i]f the Department is presented with satisfactory evidence that the material terms of sale are finally established on a date other than the date of invoice, the Department will use that alternative date as the date of sale.” Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule , 62 FR 27296, 27349 (May 19, 1997) (Preamble). Because the record evidence does not indicate that the material terms of home market sales are finally established on a date other than the date of the invoice, consistent with the methodology employed with respect to Essar in the investigation, the Department is preliminarily using the invoice date as the date of Essar's home market sales. However, with respect to Essar's U.S. sales, the Department found no evidence of changes to the material terms of sale after the contract date ( e.g. , changes to the price, quantity, production or shipment schedules). Therefore, the Department is preliminarily using the contract date as the date of Essar's U.S. sales.

In order to determine whether Essar sold HRS to the United States at less than normal value (NV), the Department compared the export price (EP) of individual U.S. sales to the monthly weighted-average NV of sales of the foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade (see section 777A(d)(2) of the Act; see also section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act). The methodology used to compare sales and to calculate EP and NV are described in the “Comparison Methodology”, “Export Price,” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice.

Scope of the Order

For purposes of this order, the products covered are certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate ( i.e. , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm, but not exceeding 1250 mm, and of a thickness of not less than 4.0 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included within the scope of this order are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.

Steel products to be included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g. , ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.

Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.

Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.

Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.

ASTM specifications A710 and A736.

USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).

All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).

Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.

The merchandise subject to this order is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this order, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under this order is dispositive.

In accordance with section 735(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Tariff Act), the Department published its final determination that sales of hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands were being made at less than fair value in the United States. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products , 66 FR 50408 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, as amended, Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products , 66 FR 55637 (November 2, 2001) (collectively, Final Determination ). On November 13, 2001, the International Trade Commission notified the Department of its final determination pursuant to section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of certain hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. On November 29, 2001, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands , 66 FR 59565 (November 29, 2001) ( Antidumping Duty Order ).

Subsequent to the publication of the Department's antidumping duty order, the petitioners (National Steel Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, and United States Steel Corporation) and the respondent (Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel USA Inc. (collectively, Corus)) challenged certain aspects of the Department's Final Determination before the Court. In addition, the Department requested a voluntary remand with respect to the inadvertent omission of the proper language from the antidumping duty order to cease collection of provisional measures six months after the publication of the preliminary determination, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Tariff Act. On March 7, 2003, the Court issued a remand order to the Department for the sole purpose of revising its antidumping duty order to preclude collection of provisional measures beyond the six-month period pursuant to section 733(d) of the Tariff Act, and also to explain its practice of interpreting the provisional measures time period, i.e. , in calendar months or the equivalent in six 30-day periods. See Corus Staal BV v. United States , 259 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (CIT 2003). See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the Netherlands: Notice of Final Court Decision and Suspension of Liquidation , 68 FR 60912 (October 24, 2003) for a summary of the ensuing litigation.

On September 29, 2003, the Court affirmed the Department's remand determination and entered a final judgment order in regards to the Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order . See Corus Staal BV III; see also Corus Staal BV II. As a result, the Department is now amending the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands to lift suspension of liquidation 180 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register until the date of publication of the Antidumping Duty Order . Because the preliminary determination was published on May 3, 2001, and the Antidumping Duty Order was published on November 29, 2001, the Department will issue instructions to Customs and Border Protection (Customs) to terminate suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise made between October 30, 2001, and November 28, 2001, inclusive, without regard to antidumping duties ( i.e. , release all bonds and refund all cash deposits). In addition, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Tariff Act, the Department will also instruct Customs to resume collection, effective November 29, 2001, of a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins published in the Final Determination . Effective November 29, 2001, Customs officers must require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average antidumping duty margins as noted below. The “All Others” rate applies to all exporters of subject hot-rolled steel from the Netherlands not specifically listed. The weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

This notice constitutes the amended antidumping duty order with respect to certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from the Netherlands. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, room B-099 of the main Commerce building, for copies of an updated list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect.

This amended order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

On July 2, 2003, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil, covering the POR July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review , 68 FR 39511 (July 2, 2003). On August 22, 2003, pursuant to a request made by the petitioners, the Department initiated an administrative review of Companhia Ferroligas Minas Gerais-Minasligas (Minasligas) and Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC), both of which are subject to the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the POR July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part 68 FR 50750, 50751 (August 22, 2003). On November 19, 2003, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of Minasligas.

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provides that a party that requests an administrative review may withdraw the request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested administrative review. Since the notice of initiation of this administrative review was published on August 22, 2003, and the petitioners, the party requesting this administrative review, withdrew their request for review within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation, the Department is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

Further, we are rescinding the review with respect to CBCC because, since the initiation of this current review, the Department has revoked the order in part, with respect to CBCC, effective for entries made on or after July 1, 2002. See Silicon Metal from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Revocation of Order in Part 68 FR 57670, 57671 (October 6, 2003).

This notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

Regulations at 50 CFR 648.9 set forth VMS requirements for fisheries in the northeastern United States that require the use of VMS for fishery monitoring and/or reporting. Specifically, § 648.9(b) lists minimum VMS performance criteria that a VMS unit must meet in order to be certified for use.

The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, has reviewed all components of the FMCT/G and other information provided by the vendor and has certified the following unit for use in all Northeast fisheries in which VMS units are required: Boatracs FMCT/G, available from Boatracs, 1935 Cordell Court, El Cajon, CA 92020-0911, Telephone: (619) 438-6000,1-800-336-8722.

The EFP was requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b), concerning scientific research activity, exempted fishing permits, and exempted educational activity.

Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc., requested an EFP to determine the feasibility of raising fish in the exclusive economic zone approximately 33 miles (53 km) WSW. of Johns Pass, FL. Initially, the project intended to raise juvenile cobia in four cages during the first year. The applicant intended to expand the project to eight cages with cobia, mahi-mahi, greater amberjack, Florida pompano, red snapper and cubera snapper. The applicant stated that disease-free fingerlings would be obtained from the Aquaculture Center of the Florida Keys (59300 Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL, phone (305) 743-6135) and the Marine Science Institute of the University of Texas (750 Channel View Drive, Port Aransas, TX, phone (361) 749-6795). Further, the applicant stated that the brood stock and their spawn would be genetically tagged using the satellite DNA method.

On July 30, 2003, NMFS published in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit with a request for comments on the EFP (68 FR 44745). During the public comment period, 340 individuals opposed the granting of the EFP. In addition, one shrimp firm opposed the EFP because it would disrupt their operations. Six environmental organizations opposed granting the EFP and stated that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than an Environmental Assessment (EA) should be prepared for this project. In July 2003, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) expressed concerns about the EA and requested that the EA be revised to reflect their concerns. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services supported the permit application.

Consistent with the requirements of 50 CFR 600.745(b)(3)(i), NMFS provided copies of the EFP application and information to the State of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and Region 4 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) along with information on the EFP's effects on target species.

The Council considered the EFP request at its September 2003 meeting, and strongly recommended that the EFP for Florida Offshore Aquaculture, Inc. be denied. The Coast Guard and the EPA did not respond to the NMFS request for comments. On October 27, 2003, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection commented that the revised EA lacked adequate information pertaining to the environmental effects of caged aquaculture operations in warm waters, particularly the Gulf of Mexico, and the potential for short- and long-term environmental impacts due to expansion of the facility. Also, they stated that the precedent setting nature of the proposed action warrants a thorough evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act.

The major issues of concern, as indicated by the Council, environmental organizations, and individuals, included: (1) the applicant made false statements in connection with the application; (2) which vessel would be used for transporting feed and fish to and from the cages; (3) who would conduct the DNA fingerprinting that would allow tracking of the aquaculture fish throughout their sale; (4) possible escapement and its impact on wild stocks; (5) the type of food used for feeding; (6) possible transfer of diseases to wild fish; (7) timing of cage placement offshore; (8) timing of acquiring fingerlings; (9) the expertise and ability of the applicant to undertake the endeavor; (10) associated penalties for violating the EFP; (11) who is responsible for any environmental damage; (12) staff expertise on treating disease; (13) how disease outbreaks would be treated; (14) liability and environmental insurance; (15) paper trail on aquacultured fish throughout the marketing chain; (16) possible conflicts or impacts on or with other fishing activities; (17) possible interactions of wild fish or other organisms with the cages; (18) response to storm events; (19) why a smaller number of cages will not be used if this is a feasibility study; and (20) the range of species for possible stocking.

Given the inexperience of the applicant and the false information in the application, it appears that the applicant lacks the capability to comply with the conditions of the EFP. It is likely that the project could impact significantly the surrounding habitat and marine fishery resources. Virtually all of the agencies and environmental organizations stated that the proposed action required either an EIS or a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts. Given the precedent setting nature of the action, NMFS concurs that the proposed action warrants an EIS.

The Council is developing a generic amendment and an EIS to determine the feasibility of conducting and regulating aquaculture projects in Federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. This effort is expected to be completed within 2 years. This process will result in extensive public input and appears necessary to ensure that no unanticipated consequences will result from proposed future aquaculture projects. NMFS will work with the Council and support the development of the generic amendment and EIS.

Given the precedent setting nature of the project and the need for full public input into the process, especially the need for an EIS, NMFS believes that it is premature to grant an EFP at this time. Rather, applicants should work closely with the Council to develop appropriate procedures for establishing and maintaining future aquaculture projects in Federal waters. Thus, NMFS denies the application for an EFP.

New technologies are making widespread beneficial use of the 70, 80, and 90 GHz bands possible for the first time. These bands, which are shared between federal and non-federal users, can now be used to offer a broad range of new products and services, such as high-speed wireless local area networks, and to increase access to broadband services, including access systems for the Internet. In order to accelerate the introduction of these technologies, NTIA and the FCC have agreed to use an innovative Web-based frequency coordination mechanism to coordinate use between the federal and non-federal sectors. The FCC's recent Allocations and Service Rules Order for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands, set in motion the steps necessary to implement these technologies. The NTIA/FCC agreement calls for the formulation of a plan for the web-based frequency coordination mechanism within four months of the release of the Allocations and Service Rules Order. 2 Within another four months, the interactive system would be operational. This new system will allow non-federal users to use a Web site to determine whether they have any potential conflict with federal users. Non-federal user applicants will be required to input certain information into a database. Once that information has been submitted, it will be processed within minutes and a determination will be made on whether or not the applicant can move forward in planning for their system's operational use within those bands of spectrum.

Until the complete Web-based system is operational, however, federal and non-federal users will continue to coordinate their assignments through NTIA's Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (FAS). To help each applicant know the status of a particular application with respect to its FAS review, NTIA will provide status information at http://ntiacsd.ntia.doc.gov/webcoord/status.cfm. This site will identify when non-federal applications for these bands have been submitted to the FAS, when those applications completed federal agency review, and the final result.

While not a part of the agreement regarding the automated mechanism for the 70, 80, 90 GHz bands, the 21.2-23.6 GHz band is also shared between federal and non-federal users and presents similar coordination challenges. Accordingly, NTIA will also provide on this Web site status information regarding the processing of non-federal applications for that band.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for special shift.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003). Also see 67 FR 63632, published on October 15, 2002.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing.

A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States ( see Federal Register notice 68 FR 1599, published on January 13, 2003). Also see 68 FR 26575, published on May 16, 2003.

The text of the Agreement and Order appears below.

The Lifelike Company, d/b/a My Twinn (“Respondent”“Lifelike”), a corporation, enters into this Consent Order Agreement (“Agreement”) with the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“the staff”) pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 1605.13 of the Commission's Procedures for Investigations, Inspections, and Inquiries under the Flammable Fabrics Act, 16 CFR part 1605.

This Agreement and Order are for the purpose of settling allegations of the staff that Respondent sold purple satin pajamas made from 100% polyester and rosebud nightgowns made from 100% polyester that failed to comply with the Standards for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear (“Sleepwear Standards”), 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616.

1. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (“Commission”) is an Independent regulatory agency of the United States Government. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq., the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), 15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq., and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.

2. Respondent is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal corporate offices located at 5655 South Yosemite Street, Suite 2121, Greenwood, Village, CO 80111.

3. Respondent is now, and has been engaged in one or more of the following activities: The sale, or the offering for sale, in commerce, or the importation into the United States or the introduction, delivery for introduction, transportation or causing to be transported, in commerce, or the sale or delivery after sale or shipment in commerce, children's sleepwear garments that are subject to the Sleepwear Standards.

4. This Agreement is for the purpose of settling the allegations of the accompanying Complaint. This Agreement does not constitute an admission by Respondent that it violated the law. The Agreement becomes effective only upon its final acceptance by the Commission and service of the incorporated Order upon Respondent.

5. The parties agree that this Consent Order Agreement resolves the allegations of the Complaint and the Commission shall not initiate any civil or administrative action against Respondent for those alleged violations set forth in the Complaint.

6. Upon final acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission and issuance of the Final Order, Respondent knowingly, voluntarily, and completely waives any rights it may have in this matter (a) to an administrative or judicial hearing, (b) to judicial review or other challenge or contest of the validity of the Commission's actions, (c) to a determination by the Commission as to whether Respondent failed to comply with the CPSA, FFA, FTCA, and the underlying regulations, (d) to a statement of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (e) to any claims under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

7. Upon provisional acceptance of this Agreement by the Commission, this Agreement shall be placed on the public record and shall be published in the Federal Register in accordance with the procedures set forth in 16 CFR 1605.13d). If the Commission does not receive any written objections within 15 days, the Agreement will be deemed finally accepted on the 20th day after the date it is published in the Federal Register .

8. In settlement of the staff's allegations of the Complaint, Respondent agrees to comply with the attached Order incorporated herein by reference.

9. Upon a violation of the attached Order by Respondent, the Commission reserves the right to take appropriate legal action against Respondent for all violations listed in the Complaint and for all violations occurring after the date of this Agreement and respondent waives the statute of limitations.

10. For any violation occurring after the date of this Agreement, if the Commission finds that Respondent has manufactured for sale, sold, or offered for sale, in commerce, or imported into the United States, or introduced, delivered for introduction, transported or caused to be transported, in commerce, of any product, fabric, or related material which fails to comply with the Sleepwear Standards, Respondent will pay to the Commission upon demand a penalty in the amount of five (5) times the retail value of the product in question. This provision does not preclude the Commission from taking additional action including, but not limited to, civil, administrative, and/or criminal actions under sections 5, 6, and 7 of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1194, 1195, and 1196; sections 2 and 21 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069 and 2070; and sections 10 and 17(b) of the FTCA 15 U.S.C. 50 and 57(b).

11. Respondent reserves its right to challenge the Commission's findings under paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Agreement before the Commission and to have the court review whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

12. The Commission may publicize the terms of this Consent Order Agreement.

13. This Agreement, and the Complaint accompanying the Agreement, may be used in interpreting the Order. Agreements, understandings, representations, or interpretations, made outside this Consent Order Agreement may not be used to vary or contradict its terms.

14. Upon acceptance of the Agreement, the Commission shall issue the following Order.

15. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to Respondent and each of its successors and assigns.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq .; the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq .; and the Standards for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear (Sleepwear Standards), 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616, the Consumer Product Safety Commission having reason to believe that the Lifelike Company, d/b/a My Twinn®, 5655 South Yosemite Street, Suite 212, Greenwood, CO 80111, has violated the provisions of said Acts; and further, it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect to those violations would be in the public interest, therefore, it hereby issues its complaint stating its charges as follows:

1. Respondent the Lifelike Company, d/b/a My Twinn® is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its principal place of business located at 5655 South Yosemite Street, Suite 212, Greenwood Village, CO 80111.

2. Respondent is now and has been engaged in the sale, or the offering for sale, in commerce, or the importation into the United States, or the introduction, delivery for introduction, transportation or causing to be transported, ion commerce, or the sale or delivery after a sale or shipment in commerce, as the term “commerce” is defined in section 2(b) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 119(b), “children's sleepwear” as defined in 16 CFR 1615.1 and 1616.1.

3. From October 15, 1999, through December 3, 1999, Respondent imported into the United States, sold, and offered for sale, in commerce, introduced, delivered for introduction, transported or caused to be transported, in commerce, and sold or delivered after a sale or shipment in commerce 4,366 pairs of purple satin pajamas made from 100% polyester that failed to meet the flammability requirements of the Children's Sleepwear Standards, 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616, in violation of section 3(a) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1192(a).

4. In 2001, Respondent sold, and offered for sale, in commerce, introduced, delivered for introduction, transported or caused to be transported, in commerce, and sold or delivered after a sale or shipment in commerce, 2,103 pairs of purple satin pajamas, GPU 072899, made from 100% polyester that failed to meet the flammability requirements of the Children's Sleepwear Standards, 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616, in violation of section 3(a) of the FFA, 15 U;.S.C. 1192(a).

5. In 2001, Respondent sold, and offered for sale, in commerce, introduced, delivered for introduction, transported or caused to be transported, in commerce, and sold or delivered after a sale or shipment in commerce 3,564 rosebud nightgowns, GPU 072600, made from 100% polyester that failed to meet the flammability requirements of the Children's Sleepwear Standards, 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616, in violation of section 3(a) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1192(a).

6. The acts by Respondent set forth in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the complaint are unlawful and constitute an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive practice in commerce under the FTCA, in violation of section 3(a) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1192(a), for which a cease and desists order may be issued against Respondent pursuant to section 5(b) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1194(b), and section 5 of the FTCA, 15 U.S.C. 45.

7. The staff seeks the issuance of a cease and desist order against Respondent pursuant to section 5(b) of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1194(b), and section 5 of the FTCA, 15 U.S.C. 45.

The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended (the Act), establishes the authority by which the Secretary of Defense may close or realign military installations inside the United States. Section 2913(a) of the Act requires the Secretary of Defense to publish the selection criteria proposed to be used by the Secretary in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States by December 31, 2003, for a 30-day public comment period. Section 2913(e) requires the Secretary of Defense to publish the final selection criteria no later than February 16, 2004. The final selection criteria are subject to Congressional disapproval by Act of Congress until March 15, 2004.

Since the 1991 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, the Department of Defense (DoD) has used the same, publicly accepted, selection criteria to make its closure and realignment recommendations. The Department first published these criteria for public comment in a November 30, 1990 (55 FR 49678), Federal Register notice. Based on comments received, the proposed criteria were appropriately amended. The February 15, 1991 (56 FR 6374), Federal Register notice contained an analysis of public comments received and a description of the changes DoD made to the draft criteria. Having not been disapproved by Congress, the final criteria were used to make recommendations to the 1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Subsequently, the DoD, in a December 15, 1992 (57 FR 59334), and a December 9, 1994 (59 FR 63769), Federal Register notice, announced that it would use the same final criteria to make recommendations to the 1993 and 1995 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions, respectively.

The Act specifies that the selection criteria shall ensure that military value is the primary consideration in making closure and realignment recommendations. It also lists specific considerations that military value must include and special considerations that the selection criteria must address. The eight criteria proposed for this round were based on the accepted, tested, and proven criteria used in past BRAC rounds. These criteria now incorporate statutory requirements and stress the Department's capabilities based approach to performing missions.

It is proposed that the Department of Defense use the following criteria in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States:

• In recommending military installations for closure or realignment, the Department of Defense will, giving priority consideration to military value (criteria 1-4), consider:

1. The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the Department of Defense's total force, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.

2. The availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving locations.

3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training.

4. The cost of operations and the manpower implications.

5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs.

6. The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations.

7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel.

8. The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities.

1. 55 FR 49678, November 30, 1990: Proposed selection criteria and request for comments.

2. 55 FR 53586, December 31, 1990: Extend comment period on proposed selection criteria.

3. 56 FR 6374, February 15, 1991: Published selection criteria and analysis of comments.

4. 57 FR 59334, December 15, 1992: Published selection criteria.

5. 59 FR 63769, December 9, 1994: Published selection criteria.

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

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: Social and Character Development Research Program National Evaluation.

Frequency: On occasion.

Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

 Responses: 32,160.

 Burden Hours: 13,868.

Abstract: The Social and Character Development (SACD) National Evaluation will evaluate the success of seven school-based interventions designed to promote positive social and character development among elementary school children. The research will determine, through randomized field trials, whether one or more program interventions produce meaningful effects. The study's three primary research questions are: (1) Do the SACD interventions affect social-emotional competence, school climate, positive and negative behavior, and academic achievement? (2) For whom, and under what conditions, are the interventions effective? and (3) What is the process by which the interventions affect children's behavior? Data collection activities will include the administration of surveys to children, teachers, principals, and primary caregivers; school observations, and school record abstractions over a three year period: from 2004-05 to 2006-07. Results from the evaluation will provide education professionals with information they need to make informed choices about which intervention to adopt.

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 2428. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivian_reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. 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 Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: Revision.

Title: Even Start Classroom Literacy Interventions and Outcomes (CLIO) Study.

Frequency: Semi-Annually.

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

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden

 Responses: 19,939.

 Burden Hours: 8,766.

Abstract: CLIO will test the effectiveness for children and parents of promising early childhood education and parenting education interventions in a sample of Even Start projects to determine: (1) Whether enhanced interventions that focus on literacy and integrate early childhood and parenting education are more effective than existing Even Start services; (2) the relative effectiveness of different interventions; and (3) the relative contribution of enhanced parenting education to program results.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review: Comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2425. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. 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 Kathy Axt at her e-mail address Kathy.Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

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

Type of Review: New.

Title: American Indian Supplement to the NAEP, Field Test 2004.

Frequency: One time.

Affected Public:

State, local, or tribal gov't, SEAs or LEAs; individuals or household.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden   Responses: 1,300.   Burden Hours: 325.

Abstract: This study is a field test for a planned supplement to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The study will determine the feasibility of oversampling the American Indian and Alaska Native student population. In addition to a standard assessment, it includes special background questionnaires for student, teacher, and school components. A three-year clearance is requested.

Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review: Comment request may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2363. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202-4651 or to the e-mail address vivan.reese@ed.gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-708-9346. 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 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.

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and a reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Gary Stegner, Public Affairs Office, Ohio Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy, is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory Board, c/o Phoenix Environmental Corporation, MS-76, Post Office Box 538704, Cincinnati, OH 43253-8704, or by calling the Advisory Board at (513) 648-6478.

Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis with respect to the high energy physics research program.

Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following:

Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Panel, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Bruce Strauss, 301-903-3705 or Bruce.Strauss@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Panel will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.

Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 90 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Today, EPA is publishing a memorandum revising current policy regarding regulatory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of submetered properties. The memorandum changes EPA's interpretation of section 1411 as it applies in the specific context of submetering and direct billing of tenants. EPA published a proposed memo in the Federal Register on August 28, 2003 (68 FR 51777) and solicited public comments for 60 days. Comments were received from a variety of stakeholders, including State, county, and local governments, apartment building owners and associations, utility companies, and housing associations. Generally, commenters strongly supported the proposed policy and agreed that submetering promotes water conservation.

The purpose of this memorandum is to announce EPA's revised policy concerning the applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to submetered properties. Submetering, as applied in this policy, means a billing process by which a property owner (or association of property owners, in the case of co-ops or condominiums) bills tenants based on metered total water use; the property owner is then responsible for payment of a water bill from a public water system. Under the revised policy, a property owner who installs submeters to track usage of water by tenants on his or her property will not be subject to SDWA regulations solely as a result of taking the administrative act of submetering and billing. Property owners must receive all of their water from a regulated public water system to qualify under the terms of this policy revision for submetered properties.

EPA proposed the revised policy in the Federal Register on August 28, 2003 (68 FR 51777) and requested public comment. In response, the Agency received strong support for the revised policy on submetering from a variety of stakeholders. In light of this response, and because a key objective of the Agency is to promote water efficiency and conservation, EPA has decided to change the policy for submetering.

Throughout the country, submetering of apartment buildings has been found to be an effective but little-used tool to support water conservation. Water conservation is an integral part of watershed protection, particularly in arid and drought-stricken areas. In addition to helping reduce the risk of water shortages, water conservation also provides other important benefits. Water conservation helps ensure in-stream flows, thereby providing protection for ecosystems, which can become out of balance when demands stress water resources. Water conservation also helps reduce stress on water supply and wastewater infrastructure making them less prone to failure. Further, the use of submeters to measure water consumption is a necessary pre-requisite to achieving full-cost and conservation pricing.

Section 1401 of SDWA defines a public water system (PWS) as a system that provides water through pipes or other constructed conveyances to the public for human consumption, if the system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 people. Under SDWA section 1411, the SDWA national primary drinking water regulations apply to PWSs that have their own water source, treat, or “sell” water. EPA staff and program managers had issued several memoranda stating that any building or property owner who met the definition of a PWS and received water from a regulated public water system without adding further treatment, but billed tenants separately for this water, would be considered to be “selling” the water and, therefore, would be independently subject to SDWA's drinking water requirements. Today's memorandum reflects a change in EPA's interpretation of section 1411 as it applies in the specific context of submetering.

The EPA memoranda referenced above were based on a single statement in the 1974 legislative history for the SDWA in which Congress explained its intent in enacting section 1411. In that legislative history, the Committee report stated that it “intends to exempt businesses which merely store and distribute water provided by others, unless that business sells water as a separate item or bills separately for water it provides.”  1 Under EPA's previous interpretation, an owner of an apartment building or similar property who is exempt under section 1411 but merely installed a submeter and billed the tenants for the water, or simply began billing tenants (even without a submeter), would then be considered to be operating a fully regulated public water system, even though there had been no other change relevant to the delivery or potential health concerns associated with the water. This application of the legislative history has been cited as a discouragement to submetering and, as a result, to water conservation measures.

After further review, we no longer believe that Congress originally intended the statute to be applied in this manner, or that it should continue to be the Agency's interpretation for the following reasons:

• The legislative history from 1974 does not specifically address the submetering of apartment buildings or similar properties for water conservation purposes. Rather, the legislative history was one Committee's attempt to explain broadly what the term “selling” water in section 1411 might mean. The statute itself does not define the term “selling” or suggest an interpretation that any billing of water would automatically trigger full SDWA regulation.

• Some owners of apartment buildings and other multifamily housing expressed concern that, under EPA's previous policy, the installation of submeters subjected them to the full regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), comparable to the requirements imposed on water utilities.

• In 1996, a Congressional committee expressed its concern that this application of SDWA might discourage the practice of submetering, as owners of a multifamily housing property ( e.g. , apartment buildings and/or complexes) would become subject to national primary drinking water regulations if they billed separately for water. Congress asked that EPA review its guidance on this matter to prevent unnecessary requirements that do not further public health protection and that might inhibit water conservation efforts. 2 In response, EPA agreed to reconsider the matter and issue further guidance. 3

• EPA's approach in previous memoranda may have created a disincentive to water conservation, which can undermine water quality over the long term.

• Simply applying the concept of “sell” to every billing transaction is not appropriate.

Consistent with Congressional requests to reconsider this matter, the Agency now believes that certain property owners, who had not previously been (or would not be) subject to SDWA's national primary drinking water regulations, and who install submeters to accurately track usage of water by tenants on his or her property, should not be subject to regulations solely as a result of taking the action to submeter and bill.

The addition of a submeter should not in any way change the quality of water provided to customers on the property. A PWS that provides water to a property maintains responsibility for providing public notification under 40 CFR 141.201(c) (or approved State equivalent) to consumers. In addition, the PWS must make “good faith” efforts to provide the tenants with the annual Consumer Confidence Reports under 40 CFR 141.155(b). A submetered property would still be considered a PWS under SDWA section 1401, hence States and EPA would retain the ability to take corrective action under SDWA's emergency powers authority (section 1431) if public health risks arise.

EPA received numerous comments asking that the revised policy be expanded beyond apartment buildings. EPA agrees that submetering to achieve water conservation may be appropriate for other property types, which share similar characteristics to an apartment building, and likewise should not be considered as “selling” under SDWA section 1411, simply because a submeter is installed and the property owner begins direct billing for the water. This description is the basis for the definition of submetering. Determinations of whether billing for water is a “sale” for purposes of section 1411, and whether systems are “ submetering” as that term is used in this policy, should be made by the Primacy Agency.

In making a determination, the Primacy Agency should consider if the property has certain characteristics, such as a limited distribution system with no known backflow or cross connection issues; the majority of its plumbing is within a structure instead of underground; and property ownership is a single/individual (or association of property owners, in the case of co-ops or condominiums). Of course, for any system to be excluded under section 1411, it must receive all of its water from a regulated public water system.

In general, the scope of this policy is not intended to extend where the property in question has a large distribution system, serves a large population or serves a mixed (commercial/residential) population ( e.g. , many military installations/facilities or large mobile home parks).

Although EPA is not requiring that submetered systems be regulated, each State has the flexibility to determine whether, and how, to best track properties that submeter. For example, in Alabama, the State defines a submetered property as a “segmented public water system” and requires that it have access to a certified operator. Texas requires that submetered properties allow access to the property by the public water system that provides it with water, register with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and follow regulations for submetering.

While submetering and billing for water usage may positively induce water conservation actions, States may still want to take other steps to ensure that property owners and others convert to water efficient fixtures and appliances. For example, Texas requires that apartment buildings have water-efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances as a condition of approval of a submetered billing system.

Several commenters raised the issue of ratio utility billing systems (RUBS) 4 and other allocation billing systems. Some commenters suggested that EPA should include this type of billing in the revised policy because it would have no negative effect on water quality. Other commenters encouraged EPA to exclude RUBS, stating that RUBS may not result in water conservation, and may, in fact, reduce incentives to install submeters and charge on the basis of actual water usage. Water savings, if any, from RUBS and hot water hybrid billing systems (HWH) are uncertain. At this time, EPA believes that RUBS or other allocation billing systems do not meet the definition of submetering, as used in this policy, and do not encourage water conservation. Therefore, a property using these billing systems is not addressed by this policy. Primacy Agencies will need to determine whether such properties are “selling” water within the meaning of SDWA section 1411.

This memorandum clarifies EPA's policy change and reconfirms our strong interest in advocating water conservation. Any previous EPA statements or policy memoranda on this issue are superceded by this memorandum.

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OW-2003-0065. 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 Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

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 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 section I.B.1. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0439

Title: Regulations Concerning Indecent Communications by Telephone

Form Number: N/A

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Individuals or households

Number of Respondents: 10,200

Estimated Time per Response: 0.13 hrs. (8 mins.) (avg.)

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure

Total Annual Burden: 1,632 hours

Total Annual Cost: None

Needs and Uses: Under Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1932, as amended, telephone companies are required, to the extent technically feasible, to prohibit access to indecent communications from the telephone of a subscriber who has not previously requested access. 47 CFR Section 64.201 implements Section 223 and contains several information collection requirements: (1) A requirement that certain common carriers block access to indecent messages unless the subscriber seeks access from the common carrier (telephone company) in writing; (2) A requirement that adult message service providers notify their carriers of the nature of their programming; and (3) A requirement that a provider of adult message services request that their carrier identify it as such in bills to its subscribers. The information requirements are imposed on carriers, adult message service providers, and those who solicit their services to ensure that minors are denied access to material deemed indecent.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0787.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Title: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Policies and Rules Concerning Unauthorized Changes of Consumers' Long Distance Carriers, CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 03-42.

Form Number: N/A.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; individuals or households; State, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents: 35,035.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 10 hours.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping; on occasion and biennial reporting requirements; third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 145,869 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $51,187,500.

Needs and Uses: On March 17, 2003, the FCC released the Third Order on Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 03-42 ( Third Order on Reconsideration ), in which the Commission revised and clarified certain rules to implement Section 258 of the 1996 Act. On May 23, 2003, the Commission also released an Order (CC Docket No. 94-129, FCC 03-116) clarifying certain aspects of the Third Order on Reconsideration . The rules and requirements implementing section 258 can be found primarily at 47 CFR part 64. The modified and revised rules will strengthen the ability of our rules to deter slamming, while protecting consumers from carriers that may take advantage of consumer confusion over different types of telecommunications services. This Third Order of Reconsideration also contains a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking , in which we seek comment on rule modifications with respect to third party verifications.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0346.

Title: Section 78.27, License Conditions.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; business and other for-profit entities; and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 50.

Estimated Time per Response: 10 mins. (0.167 hrs.).

Total Annual Burden: 8 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 78.27 requires licensees of Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) stations to notify the FCC in writing when the station commences operation. A CARS licensee, which needs additional time to complete construction of the station, must request an extension of time from the FCC 30 days prior to the expiration of the one-year construction period. The Commission uses these filings to provide accurate CARS channel usage for frequency coordination, to prevent warehousing of spectrum, and to prevent frequency interference.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1040.

Title: Broadcast Ownership Rules, MB Docket No. 02-277 and MM Docket Nos. 02-235, 02-327, and 00-244.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents: 12.

Estimated Time per Response: 2-10 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 12 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Needs and Uses: On June 2, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O), In the Matter of 2002 Biennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, MM Docket No. 02-277, Cross Ownership of Broadcast Stations and Newspapers, MM Docket No. 01-235, Rules and Policies Concerning Multiple Ownership of Radio Broadcast Stations in Local Markets, MM Docket No. 01-317, Definition of Radio Markets, MM Docket No. 00-244, and Definition of Radio Markets for Areas Not Located in an Arbitron Survey Areas Not Located in an Arbitron Survey Area, MB Docket No. 03-130, FCC 03-127. That R&O contained several one-time reporting requirements which were outside of form collections, affecting licensees with: Temporary waivers, conditional waivers, pending waiver requests, extensions of waiver, or requests for permanent waivers of the broadcast ownership rules. These reporting requirements were adopted to ensure compliance with the new broadcast ownership rules and to ensure the rules' effectiveness.

Neither of the systems for Payroll and Leave and Biographical Files of Federal Reserve Officers had been updated for several years. The current revisions to these two systems reflect changes in records retained and the increasing use of electronic storage of Board records. In addition, the system managers have been changed to reflect an internal reorganization at the Board.

The system of records on Federal Reserve System Bank Supervision Staff Qualifications has been revised to reflect the inclusion of Board employees as well as Federal Reserve Bank employees in the files, and the use of electronic data bases to record the qualifications and assignments of the employees.

All three systems of records were reviewed for their routine uses and appropriate amendments to those routine uses have been made.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), a report of these amended systems of records is being filed with the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. These amendments will become effective on February 16, 2004, without further notice, unless the Board publishes a notice to the contrary in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, the systems of records entitled Payroll and Leave (BGFRS-7), Biographical File of Federal Reserve Bank Officer Personnel (BGFRS-12), and Federal Reserve System Bank Supervision Staff Qualifications (BGFRS-13).

Under section 13 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR 14.60(c), FDA has filed with the Library of Congress the annual reports for the following FDA advisory committees through September 30, 2003:

Biological Response Modifiers Advisory Committee

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee

Arthritis Advisory Committee

Cardiovascular and Renal Drug Advisory Committee

Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee

Science Advisory Board to the National Center for Toxicological Research

Advisory Committee on Special Studies Relating to the Possible Long-Term Health Effects of Phenoxy Herbicides and Contaminants (Ranch Hand Advisory Committee)

Medical Devices Advisory Committee (consisting of reports for the Circulatory System Devices Panel; Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel; General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel; Dental Products Panel; Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel; Neurological Devices Panel; Ophthalmic Devices Panel; Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel; Radiological Devices Panel)

Annual reports are available for public inspections between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday at the following locations:

1. The Library of Congress, Madison Bldg., Newspaper and Current Periodical Reading Room, 101 Independence Ave. SE., rm. 133, Washington, DC; and

2. The Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Effective July 16, 2003, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the final phase of the subject investigations (68 FR 52614, September 4, 2003). By Executive Order announced on December 9, 2003, the Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government are scheduled to close on Friday, December 26, 2003. The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule as follows: the Commission will make its final release of information on December 29, 2003 and final party comments are due on January 2, 2004.

For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

The Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, 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 223(f)(2)(C-E) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002. This is an administrative and organizational meeting of the Committee wherein the members will be addressed by the Administrator of OJJDP, receive training concerning the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, elect a Committee chair and vice-chair, and organize into sub-committees.

Members of the public who wish to attend the open sessions of the meeting should notify the Juvenile Justice Resource Center at 301-519-5790 (Karen Goldstein) or 301-519-5245 (Carol Sadler)by 5 p.m., ET, on January 5, 2004. Notification may also be sent to the following e-mail address: JJAC@jjrc.org. Please indicate your name, address, phone number, and which open sessions you are expecting to attend.

You may submit comments in response to this document by (1) hard copy, (2) FAX transmission (facsimile), or (3) electronically through the OSHA webpage. Please note you cannot attach materials such as studies or journal articles to electronic comments. If you have additional materials, you must submit three copies of them to the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments by name, date, subject and docket number so we can attach them to your comments. Because of security-related problems there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350 for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by express delivery, hand delivery and messenger service.

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( i.e. employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is correct. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the Act) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657).

The standards on Construction Fall Protection Systems Criteria and Practice (29 CFR 1926.502) and Training Requirements (29 CFR 1926.503) ensure that employers provide the required fall protection for their employees. Accordingly, these standards have the following paperwork requirements: Paragraphs (c)(4)(ii) and (k) of 29 CFR 1926.502, which specify certification of safety nets and development of fall-protection plans, respectively, and paragraph (b) of 29 CFR 1926.502, which requires employers to certify training records. The training-certification requirement specified in paragraph (b) of 29 CFR 1926.503 documents the training provided to employees potentially exposed to fall hazards. A competent person must train these employees to recognize fall hazards and in the use of procedures and equipment that minimize these hazards. An employer must verify compliance with this training requirement by preparing and maintaining a written certification record that contains the: Name or other identifier of the employee receiving the training; the date(s) of the training; and the signature of the competent person who conducted the training or of the employer.

OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:

• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;

• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques.

OSHA is proposing to extend the information collection requirements in the Construction Fall Protection Plans and Records (29 CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503). The Agency is proposing to increase the burden by 149,895 hours, from 771,166 hours to 921,061 hours, mainly as a result of increasing the estimated number of fall protection plans. The fall protection plan and certification records of net drop test and training are needed to help employees identify fall hazards and to know which protective measures are to be used.

OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Construction Fall Protection Plans and Records Standard.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved information collection requirement.

Title: Construction Fall Protection Plans and Training Requirements in Construction (29 CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503).

OMB Number: 1218-0197.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents: 100,080.

Frequency: On occasion.

Average Time Per Response: Varies ( i.e., 5 minutes (.08 hour) to certify a safety net to 65 minutes to develop and write a fall-protection plan).

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 921,061.

Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance) : 0.

John L. Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008).

The Institute of Museum and Library Services is an independent Federal grant-making agency authorized by the Museum and Library Services Act, Public Law 104-208. The IMLS provides a variety of grant programs to assist the nation's museums and libraries in improving their operations and enhancing their services to the public. Museums and libraries of all sizes and types may receive support from IMLS programs. In the National Leadership Grant Program, IMLS funds the digitization of library and museum collections.

This study is to determine the feasibility of using the Open Archives Initiative (OAI) Metadata Harvesting Protocol to aggregate and provide integrated item-level search access to the digitization projects funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services through the National Leadership Grant Program.

To develop an effective Open Archives Initiative metada harvesting protocol information will be collected from focus groups of resource developers.

Agency: Institute of Museum and Library Services

Title: Study of IMLS Funded Digital Collections and Content

OMB Number: none.

Agency Number: 3137.

Frequency: Once.

Affected Public: Museums and libraries that created digital collections with IMLS funding.

Number of Respondents: 20, in two focus groups.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 1.5 hours.

Total Burden Hours: 30.

Total Annualized capital/startup costs: n/a.

Total Costs: $1,125.