The business meeting on September 20, begins at 6:30 p.m. at the U.S. Forest Service, Bearlodge Ranger District office, 121 South 21st Street, Sundance, Wyoming. Agenda topics will include: Updates on previously funded projects, discussion of business order for the coming year, and election of officers. A public forum will begin at 8:30 p.m. (m.t.).

The meeting is open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by September 6, 2004 will have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

Agenda items include a review of current projects approved by the committee, and a discussion on the use of unexpended funds. The meeting is open to the public. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the committee at that time.

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2002), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with July anniversary dates. The Department also received timely requests to revoke in part the antidumping duty orders on Certain Pasta from Italy (for both the antidumping and countervailing duty orders), and Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than July 31, 2005.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping order under section 351.211 or a determination under section 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistant with FAG Italia v. United States , 291 F.3d 806 (Fed. Cir. 202), as appropriate,

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

The petition in this investigation was filed on March 24, 2004, by the United States PET Resin Coalition (petitioners). This investigation was initiated on April 14, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET Resin from India and Thailand (C-533-842) and (C-549-824) , 69 FR 21086 (April 20, 2004). On April 28, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to the Royal Thai Government (RTG) and requested that the RTG forward the relevant sections of the questionnaire to Thai producers/exporters of BG PET Resin.

On May 21, 2004, petitioners timely requested a 65-day postponement of the preliminary determination for this investigation until August 21, 2004. On June 3, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary determination by 67 days to August 23, 2004, since August 21, 2004 falls on a Saturday, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Postponement of Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India and Thailand , 69 FR 31354 (June 3, 2004).

On June 14, 2004, the RTG submitted its questionnaire response. The RTG identified three Thai companies that produced and exported BG PET Resin to the United States during the period of investigation, and indicated which programs had been used by these companies. These three companies are Thai Shinkong Industry Corporation Limited (Thai Shinkong), Bangkok Polyester Public Company Limited (Bangkok Polyester), and Indopet (Thailand) Limited (Indopet) (herein after “respondent companies”). These three companies submitted responses on June 14, 2004.

On July 8, 2004, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the RTG and the three respondent companies. Thai Shinkong and Bangkok Polyester filed their respective supplemental responses on July 26, 2004. Indopet submitted its supplemental response on July 28, 2004. On July 29, 2004, we received the RTG's supplemental response.

On August 2, 2004, petitioners filed deficiency comments for Thai Shinkong's and the RTG's responses. We received deficiency comments for Bangkok Polyester's responses on August 3, 2004 and for Indopet's questionnaire responses on August 5, 2004.

On August 5, 2004, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to Thai Shinkong. On August 6, 2004, we issued a second supplemental questionnaire to the RTG. Additionally, on August 9, 2004, and August 10, 2004, we issued second supplemental questionnaires to Bangkok Polyester and Indopet, respectively.

On August 16, 2004, we received a response from Thai Shinkong. We received a response from Indopet on August 17, 2004. Additionally, on August 18, 2004, and on

August 19, 2004, we received responses from the RTG and Bangkok Polyester, respectively.

The merchandise covered by this investigation is BG PET Resin, defined as having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.68 deciliters per gram but not more than 0.86 deciliters per gram. The scope includes BG PET Resin that contains various additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The scope does not include post-consumer recycle (PCR) or post-industrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; however, included in the scope is any BG PET Resin blend of virgin PET bottle-grade resin and recycled PET (RPET). Waste and scrap PET is outside the scope of the investigation. Fiber-grade PET resin, which has an intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.68 deciliters per gram, is also outside the scope of the investigations. The merchandise subject to these investigations is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); however, merchandise classified under HTSUS subheading 3907.60.0050 that otherwise meets the written description of the scope is also subject to these investigations. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

The petition in this investigation was filed on March 24, 2004, by the United States PET Resin Producers Coalition (Petitioner). This investigation was initiated on April 13, 2004. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India (C-533-842) and Thailand (C-549-824) , 69 FR 21096 (April 20, 2004). On April 28, 2004, we issued a questionnaire to the Government of India (GOI) and requested that the GOI forward the relevant sections of the questionnaire to Indian producers/exporters of BG PET Resin.

On May 21, 2004, petitioner timely requested a 65-day postponement of the preliminary determination for this investigation until August 21, 2004. On June 3, 2004, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary determination by 67 days to August 23, 2004, since August 21st falls on a Saturday, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Postponement of Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determinations: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate Resin from India and Thailand , 69 FR 31354 (June 3, 2004).

On June 21, 2004, the GOI submitted its questionnaire response. In its questionnaire response, the GOI identified four Indian companies that produced and exported BG PET Resin to the United States during the period of investigation (POI), and indicated which programs had been used by these companies. These four companies are Reliance Industries, Ltd. (Reliance), Futura Polyesters, Ltd. (Futura), South Asia Petrochem Ltd. (SAPL), and Elque Polyesters Ltd. (Elque). In addition, all of the four companies identified by the GOI submitted questionnaire responses to the Department.

Between July 8, and July 15, 2004, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to the GOI and the four respondent companies. Between July 27, and August 2, 2004, the GOI and the four respondent companies submitted their responses to the supplemental questionnaires.

Between July 23, and August 3, 2004, the Department issued addenda to the supplemental questionnaires to the four respondent companies. Responses were submitted between August 4, and August 14, 2004.

The merchandise covered by this investigation is bottle-grade polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin, defined as having an intrinsic viscosity of at least 0.68 deciliters per gram but not more than 0.86 deciliters per gram. The scope includes bottle-grade PET resin that contains various additives introduced in the manufacturing process. The scope does not include post-consumer recycle (PCR) or post-industrial recycle (PIR) PET resin; however, included in the scope is any bottle-grade PET resin blend of virgin PET bottle-grade resin and recycled PET (RPET). Waste and scrap PET is outside the scope of the investigation. Fiber-grade PET resin, which has an intrinsic viscosity of less than 0.68 deciliters per gram, is also outside the scope of the investigation.

The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under subheading 3907.60.0010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS); however, merchandise classified under HTSUS subheading 3907.60.0050 that otherwise meets the written description of the scope is also subject to this investigation. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.

Because India is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure, or threaten material injury, to a U.S. industry. On May 19, 2004, the ITC published its preliminary determination that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports from India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand of subject merchandise. See Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From India, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Thailand , 69 FR 28948.

On July 30, 2004, petitioner submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of BG PET Resin from India, Thailand, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004, which corresponds to the most recently completed fiscal year for all of the respondents. See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

For those programs requiring the application of a benchmark interest rate, 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1) provides a preference for using an interest rate that the company could have obtained on a comparable loan in the commercial market. Both Futura and SAPL have provided information on rupee-denominated short-term commercial loans outstanding during the POI. Thus, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505(a)(1), we are using these interest rates as company-specific benchmarks for purposes of calculating benefits arising from the rupee-denominated short term loan programs we find countervailable. SAPL and Futura are the only two producers/exporters of BG PET Resin which reported using these short-term loan programs. SAPL also received short-term loans denominated in U.S. dollars. When loans are denominated in a foreign currency, our practice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.505, is to use a foreign currency benchmark. See, e.g., Certain Pasta From Turkey: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 66 FR 64398 (December 13, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum in the section entitled “Benchmark Interest Rates for Short-term Loans.” For these loans, we used as our benchmark a national average dollar-denominated short-term interest rate for the United States, as reported in the International Monetary Fund's publication International Financial Statistics .

For those programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or the application of a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest rates on comparable commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans. We did not use those long-term loans that had unpaid interest or principal payments because we do not consider such loans to be comparable loans under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(i). We note that some respondents did not have rupee-denominated, comparable long-term loans from commercial banks for all required years. Therefore, for those years, we relied on a rupee-denominated, short to medium-term benchmark interest rate that is not company-specific, but still provides a reasonable representation of long-term interest rates, in order to determine whether a benefit was provided to the companies from rupee-denominated, long-term loans received from the GOI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(3)(ii), we used national average interest rates for those years in which the respondents did not report company-specific interest rates on comparable commercial loans. In the absence of data regarding a national average interest rate for long-term rupee-denominated loans, we based these national average interest rates on information on short-to medium-term, rupee-denominated financing from private creditors in the International Monetary Fund's publication International Financial Statistics . We will continue to seek information regarding the most appropriate long-term interest rate for purposes of the final determination.

Under 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(i), we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(ii). For assets used to manufacture products such as BG PET resin, the IRS tables prescribe an AUL of 10 years.

In their questionnaire responses, SAPL, Futura, and Elque rebutted the regulatory presumption by meeting the criteria set forth in CFR 351.524(d)(2)(iii) and calculating company-specific AULs. Futura and Elque divided the aggregate of their respective annual average gross book values of their depreciable productive fixed assets by their aggregated annual charge to accumulated depreciation for a ten-year period in the manner specified by 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(iii). Using this method, Elque calculated an AUL of 20 years, and Futura calculated an AUL of 17 years. Based on information submitted by the respondents, we find the presumptions to be rebutted by those two companies and are using the company-specific AULs for Elque and Futura for purposes of allocating any non-recurring subsidies over time. Reliance and SAPL provided information in an attempt to rebut the AUL presumption, but did not comply with the requirements specified by 19 CFR 351.524(d)(2)(iii) for calculating a company-specific AUL. Thus, for SAPL and Reliance we will use the IRS AUL of 10 years to allocate any non-recurring subsidies for purposes of this preliminary determination.

India's DEPS was enacted on April 1, 1997, as a successor to the Passbook Scheme (PBS). As with PBS, the DEPS enables exporting companies to earn import duty exemptions in the form of passbook credits rather than cash. All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a post-export basis, provided that the GOI has established a standard input/output norm (SION) for the exported product. DEPS credits can be used for any subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the production of an export product. DEPS credits are valid for twelve months and are transferable after the foreign exchange is realized from the export sales on which the DEPS credits are earned. With respect to subject merchandise, the GOI has established a SION. Beginning in April 1, 2003, BG PET Resin exporters were eligible to earn credits equal to 17 percent of the free on board (FOB) value of their export shipments until February 9, 2004, when the DEPS rate changed to 13 percent.

The Department has previously determined that the DEPS is countervailable. In Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India (PET Film from India) , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum ), the Department determined that under the DEPS, a financial contribution, as defined under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, is provided because (1) the GOI provides credits for the future payment of import duties; and (2), the GOI does not have in place and does not apply a system that is reasonable and effective for the purposes intended to confirm which inputs, and in what amounts, are consumed in the production of the exported products. Therefore, under 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4) and section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the entire amount of import duty exemption earned during the POI constitutes a benefit. Finally, this program can only be used by exporters and, therefore, it is specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. See the “DEPS” section of the PET Film from India Issues and Decision Memorandum on file in the CRU and available online at http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov . No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been presented in this investigation to warrant reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, we continue to find that the DEPS is countervailable.

We have previously determined that this program provides a recurring benefit under 19 CFR 351.524(c). See Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, (Carbon Steel Plate From India) , 64 FR 73131, 73140 (December 29, 1999). Benefits from the DEPS program are conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment for which the pertinent DEPS credits are earned. See comment 4, “Timing and Calculation of DEPS Benefits”, Carbon Steel Plate From India .

Reliance was the only company that reported that it received post-export credits on BG PET resin under the DEPS program during the POI. We calculated the DEPS program rate using the value of the post-export credits that Reliance earned for its export shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI by multiplying the FOB value of each export shipment by the relevant percentage of DEPS credit allowed under the program for exports of subject merchandise. We then subtracted as an allowable offset the actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act. Finally, we took this sum (the total value of the licenses net of application fees paid) and divided it by Reliance's total exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine Reliance's net countervailable subsidy from the DEPS program to be 16.96 percent ad valorem.

The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties and an exemption from excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under this program, exporters may import capital equipment at reduced rates of duty by undertaking to earn convertible foreign exchange equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods within a period of eight years. For failure to meet the export obligation, a company is subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest. In previous investigations, the Department has determined that producers/exporters benefit from the waiver of import duty on imports of capital equipment. Also, a second type of benefit conferred under this program that involves import duty reductions that producers/exporters receive on imports of capital equipment for which producers/exporters have not yet met their export requirements. For those capital equipment imports, producers/exporters have unpaid duties that will have to be paid to the GOI if the export requirements are not met.

When a company has an outstanding liability and the repayment of that liability is contingent upon subsequent events, our practice is to treat any balance on that unpaid liability as an interest-free loan. See 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1). See also PET Film From India; Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India (Hot-Rolled Steel from India) , 66 FR 49635 (September 28, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Hot-Rolled Steel Decision Memo ). The Department preliminarily determined that the EPCGS program is countervailable because (1) the receipt of benefits under this program is contingent upon export performance in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act; (2) the GOI provided a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the two ways described above; and (3) the program provides benefits under section 771(5)(E) of the Act. See PET Film From India .

The criteria to be used by the Department in determining whether to allocate the benefits from a countervailable subsidy program are specified under 19 CFR 351.524. Specifically, recurring benefits are not allocated over time but are attributed to the year of receipt, while non-recurring benefits are normally allocated over time. Normally, tax benefits are considered to be recurring benefits and are expensed in the year of receipt. Since import duties are a type of tax, the benefit provided under this program is a tax benefit, and, thus, normally would be considered a recurring benefit.

However, the Department's regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, it is more appropriate to allocate over time the benefits of a program normally considered a recurring subsidy, rather than to expense the benefits in the year of receipt. In the Preamble to our regulations, the Department provides an example of when it may be more appropriate to consider the benefits of a tax program to be non-recurring benefits, and, thus, allocate those benefits over time. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule , 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998). We stated in the Preamble to our regulations that, if a government provides an import duty exemption tied to major capital equipment purchases, it may be reasonable to conclude that, because these duty exemptions are tied to capital assets, the benefits from such duty exemptions should be considered non-recurring, even though import duty exemptions are on the list of recurring subsidies.

Because the benefit received from the waiver of import duties under the EPCGS is tied to the capital assets of the respondent companies, and, therefore, is just such a benefit, we determine that it is appropriate to treat the waiver of duties as a non-recurring benefit. We note that our approach on this issue is consistent with that taken in Hot-Rolled Steel from India . Reliance is the only respondent that reported using the EPCGS program, and for the preliminary determination of this investigation, non-recurring benefits will be allocated over 10 years, the AUL for Reliance. ( See “Subsidies Valuation Section” above).

In its questionnaire responses, Reliance reported the capital equipment imports they made using EPCGS licenses are granted pursuant to obligations to export BG PET Resin, as well as the application fees they paid to obtain their EPCGS licenses. We preliminarily determine that the application fees paid by Reliance qualify as an “application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.” See section 771(6)(A) of the Act. In order to calculate the benefit received from the waiver of Reliance's import duties on their capital equipment imports, we determined the total amount of duties which were waived in each year (net of application fees), i.e. , those for which the GOI determined other export obligations had been met. Consistent with our approach in Hot-Rolled Steel from India , we determine the year of receipt to be the year in which the GOI formally waived the respondent company's remaining outstanding import duties.

A second type of financial contribution and benefit conferred under this program arises from the import duty reductions that the respondent received on the imports of capital equipment for which the respondent has not yet met its export requirements. For those capital equipment imports, the respondent has unpaid duties that will have to be paid to the GOI if the export requirements are not met. When a company has an outstanding liability and the repayment of that liability is contingent upon subsequent events, our practice is to treat any balance on that unpaid liability as an interest-free loan. See 19 CFR 351.505(d)(1). We determine that the amount of contingent liability to be treated as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or exemption for which the respondent applied but, as of the end of the POI, had not been finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we determine the benefit to be the interest that the respondent would have paid during the POI had the company borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction at the time of import. We note that this approach is consistent with the methodology employed in Hot-Rolled Steel from India .

For purposes of calculating the benefit from this element of EPCGS, we treated the outstanding duties as a long-term interest-free loan. Based on the information provided by Reliance with respect to this program, we determine that Reliance had outstanding contingent liabilities during the POI. Pursuant to19 CFR 351.505(d)(1), the benchmark for measuring the benefit is a long-term interest rate because the event upon which repayment of the duties depends ( i.e. , the date of expiration of the time period for the respondents to fulfill their export commitments) occurs at a point in time more than one year after the date the capital goods were imported.

To calculate the countervailable subsidy rate for Reliance, we combined, where applicable, the sum of the benefits received on waived duties and allocated to the POI, and the benefits conferred upon Reliance in the form of contingent-liability loans. We then subtracted as an allowable offset the actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6)(A) of the Act. Then, because the licenses were granted specifically for the export of BG PET resin, we divided Reliance's total benefit under the program by its total export sales of BG PET resin during the POI ( see 19 CFR 351.525). On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 11.40 percent ad valorem for Reliance.

Companies designated as Export-Oriented United (EOUs) can receive various types of assistance including: (1) Duty-free import of capital goods and raw materials; (2) reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) paid on materials procured domestically; (3) purchase of materials and other inputs free of Central Excise Duty; and (4) duty drawback on furnace oil procured from domestic oil companies. Elque, Futura, and SAPL have been designated as EOUs.

Since eligibility for the EOU program is contingent upon export performance, we find that the assistance provided under the EOU program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. We also preliminarily determine that the Duty-Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials program, and the Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) Paid on Materials Procured Domestically program, provide a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act through the foregoing of duty and tax payments. These two EOU programs confer benefits in the amounts of exemptions and reimbursements of customs duties and certain sales taxes in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act. ( See “Programs for Which Additional Information is Needed” below for a discussion of the Duty Drawback on Furnace Oil Procured from Domestic Oil Companies plan, and the Purchase of Materials and other Inputs free of Central Excise Duty plan.)

Elque, Futura, and SAPL are designated as EOUs, and they reported receiving benefits under the Duty-Free Import of Capital Goods and Raw Materials program, and the Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) Paid on Materials Procured Domestically program during the POI.

Under this program, EOUs are entitled to import capital goods and raw materials duty-free. The GOI provided no information to demonstrate that exemptions on raw materials met the standards for non-countervailability pursuant to 19 CFR 351.519(a)(4). Normally, tax benefits are considered to be recurring benefits and are expensed in the year of receipt. Since import duties are a type of tax, the benefit provided under this program is a tax benefit, and, thus, normally would be considered a recurring benefit. Thus, we are treating the duty exemptions on raw materials as recurring benefits.

However, as discussed in the “EPCGS” section above, the Department's regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, it is more appropriate to allocate over time the benefits of a program normally considered a recurring subsidy, rather than to attribute the benefits to the year of receipt. Because the benefit received from the exemption of import duties on capital goods under this program is granted for the capital goods of the respondent companies, we determine that it is appropriate to treat the exemption of duties on capital goods as a non-recurring benefit.

Therefore, to calculate the countervailable subsidy for Elque, SAPL, and Futura, we summed duty exemptions on raw material inputs received during the POI and the duty exemptions on capital goods allocated to the POI. We then divided each company's total benefits under the program by their total export sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 11.20 percent ad valorem for Elque, 18.59 percent ad valorem for SAPL, and 1.03 percent ad valorem for Futura.

Under this program, EOUs are entitled to reimbursements of the CST paid on materials procured domestically. This reimbursement is available on purchases of both raw materials and capital goods. For the reimbursement of CST paid on materials procured domestically, the record shows that EOUs record the CST reimbursement at the point of purchase and receipt of invoice from the domestic supplier. EOU companies then enter the claims in the books of accounts at the point of purchase and, simultaneously, deduct CST from the cost of domestic goods procured. To calculate the benefit for Elque, SAPL, and Futura, we summed the reimbursements of the CST paid on raw materials procured domestically that each company received during the POI. We separately summed the CST reimbursements paid on capital goods for each year and allocated these sums over each company's AUL using the appropriate discount rate. ( See “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above.)

For CST reimbursements on capital goods received during the POI, we first conducted the “0.5 percent” test. See 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). Based in the result of this test, we either allocated the total CST reimbursements received during the POI over each company's AUL using the appropriate discount rate ( see “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above), or we attributed the total CST reimbursements received during the POI to POI, as appropriate. See Id .

We then summed the benefits on capital goods allocated to the POI with the benefits on raw materials attributed to the POI and divided the companies' total benefits under the program by their respective total export sales during the POI. (Futura provided no information indicating which CST reimbursements were received for raw materials purchases and which for capital goods purchases. Thus, for the purposes of the preliminary determination, we attributed all of Futura's CST reimbursements to the POI.) On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.07 percent ad valorem for SAPL, 0.79 percent ad valorem for Elque, and 0.12 percent ad valorem for Futura.

Administrative Review (Iron-Metal Castings from India) , 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000), the Department determined that deductions of profit derived from exports under section 80HHC of India's Income Tax Act are countervailable. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances has been submitted in this investigation to warrant reconsideration of this finding. Therefore, we continue to find this program countervailable because it is contingent upon export performance and, therefore, is specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. Pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, the GOI provides a financial contribution in the form of tax revenue not collected. Finally, a benefit is conferred in the amount of tax savings in accordance with section 771(5)(E) of the Act.

Reliance claimed deductions of profits derived from exported goods, under section 80HHC, in computing its total taxable income during the POI. To calculate the benefit Reliance received under this program, we subtracted the total amount of income tax the company actually paid during the POI from the amount of tax the company otherwise would have paid had it not claimed a deduction under section 80 HHC. Since the Department has previously found section 80 HHC to be an “untied” export subsidy program, i.e. , the benefits provided are attributable to all products exported by the company. See Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review , 65 FR 31515 (May 18, 2000); see also e.g., Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Pasta from Turkey , 61 FR 30366, 30370 (June 14, 1996).

To calculate the benefit Reliance received under section 80HHC, we subtracted the total amount of income tax the company actually paid during the POI from the amount of tax the company otherwise would have paid had it not claimed a deduction under section 80HHC. We then divided this difference by total export sales. Thus, the countervailable subsidy is 0.64 percent ad valorem for Reliance.

Elque reported that all of its exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI were made through a trading company, and further reported that the trading company claimed Section 80 HHC deductions. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(c), we have attributed the trading company's export subsidy benefits from Section 80 HHC to Elque.

To calculate the benefit Elque's trading company received under section 80HHC, we subtracted the total amount of income tax actually paid during the POI from the amount of tax that otherwise would have been paid had a deduction under section 80HHC not been claimed. We then divided this difference by Elque's total export sales. Thus, the countervailable subsidy is 0.02 percent ad valorem for Elque.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides short-term pre-shipment export financing, or “packing credits,” to exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working capital purposes. Exporters may also establish pre-shipment credit lines upon which they may draw as needed. Credit line limits are established by commercial banks based upon a company's creditworthiness and past export performance, and may be denominated either in Indian rupees or in foreign currency. Commercial banks extending export credit to Indian companies must, by law, charge interest on this credit at rates capped by the RBI. For post-shipment export financing, exporters are eligible to receive post-shipment short-term credit in the form of discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks at preferential interest rates to finance the period between the date of shipment of exported merchandise and payment from export customers (“transit period”).

The Department has previously determined that this export financing is countervailable to the extent that the interest rates are set by the GOI and are lower than the rates exporters would have paid on comparable commercial loans. See Notice of Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India (PET Film from India) , 67 FR 34905 (May 16, 2002). Specifically, the Department determined that the GOI's issuance of financing at preferential rates constituted a financial contribution pursuant to section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. See the “Pre-Shipment and Post-Shipment Export Financing” section of the PET Film from India Issues and Decision Memorandum . The Department further determined that the interest savings under this program conferred a benefit pursuant to section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. In addition, the Department determined this program, which is contingent upon exports, to be specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. No new information or evidence of changed circumstances have been presented in this investigation to warrant reconsideration of this finding.

SAPL reported that it had outstanding pre- and post-shipment export loans during the POI. Both SAPL's pre-shipment and post-shipment loans were denominated in rupees and U.S. dollars. Futura also reported that it had outstanding pre-shipment export loans during the POI, denominated in rupees. Reliance and Elque reported that they had no outstanding loans under these programs during the POI.

To calculate the benefit conferred by the pre-shipment and post-shipment loans taken out by SAPL and the pre-shipment loans taken out by Futura, we compared the actual interest paid on the loans with the amount of interest that would have been paid at the benchmark interest rate. We used a rupee-denominated or dollar-denominated benchmark, as appropriate ( see “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above). Where the benchmark interest exceeds the actual interest paid, the difference constitutes the benefit. For pre-shipment loans, we divided the total benefit by the company's total exports. However, for Futura, we used its total exports of BG PET resin during the POI since its pre-shipment financing was limited to the BG Resin division. Post-shipment loans are granted for particular shipments, and thus, are tied to particular markets in accordance with 19 CFR 351.525(b)(2). Therefore, we divided the total benefit from post-export loans by SAPL's exports of subject merchandise to the United States.

We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy rate under the pre-shipment export financing program for SAPL to be 0.44 percent ad valorem during the POI, and for Futura to be 0.48 percent ad valorem during the POI. The countervailable subsidy rate under the post-shipment export financing program for SAPL is 0.01 percent ad valorem during the POI.

The State of Maharashtra (SOM) grants a package scheme of incentives for privately-owned ( i.e. , not 100 percent owned by the GOI) manufacturers to invest in certain areas of Maharashtra. One of these incentives consists of either an exemption or deferral of state sales taxes. Through this incentive, companies are exempted from paying state sales taxes on purchases, and collecting sales taxes on sales; or, as an alternative, are allowed to defer submitting sales taxes collected on sales to the SOM for ten to twelve years. After the deferral period expires, the companies are required to submit the deferred sales taxes to the SOM in equal installments over five to six years. The total amount of the sales tax incentive either exempted or deferred is based on the size of the capital investment, and the area in which the capital is invested.

In PET Film from India , the Department determined that the program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the benefits are limited to industries located within designated geographical areas within the SOM. The Department also determined that the SOM program provided a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in the form of uncollected interest on the deferred sales tax, and that the program conferred benefits under section 771(5)(E) of the Act in the amount of interest otherwise due. See the “Sales Tax Incentives” section of the PET Film from India Decision Memo .

The Department initiated on the Maharashtra Industrial Policy 2001. See “Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist,” April 13, 2004, on file in the CRU. The GOI reported that no sales tax exemptions or deferrals were provided under the Package Scheme of Incentives 2001. However, Reliance reported that it received sales tax exemptions and deferrals under the SOM's Scheme of Incentives 1983, with portions of the sales tax deferrals still outstanding during the POI. Because Reliance has reported incentives received under a prior SOM scheme that were still outstanding during the POI, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to analyze incentives received by Reliance during the POI to determine whether they are countervailable subsidies. See Memorandum from Dana Mermelstein to Barbara E. Tillman entitled “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India: Initiation of Investigation of Maharashtra Sales Tax Incentive Scheme 1983” on file in the CRU.

First, although the Department initiated on a different scheme for the SOM, Reliance has reported the incentives it received under the SOM's Scheme of Incentives 1983, both in the form of deferrals on sales taxes which were outstanding during the POI, and in the form of exemptions of sales taxes granted during the POI. The Department finds the sales tax incentives and deferrals specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because, the 1983 Scheme limited the benefits to industries located within designated geographical areas within the SOM.

Second, for the sales taxes exempted, a benefit exists to the extent that the taxes paid by Reliance as a result of this program are less than the taxes it would have paid in the absence of the program. See 19 CFR 351.510(a)(1). Therefore, we preliminarily determine that a benefit and financial contribution were conferred by the exemption of sales taxes on purchases.

Finally, for the sales taxes deferred, the Department treats such deferred taxes as a government-provided loan in the amount of the taxes deferred because the SOM charges no interest during the deferral period. A benefit thus exists to the extent that the appropriate interest charges are not collected. See 19 CFR 351.510(a)(2). We therefore preliminarily determine that a benefit was conferred in the amount of the interest that Reliance would have paid during the POI had it borrowed, at the time the collected sales taxes were deferred, the amount of the deferred sales taxes still unpaid at the end of the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.505(a)(2)(iii), to determine the amount of the benefit conferred, we used a long-term benchmark interest rate ( see “Benchmark Interest and Discount Rates section above”) during the years in which sales tax deferrals were received.

To calculate the program rate, we first summed Reliance's benefits received on exempted sales taxes on purchases during the POI. For deferred sales taxes which were still outstanding during the POI, we calculated the benefits conferred in the form of unpaid interest on the deferred sales taxes. We then divided Reliance's total benefit under the program by its total sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.12 percent ad valorem for Reliance.

Under the 1995 Industrial Policy of Gujarat, companies located in specific areas of Gujarat are exempted from payment of sales tax on the purchase of raw materials, consumable stores, packing materials, and processing materials. Other available benefits include exemption or deferment from sales tax and turnover tax on the sale of intermediate products, by-products, and scrap. After the deferral period expires, the companies are required to submit the deferred sales taxes to the SOG in equal installments over six years.

The Department preliminarily determines that this program is specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act because the benefits are limited to industries located within designated geographical areas within the SOG. We also preliminarily find that the SOG provided a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act by foregoing the collection of sales tax revenue, and that the Indian companies benefitted under section 771(5)(E) of the Act, in the amount of sales tax exempted or in the amount of interest foregone on sales taxes deferred on purchases noted above.

Reliance is the only company which received benefits from this program during the POI. Reliance reported that it received sales tax exemptions on qualifying purchases made within the SOG during the POI. In addition, Reliance received tax deferrals in earlier years which were still outstanding during the POI.

To calculate the program rate, we first summed Reliance's benefits received on exempted sales taxes on purchases during the POI. For deferred sales taxes which were still outstanding during the POI, we treated the amount of sales taxes deferred as an interest-free loan received in the year in which the deferral was granted, and we calculated the benefits conferred in the form of unpaid interest on the deferred sales taxes. ( See “State of Maharashtra Programs” above). We then divided Reliance's total benefit under the program by its total sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 1.12 percent ad valorem for Reliance.

The Department initiated on the New Economic Policy on Industrial Development, a SWB scheme begun in the year 2000. See “Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist”. The GOI reported that no BG PET resin company benefitted from this program during the POI. However, the GOI reported that Elque received benefits under the West Bengal Scheme of 1993 (Scheme 1993), and SAPL received benefits under the West Bengal Scheme of 1999 (Scheme 1999). Although the Department initiated on a more recent scheme for the SWB, respondent companies have reported incentives received under the SWB schemes of 1993 and 1999 during the POI. Therefore, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to analyze incentives received by BG PET resin companies during the POI to determine whether they are countervailable subsidies. See Memorandum from Dana Mermelstein to Barbara E. Tillman entitled “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Bottle-Grade Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin from India: Initiation of Investigations of State of West Bengal Scheme of 1993 and 1999” on file in the CRU.

Scheme 1993 was introduced on April 1, 1993. Though the program was terminated effective March 31, 1999, assistance is still being provided under the Scheme. The objective of Scheme 1993 was to assist in the growth of medium- and large-scale industries, the tourism industry, the expansion of existing units, and revival of sick units in the SWB through the provision of incentives. Industrial projects which receive an industrial license, registration certificate, and term loans from a financial institution are eligible to receive benefits under Scheme 1993. The program offers various incentives and tax concessions to entrepreneurs and industrial units to assist them in the construction of new units or expansion of existing units, and the building of infrastructure in the backward areas of West Bengal. The amount of financial assistance an industrial unit is eligible to receive is determined by its location in West Bengal. Under the scheme, West Bengal is divided into four groups: Group A ( i.e., Calcutta) is classified as developed, while Groups B through D are categorized as less developed, with Group D deemed the most backward. Industrial units located in the more backward areas receive greater monetary assistance than those units located in the more developed areas.

See e.g., Certain Iron-Metal Castings From India: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 61592 (November 12, 1999). Under Scheme 1993, Elque qualified for assistance because one of its manufacturing facilities is located in Group B, and received a grant in multiple disbursements under the State Capital Investment Subsidy program, which was made available under the Scheme 1993 to eligible units in any area in Group B.

Scheme 1999, an amended version of Scheme 1993, has not been previously examined by the Department. Under Scheme 1999, the number of geographical groups was reduced from four to three. Companies located in Group A (called the “Calcutta Municipal Corporation”), classified as a developed area, receive few, if any, incentives; according to Scheme 1999, “no subsidy, loan, deferment or remission of tax or incentive will be granted to any unit set up in the area under Group A except to the extent provided for in the Scheme, such as deferments of payments of sales taxes for preferred industries” ( i.e., expansion of information technology units, tourist units). Companies located in Group B can receive assistance in the form of sales tax exemptions on purchases of raw materials, capital grant disbursements, and a subsidy for conversion of piped coal gas. Group C is comprised of the most underdeveloped areas in West Bengal, and companies located there are entitled to more incentives under Scheme 1999 than those located in Groups A and B. Group C receives the same types of incentives as Group B, but at a higher level. For example, for the Exemption of Sales Tax on Purchase of Raw Materials program, companies located in Group C can receive deferrals on payments for substantially longer periods than those in Group B. SAPL is located in Group B, and received an exemption of sales tax on purchases under Scheme 1999, which provided benefits to the company during the POI.

We find that the assistance granted to Elque under Scheme 1993 and the assistance granted to SAPL under Scheme 1999 are specific within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act, because the benefits are limited to companies located in specific regions within SWB. The capital grant which Elque received is a financial contribution in accordance with 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. The sales tax exemption which SAPL received is revenue foregone, and therefore a financial contribution in accordance with 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. Both forms of assistance provide benefits in accordance with 771(5)(E) of the Act.

To calculate the countervailable subsidy for Elque, because the capital grant is a non-recurring subsidy ( see 19 CFR 351.504), we allocated each of the grant disbursements over Elque's AUL. We used a discount rate from 1995, the year in which Elque was approved for the total capital grant. See “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. We summed the benefits allocable to the POI, and divided that sum by Elque's total sales during the POI. To calculate the countervailable subsidy for SAPL, we divided the total sales tax exemptions received by SAPL during the POI by SAPL's total sales. We thus preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.02 percent ad valorem for Elque and 0.02 percent ad valorem for SAPL.

We preliminarily determine that the producers/exporters of BG PET Resin did not apply for or receive benefits during the POI under the programs listed below.

For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have relied on the GOI and respondent companies' responses to preliminarily determine non-use of the programs listed above. During the course of verification, the Department will examine whether these programs were not used by respondent companies during the POI.

Indian commercial banks were required to pay a tax on all interest accrued from borrowers. The banks passed along this interest tax to borrowers in its entirety. As of April 1, 1993, the GOI exempted from the interest tax all interest accruing to a commercial bank on export-related loans. The Department has previously found this tax exemption to be an export subsidy, and thus countervailable, because only interest accruing on loans and advances made to exporters in the form of export credit was exempt from interest tax. See e.g., Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Iron-Metal Castings from India, 61 FR 64676, 64686 (December 6, 1996).

The GOI reported that the tax on interest on any category of loan was eliminated prior to the POI. Specifically, the GOI submitted Section 4(3) of the Interest Tax Act which provides that “no interest tax shall be charged in respect of any chargeable interest accruing or arising after the 31st day of March, 2000.” See Appendix 8 of the GOI's June 21, 2004, questionnaire response. In addition, the information reported by the responding companies indicates that they are no longer required to pay tax on any interest on any loans. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.526(d), we preliminarily determine that this program has been terminated. If, however, we are unable to establish at verification that there are no residual benefits accruing to exporters of BG PET Resin from India from this program, and that the GOI has not implemented a replacement program, we will not find, for purposes of the final determination that this program has been terminated in accordance with 19 CFR 351.526(d).

Under this element of the EOU program, eligible companies can purchase raw materials and other inputs free of the central excise duty. As an element of the EOU program, the Central Excise Duty (CED) exemption is limited to exporters, and therefore specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. However, based on the information in the record of this investigation, we are unable to determine whether the Purchase of Materials and other Inputs of Central Excise Duty provides a financial contribution in accordance with section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, or a benefit in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, additional information is needed before making a decision with respect to this program. We will seek additional information from the GOI prior to our verification and final determination.

Under this element of the EOU program, an EOU procuring oil from domestic oil companies can file a drawback claim on a quarterly basis. As an element of the EOU program, this duty drawback program is limited to exporters and therefore specific under section 771(5A)(B) of the Act. However, based on the information in the record of this investigation, we are unable to determine whether the duty drawback of domestic furnace oil purchases provides a financial contribution in accordance with section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act, or a benefit in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, additional information is needed before making a decision with respect to this program. We will seek additional information from the GOI prior to our verification and final determination.

In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted prior to making our final determination.

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have determined individual rates for Reliance, SAPL, Futura, and Elque. To calculate the “all others” rate, we weight-averaged the individual rates of Reliance, SAPL, Futura, and Elque's by each company's respective exports of subject merchandise made to the United States during the POI. These rates are summarized in the table below:

In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from India, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond for such entries of the merchandise in the amounts indicated above. This suspension will remain in effect until further notice.

As provided for in the section 703(b)(4)(B) of the Act, for developing countries, any rate less than 2.0 percent ad valorem in an investigation is de minimis. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that countervailable subsidies are not being provided to Futura. Accordingly, for Futura, we will not direct CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise.

In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to the parties the calculations for this preliminary determination within five days of its announcement. Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 50 days of the date of publication of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(i) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Parties will be notified of the schedule for the hearing and parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) Party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act.

8:30 a.m. - Convene.

8:45 a.m. - 10 a.m. - Receive public testimony on the Reef Fish Amendment 23 (Vermilion Snapper Rebuilding Plan) and Applications for Exempted Fishing Permits (if any).

10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - Receive the Habitat Protection Committee report.

10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. - Receive the report of the Joint Personnel/Administrative Policy Committee.

10:45 a.m. - 11 a.m. - Receive the report of the Budget Committee.

11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. - Receive the Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel Management Committee report.

11:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - Receive the Shrimp Management Committee report.

1 p.m. - 1:15 p.m. - Receive the Data Collection Committee report.

1:15 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. - Receive the Ecosystem Management Committee report.

1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Receive the Reef Fish Management Committee report.

3:30 p.m. - 5 p.m. - Receive the Migratory Species Committee report.

8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. - Receive the Sustainable Fisheries Committee report.

9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - Receive the Coral Management Committee report.

10:30 a.m. - 10:45 a.m. - Receive the Joint Advisory Panel (AP) Selection/Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Selection Committee report.

10:45 a.m. - 11 a.m. - Receive the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Advisory Committee report.

11 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. - Receive Enforcement Reports.

11:15 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - Receive the NMFS Regional Administrator's Report.

11:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. - Receive Director's Reports.

11:45 a.m. - 12 noon - Other Business

12 noon - 12:15 p.m. - Election of Chair and Vice-Chair.

8:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. - The Joint Personnel/Administrative Policy Committees will review the disciplinary action section of the Council's Standard Operating Practices and Procedures (SOPPS) and the Southeastern Data and Review (SEDAR) Process and Pool Section of SOPPs.

9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - The Budget Committee will review the 2005-09 budgets.

10:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. - The Joint Reef Fish/Mackerel Management Committee will review amendments for commercial limited access systems for reef fish and mackerels.

1 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - The Shrimp Management Committee will discuss NOAA Fisheries' bycatch reduction device (BRD) technical developments; proposed revision of BRD certification rule; report on Shrimp Summit meeting; and Draft Shrimp Amendment 13/SEIS.

3:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m. - The Ecosystem Management Committee will meet and presentations on the NOAA Fisheries' ecosystem management will be given. There will also be a presentation on the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) approach to ecosystem management.

8 a.m - 9:30 a.m. - The Data Collection Committee will meet to hear a presentation of the recreational data needs and data collection.

9:30 a.m. - 11 a.m. - The Habitat Protection Committee will review a Preliminary Public Hearing Draft of Generic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Amendment and a report on NOAA Fisheries' Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities Workshop.

11 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. - The Reef Fish Management Committee will meet to review the Final Reef Fish Amendment 23 for rebuilding vermilion snapper; an Options Paper for Reef Fish 18A pertaining to the grouper fishery; scoping comments on Red Snapper Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Profile; and public testimony on grouper quota and trip limits.

6:30 p.m - 8:30 p.m. - NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office (SERO) will hold the Gulf Coast Recreational Data Forum in the same meeting room as the Council meeting. Dr. Roy Crabtree, SE Regional Administrator, SERO staff, and fisheries statistics staff from NOAA Fisheries Headquarters will be on hand to provide up-to-date program information and answer questions about NOAA Fisheries' recreational data collection program. The informal two-hour session is open to the public and will begin at 6:30 p.m. For more information on the Gulf Coast Recreational Data Forum, contact Michael Bailey at 727-570-5474.

8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. - The Highly Migratory Species Committee will meet to suggest changes to the NOAA Fisheries HMS/Billfish Amendments.

10:30 a.m. - 1 p.m. - The Sustainable Fisheries Committee will suggest changes to the draft proposed guidelines for National Standard One.

2:30 - 4:30 p.m. - The Coral Management Committee will meet from to review the Oceana petition for rulemaking on deep-water coral and draft a Council letter commenting on it.

4:30 - 5:30 p.m. - The Joint Advisory Panel (AP)/Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) selection Committee will meet in a closed session to discuss the appointment of 2 persons to the Ad Hoc Red Snapper AP and appointment of members to the Ad Hoc Ecosystem SSC.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the Council and Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the Council and Committees will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency. The established times for addressing items on the agenda may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the untimely completion of discussion relevant to other agenda items. In order to further allow for such adjustments and completion of all items on the agenda, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Dawn Aring at the Council (see ADDRESSES ) by September 2, 2004.

The MPAFAC, composed of external, knowledgeable representatives of stakeholder groups, has been established by the Department of Commerce to provide advice to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior on implementation of section 4 of Executive Order 13158 on MPAs. The meeting will be open to public participation, with a one hour time period set aside from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 2004, and one hour set aside from 8:10 a.m. to 9:10 a.m. on Thursday, September 23, 2004 for the Committee to receive verbal comments or questions from the public. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of five (5) minutes. Copies of written statements should be submitted to the Designated Federal Official by Friday, September 17, 2004.

Matters To Be Considered: On Tuesday, September 21, the three Subcommittees that have been established will meet: (1) National System of MPAs; (2) Stewardship and Effectiveness of MPAs; and (3) National and Regional Coordination of MPA Efforts. The Subcommittees will report on their work to the full Committee and then resume their work. On Tuesday afternoon, the Committee will hear from speakers on cultural aspects of marine management and then will receive comments from the public.

On Wednesday, September 22, the Subcommittees will meet, and the Committee will receive provisional reports from the Subcommittees. In the afternoon, the Committee members will hear from representatives of four Regional Fishery Management Councils.

On Thursday, September 23, the Committee will receive comments from the public. The Subcommittees will then meet. The full Committee will meet to further consider Subcommittee reports and to discuss the timing and agenda for the next meeting. They will then hear speakers on Pacific Island marine protected area management.

On Friday, September 24, the Committee will visit Hulapoe Marine Reserve on the island of Lana'i.

The Commission is established by Public Law 108-132 to provide Congress and the President with a thorough study and review of matters relating to the military facility structure overseas. The law requires the report to include a proposal for an overseas basing strategy to meet current and future DoD missions.

The current limits for certain categories are being increased for carryover.

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 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 59915, published on October 20, 2003.

The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing, and for the allowance for 100% cotton apparel items of handloomed fabric.

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 69 FR 4926, published on February 2, 2004). Also see 68 FR 65253, published on November 19, 2003.

The FICC is established under section 644 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1444). The FICC is established to: (1) Minimize duplication across Federal, State and local agencies of programs and activities relating to early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and preschool services for children with disabilities; (2) ensure effective coordination of Federal early intervention and preschool programs, including Federal technical assistance and support activities; and (3) identify gaps in Federal agency programs and services and barriers to Federal interagency cooperation. To meet these purposes, the FICC seeks to:

(1) Identify areas of conflict, overlap, and omissions in interagency policies related to the provision of services to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities; (2) develop and implement joint policy interpretations on issues related to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers that cut across Federal agencies, including modifications of regulations to eliminate barriers to interagency programs and activities; and (3) coordinate the provision of technical assistance and dissemination of best practice information.

Individuals who need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (i.e., interpreting services, assistive listening devices, material in alternative format) should notify Obral Vance at (202) 245-7559 (press 3) or (202) 205-5637 (TDD) ten days in advance of the meeting. The meeting location is accessible to individuals with disabilities.

Summary minutes of the FICC meetings will be maintained and available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, 550 12th Street, SW., Room 4127, Washington, DC 20202, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., weekdays, except Federal Holidays.

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: Extension.

Title: Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee Report.

Frequency: Monthly.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:

Responses: 7,560.

Burden Hours: 8,190.

Abstract: The Consolidation Loan Rebate Fee Report for payment by check or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) will be used by approximately 817 lenders participating in the Title IV, Part B loans program. The information collected is used to transmit interest payment rebate fees to the Secretary of Education.

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 2563. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments” to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_RIMG@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6621. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at his e-mail address Joe.Schubart@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.

The information collection submitted for OMB review contains the following:

1. Collection of Information : FERC-549B “Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Information.”

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

3. Control No.: 1902-0169.

The Commission is now requesting that OMB approve and reinstate with a three-year extension of the expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection. The information filed with the Commission is mandatory.

4. Necessity of the Collection of Information: Submission of the information is necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its responsibilities in implementing the statutory provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 16 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c-717o, PL 75-688, 52 Stat. 822 and 830) and Title III of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432, PL 95-621. FERC-549B contains both the Index of Customers and the Capacity Report under Part 284 of the Commission's regulations.

In Order No. 636, the Commission established a capacity release mechanism under which shippers can release firm transportation and storage capacity on either a short or long term basis to other shippers wanting to obtain capacity. In Order No. 636-A, the Commission determined that the efficiency of the capacity release mechanism would be enhanced by standardizing both the content of the capacity release information and the methods by which shippers access that information.

In Order No. 637, the Commission amended its regulations in response to the growing development of more competitive markets for natural gas. In the final rule, the Commission revised its current regulatory framework to improve the efficiency of the market and provide captive customers with the opportunity to reduce their cost of holding long-term capacity while continuing to protect against the exercise of market power.

To create greater substitution between different forms of capacity and enhance competition across the pipeline grid, Order No. 637 also revised the regulations regarding the following: scheduling; segmentation and flexible rights; penalties; and reporting requirements. The Commission revised pipeline scheduling procedures so that capacity release transactions will be better coordinated with the nomination process. Pipelines are required to permit shippers to segment capacity whenever feasible, which increases potential capacity alternatives and helps to facilitate the development of market centers. The changes to the reporting requirements were to provide greater reliability about capacity availability and price data so shippers could make informed decisions in a competitive market as well as improve shippers' and the Commission's availability to monitor marketplace behavior to detect, and remedy anticompetitive behavior.

In Order No. 582, the Commission created the Index of Customers filing requirement. Pipelines are required to identify all firm transportation services and contract demand for each customer for each rate schedule. The Pipeline must file on the first business day of each calendar quarter and also post the information on their Internet web sites. These filings include the following data elements: shipper's name (full legal name); contract identifier; rate schedule; contract start date; contract end date; contract quantity; receipt points; delivery points; information on capacity held by rate zones to permit verification of reservation billing determinants; data to assess storage capacity and conjunction restrictions if any, (provisions that operate across multiple points or contracts and may limit a shipper's rights at a particular receipt or delivery point). The index contains fundamental data about the natural gas industry—how much of the pipeline's capacity that shippers have under contract. With this information the Commission remains apprised of trends in the industry, the willingness of shippers to hold firm capacity, the average length of time capacity remains under contract, the proportion of capacity rolling over under specific provisions. This information provides the Commission with the ability to analyze capacity held on pipelines and provides capacity information to the market which aids the capacity release system by enabling shippers to locate those holding capacity rights that shippers may want to acquire. The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR Part 284.12 and .13.

5. Respondent Description: The respondent universe currently comprises 100 companies (on average per year) subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.

6. Estimated Burden: 160,789 total hours (includes 1,800 hours for Index of Customers), 100 respondents (average per year), 5.66 responses per respondent (Capacity reports) and 6 responses per respondent (Index of Customers), and 280.9 hours (capacity reports) 3 hours (Index of Customers) per response (average).

7. Estimated Cost Burden to Respondents: 160,789 hours / 2080 hours per years × $107,185 per year = $8,285,679. The cost per respondent is equal to $82,857.

Sections 4, 5, and 16 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.717c-717o , Pub. L. 75-688, 52 Stat. 822 and 830) and Title III of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432, Pub. L. 95-621.

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

The EPA would like to solicit comments to:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

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

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for these ICRs under: (1) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0023 for Best Management Practices for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0207; (2) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0024 for Milestones Plan for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 1877.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0202; (3) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0025 for Minimum Monitoring Requirements for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, EPA ICR No. 1878.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0243; (4) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0026 for Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Category (40 CFR part 434)—Coal Remining Sub-category and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, EPA ICR No. 1944.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0239; (5) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0027 for Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility Final Rule, EPA ICR No. 1973.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0241; (6) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0028 for Certification in lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for direct and indirect discharging mills in the bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory of the pulp, Paper, Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 2015.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0242; and (7) Docket ID No. OW-2004-0029 for Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (40 CFR part 442), EPA ICR No. 2018.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0235.

The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in the ICRs, any public comments received, and other information related to these ICRs. 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 B135, 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/ .

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

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

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

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

For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.

You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments in formulating a final decision. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.

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

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

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

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

2. By Mail . Send four copies of your comments to: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: #4101T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. (please use appropriate Docket ID number).

3. By Hand Delivery or Courier . Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. (please use appropriate Docket ID number). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I.A.1.

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

6. Offer alternatives.

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

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

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

(1) Best Management Practices for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0207, expiring on June 30, 2005.

(2) Milestones Plan for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 1877.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0202, expiring on June 30, 2005.

(3) Minimum Monitoring Requirements for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, EPA ICR No. 1878.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0243, expiring on February 28, 2005.

(4) Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Category (40 CFR part 434)—Coal Remining Sub-category and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, EPA ICR No. 1944.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0239, expiring on November 30, 2004.

(5) Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility Final Rule, EPA ICR No. 1973.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0241, expiring on November 30, 2004.

(6) Certification in lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for direct and indirect discharging mills in the bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 2015.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0242, expiring on February 28, 2005.

(7) Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (40 CFR part 442), EPA ICR No. 2018.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0235, expiring on October 31, 2004.

For all seven ICRs, please contact: Jack Faulk, Industrial Branch, Water Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management; tel.: (202) 564-0768, fax: (202) 564-6431; or e-mail: faulk.jack@epa.gov .

(1) Best Management Practices for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 1829.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0207, expiring on June 30, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard; those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using papergrade sulfite methods to produce pulp and/or paper; and State and local governments which regulate discharges where such operations are located.

Abstract: The EPA has established BMP provisions as part of final amendments to 40 CFR part 430, the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category promulgated on April 15, 1998 ( see 63 FR 18504-18751). These provisions, promulgated under the authorities of sections 304, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, require that owners or operators of bleached papergrade kraft, soda and sulfite mills implement site-specific BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills of spent pulping liquors, soap and turpentine and to control intentional diversions of these materials.

EPA has determined that these BMPs are necessary because the materials controlled by these practices, if spilled or otherwise lost, can interfere with wastewater treatment operations and lead to increased discharges of toxic, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. For further discussion of the need for BMPs, see section VI.B.7 of the preamble to the amendments to 40 CFR part 430 ( see 63 FR 18561-18566).

The BMP program includes information collection requirements that are intended to help accomplish the overall purposes of the program by, for example, training personnel, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(4), analyzing spills that occur, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(5), identifying equipment items that might need to be upgraded or repaired, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(2), and performing monitoring—including the operation of monitoring systems—to detect leaks, spills and intentional diversion and generally to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMPs, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(3), (c)(10), (h), and (i). The regulations also require mills to develop and, when appropriate, amend plans specifying how the mills will implement the specified BMPs, and to certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority that they have done so in accordance with good engineering practices and the requirements of the regulation. See 40 CFR 430.03(d), (e) and (f). The purpose of those provisions is, respectively, to facilitate the implementation of BMPs on a site-specific basis and to help the regulating authorities to ensure compliance without requiring the submission of actual BMP plans. Finally, the record keeping provisions are intended to facilitate training, to signal the need for different or more vigorously implemented BMPs, and to facilitate compliance assessment. See 40 CFR 430.03(g).

EPA has structured the regulation to provide maximum flexibility to the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on NPDES permit and pretreatment control authorities that regulate bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills. Although EPA does not anticipate that mills will be required to submit any confidential business information or trade secrets as part of this ICR, all data claimed as confidential business information will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2.

Burden Statement: The recurring burden for a mill to periodically review and amend the BMP plan, prepare spill reports, perform additional monitoring, hold refresher training, and conduct recordkeeping and reporting is estimated to be 617, 641, and 665 hours annually per mill for simple, moderately complex, and complex mills, respectively. The total recurring cost for the estimated 41 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and 11 papergrade sulfite mills associated with the BMP requirements is estimated at $1,807,670.

The recurring burden to State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at ten hours per year per facility for reviewing periodic ( e.g. , annual or semi-annual) monitoring reports and conducting compliance reviews. The total recurring costs for State NPDES and pretreatment control authorities is estimated at $32,100.

(2) Milestones Plan, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory, Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Category, EPA ICR No. 1877.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0202, expiring June 30, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those existing, direct discharging mills with operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard and that choose to participate in the Voluntary Incentives Program established under 40 CFR 430.24(b).

Abstract: The EPA has established the Milestones Plan requirements for enrollment in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program (VATIP) as part of final amendments to 40 CFR part 430, the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source Category promulgated on April 15, 1998 ( see 63 FR 18504-18751). The Milestones Plan provisions, promulgated under the authorities of sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the Clean Water Act, require owners or operators of bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills enrolled in the VATIP to submit information to describe each envisioned new technology component or process modification the mill intends to implement in order to achieve the VATIP Best Available Technology (BAT) limits, including a master schedule showing the sequence of implementing new technologies and process modifications and identifying critical-path relationships within the sequence.

EPA has determined that the Milestones Plan will provide valuable benchmarks for reasonable inquiries into progress being made by participating mills toward achievement of the interim and ultimate Tier limits of the VATIP and will offer the necessary flexibility to the mill and the permit writer so that the milestones selected to be incorporated into the mill's NPDES permit reflect the unique situation of the mill.

The Milestones Plan must include the following information for each new individual technology or process modification: (1) A schedule of anticipated dates for associated construction, installation, and/or process changes; (2) the anticipated dates of completion for those steps; (3) the anticipated date that the Advanced Technology process or individual component will be fully operational; (4) and the anticipated reductions in effluent quantity and improvements in effluent quality as measured at the bleach plant(for bleach plant, pulping area and evaporator condensates flow and BAT parameters other than Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX)) and the end of the pipe (for AOX). For those technologies or process modifications that are not commercially available or demonstrated on a full-scale basis at the time of plan development, the Plan is required to include a schedule for research (if necessary), process development, and mill trials, including major milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or process change will be available for mill implementation. The Plan must also include contingency plans in the event that any of the technologies or processes specified in the Milestones Plan need to be adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the ultimate tier limits are achieved by the deadlines specified in 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii).

EPA has structured the Plan to provide maximum flexibility to the regulated community and to minimize administrative burdens on NPDES permit authorities that regulate bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. All data claimed as confidential business information or trade secrets submitted by the mills as part of this ICR will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2.

Burden Statement: EPA estimates that 29 mills will voluntarily enroll into VATIP. The burden for a mill (which chooses to participate voluntarily in the incentives program) to prepare and submit a Milestones Plan is estimated to average approximately 120 hours per respondent. This is a one-time burden. State NPDES permitting authorities burden to review the Milestones Plans is estimated at 16 hours per respondent as an initial burden with a average recurring annual review burden of 6 hours per respondent. The total initial cost for the 29 mills anticipated to enroll in the VATIP and thus be required to develop a Milestones Plan is estimated at $480,900. The total initial burden incurred by State permitting authorities is estimated at $15,680. The total recurring burden incurred by State permitting authorities is estimated at $5,880. There is no recurring burden for mill respondents associated with this information collection.

(3) Minimum Monitoring Requirements for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, EPA ICR No. 1878.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0243, expiring on February 28, 2005.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard; and those operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using papergrade sulfite methods to produce pulp and/or paper.

Abstract: The EPA imposed minimum monitoring requirements on bleached papergrade kraft and soda (subpart B) and papergrade sulfite (subpart E) mills under 40 CFR part 430 as part of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 18504). With approval of this ICR, the permitting and pretreatment control authority must require applicable facilities subject to subparts B or E to monitor their effluent for adsorbable organic halides (AOX), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolics at specified frequencies. See 40 CFR 430.02. Under 40 CFR 122.41 (e)(4), the discharger must then report these monitoring results to the permitting or pretreatment control authority using either Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) or Periodic Compliance Reports (PCRs). These additional minimum monitoring requirements and corresponding additional reporting requirements are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated at 40 CFR part 430, subparts B and E.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 392 hours per response. The estimated number of respondents is 94 and the frequency of response is not less than annually for direct dischargers and not less than twice annually for indirect dischargers. The total annual hour burden is 36,858 hours and the total annualized cost burden (non labor costs) is $6,414,910.

(4) Baseline Standards and Best Management Practices for the Coal Mining Point Category (40 CFR part 434)—Coal Remining Sub-category and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, EPA ICR No. 1944.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0239, expiring on November 30, 2004.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are coal remining sites with pre-existing discharges; western alkaline coal mining sites with sediment control; and NPDES permit control authorities.

Abstract: This ICR presents estimates of the burden and costs to the regulated community (approximately 234 coal remining sites and 46 western alkaline surface coal mining sites) and NPDES permit control authorities for data collection and record keeping associated with modeling, BMP implementation, baseline monitoring, and performance monitoring requirements of the Coal Mining Point Source—Coal Remining Subcategory and Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory Effluent Limitations Guidelines (40 CFR 434.70 and 434.80).

Coal remining is the mining of surface mine lands, underground mine lands, and coal refuse piles that have been previously mined and abandoned. Acid mine drainage from abandoned coal mines is a significant problem in Appalachia, with approximately 1.1 million acres of abandoned coal mine lands and over 9,700 miles of streams polluted by acid mine drainage.

During the remining process, acid-forming materials are removed with the extraction of the coal, pollution abatement BMPs are implemented under applicable regulatory requirements, and the abandoned mine land is reclaimed. During remining, many of the problems associated with abandoned mine land, such as dangerous highwalls, vertical openings, and abandoned coal refuse piles can be corrected without using public funds.

The remining regulations include a requirement that the operator implement BMPs to demonstrate the potential to improve water quality. The site-specific BMPs will be incorporated into a pollution abatement plan. Data collection and record keeping requirements under this Subcategory will include baseline determination, annual monitoring and reporting for pre-existing discharges and a description of site-specific BMPs. In most cases, EPA believes that the BMP requirements for the pollution abatement plan will be satisfied by an approved SMCRA plan.

Western alkaline coal mines include surface and underground mining operations located in the interior western United States. EPA estimates that 46 mine sites will be affected by this subcategory, representing 2% of the total number of U.S. coal mines, but accounting for 1/3 of U.S. coal production.

The subcategory establishes non-numeric limitations on the amount of sediment that can be discharged from coal mine reclamation areas. In lieu of numeric standards, the mine operator must develop a site-specific sediment control plan for surface reclamation areas identifying BMP design, construction, and maintenance specifications and expected effectiveness. The operator will be required to demonstrate, using models accepted by the regulatory authority, that implementation of the BMPs will ensure that average annual sediment levels in drainage from reclamation areas would not exceed predicted natural background levels of sediment discharges at that site. Data collection and record keeping requirements under this Subcategory will include a description of site-specific sediment control BMPs and watershed model results. EPA believes that plans developed to comply with SMCRA requirements will usually fulfill the EPA requirements for sediment control plans.

EPA does not expect that any confidential business information or trade secrets will be required from coal mining operators as part of this ICR. If information submitted in conjunction with this ICR were to contain confidential business information, the respondent has the authority to request that the information be treated as confidential business information. All data so designated will be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR part 2. This information will be maintained according to procedures outlined in EPA's Security Manual Part III, Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the CWA, effluent data may not be treated as confidential.

Burden Statement: The potential number of coal remining respondents is calculated based on the approximation that 78 permits per year may be issued. The duration of this ICR is three years and therefore the potential respondents over this time frame is (78 × 3) 234. The potential number of western alkaline surface mining respondents is estimated to be 46 for this subcategory. Although there are a total of 44 authorized NPDES states, the number of state NPDES authorities estimated to be impacted by the rule is 10. The initial burden for coal mining and remining sites under the rule is estimated at 1,890 hours and $314,538 for baseline determination monitoring at coal remining sites. The annual burden for coal mining and remining sites under the rule is estimated at 3,024 hours per year and $189,302 per year for annual monitoring at coal remining sites.

The initial burden for NPDES control authorities is estimated at 9,800 hours and $310,464 for review of SMCRA remining and reclamation plans (which include BMPs) and preparation of the NPDES permit. The annual burden for NPDES control authorities is estimated at 2,340 hours per year and $74,131 per year for review of annual monitoring data at coal remining sites.

Monitoring costs apply to the Coal Remining Subcategory only. The average annual monitoring costs for all respondents under this ICR is $294,148 ($314,538/3 + $189,302).

For the Coal Remining Subcategory, the public reporting burden is estimated to average 15.6 hours per respondent per year ((1,890 hours/3 years + 3,024 hours/year) / 234 coal remining sites). This estimate includes time for collecting and submitting baseline and annual monitoring results. For the Western Alkaline Coal Mining Subcategory, there is projected to be no additional public reporting burden.

(5) Information Collection Request for Cooling Water Intake Structures New Facility Final Rule, EPA ICR No. 1973.02, OMB Control No. 2040-0241, expiring on November 30, 2004.

Affected Entities: Entities affected by this action are new facilities that are point sources ( i.e. subject to a NPDES permit) that use or propose to use a cooling water intake structure (CWIS), have at least one cooling water intake structure that uses at least 25 percent (measured on an average monthly basis) of the water withdrawn for cooling purposes, and have a design intake flow greater than two million gallons per day (MGD). Generally, facilities that meet these criteria fall into two major groups: new power producing facilities and new manufacturing facilities. Power producers affected by the final rule are likely to be both utility and nonutility power producers since they typically have large cooling water requirements. The EPA identified four categories of manufacturing facilities that tend to require large amounts of cooling water: paper and allied products, chemical and allied products, petroleum and coal products, and primary metals.

Abstract: The section 316(b) New Facility Rule requires the collection of information from new facilities that use a CWIS. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that any standard established under section 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source must require that the location, design, construction and capacity of CWISs at that facility reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. See 66 FR 65256. Such impact occurs as a result of impingement (where fish and other aquatic life are trapped on technologies at the entrance to cooling water intake structures) and entrainment (where aquatic organisms, eggs, and larvae are taken into the cooling system, passed through the heat exchanger, and then pumped back out with the discharge from the facility). The rule establishes standard requirements applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities. These requirements seek to minimize the adverse environmental impact associated with the use of CWISs.

Burden Statement: The annual average reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information by facilities responding to the section 316(b) New Facility Rule is estimated to be 2,650 hours per respondent ( i.e. , an annual average of 37,104 hours of burden divided among an anticipated annual average of 14 facilities). The Director reporting and recordkeeping burden for the review, oversight, and administration of the rule is estimated to average 136 hours per respondent ( i.e. , an annual average of 3,271 hours of burden divided among an anticipated 24 States on average per year). During the first three years after rule promulgation, the information collection required by the rule involves responses from an estimated total of 18 facilities and 44 States and Territories and costs approximately $11.6 million (including operation and maintenance costs), with an annual average of 38 respondents, 40,376 burden hours, and $3.9 million per year.

(6) Certification in lieu of Chloroform Minimum Monitoring Requirements for direct and indirect discharging mills in the bleached papergrade kraft and soda subcategory of the pulp, Paper, Paperboard Point Source Category, EPA ICR No. 2015.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0242, expiring on February 28, 2005.

Affected Entities: Operations that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft or soda methods to produce bleached papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or paperboard.

Abstract: The EPA imposed minimum monitoring requirements on bleached papergrade kraft and soda (subpart B) mills under 40 CFR part 430 as part of the final Cluster Rules promulgated on April 15, 1998. See 63 FR 18504. These provisions require direct and indirect discharging subpart B mills to monitor their effluent for certain pollutants, including chloroform, at specified frequencies. See 40 CFR 430.02. EPA promulgated an amendment to the Cluster Rules to allow direct and indirect discharging Subpart B mills, for a particular fiber line, to demonstrate compliance with applicable chloroform limitations and standards under 40 CFR part 430 in lieu of the minimum monitoring requirements specified in 40 CFR 430.02 by voluntarily certifying two sets of circumstances. See 67 FR 58990. First, the mill would need to certify that the fiber line(s) in question is/are not using elemental chlorine or hypochlorite as bleaching agents. Second, the mill would need to certify that the fiber line(s) in question maintain(s) certain process and operating conditions that the facility has demonstrated achieve compliance with applicable chloroform limitations.

The burden associated with these additional voluntary reporting requirements is expected to be offset by a substantial savings in burden and costs that would otherwise be incurred, pursuant to the minimum monitoring frequency and duration at 40 CFR 430.02, to comply with applicable chloroform effluent limitations and standards.

All data submitted by mills as part of the initial compliance demonstration and claimed as confidential business information would be maintained pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 when EPA is the permitting authority, and pursuant to regulations governing such information when States are the permitting authorities.

Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this voluntary collection of information is estimated to average six hours per response. The estimated number of respondents is 80 and the frequency of response is not less than annually for direct dischargers and not less than twice annually for indirect dischargers. The total annual hour burden is 480 hours and the total annualized cost burden (non-labor costs) is $0.

(7) Pollution Prevention Compliance Alternative; Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source Category (40 CFR part 442), EPA ICR No. 2018.01, OMB Control No. 2040-0235, expiring on October 31, 2004.

Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected are indirect discharge facilities from subparts A and B (facilities that clean tank trucks, intermodal tank containers, and rail tank cars transporting chemical and petroleum cargos), that choose the pollution prevention compliance option to reduce pollutant discharges.

Abstract: EPA issued a final guideline for the TEC point source category on August 14, 2000. This final rule included a regulatory compliance option which allows certain facilities to develop a Pollutant Management Plan (PMP) in lieu of meeting numeric standards. Facilities have the option to develop this plan if it would be a more beneficial compliance alternative. The PMP is only available for PSES and PSNS in subparts A and B of the TEC regulation, representing a potential 316 facilities.

The PMP includes requirements for recordkeeping and paperwork that were not previously included in the burden estimate for the TEC industry. This ICR presents estimates of the burden hours and costs to the regulated community and pretreatment authorities for data collection and recordkeeping associated with implementing the pollution prevention compliance option.

The PMP is an effective alternative method of reducing pollutant discharges from indirect dischargers in subparts A and B (facilities that clean tank trucks, intermodal tank containers, and rail tank cars transporting chemical and petroleum cargos). The PMP contains 10 components that must be considered and addressed when developing the Plan. These components require facilities to identify and segregate incompatible waste streams which may include heels, prerinse or prestream wastewater, and spent cleaning solutions from wastewater discharged to the POTW. The PMP also requires provisions for recycling or reuse of incompatible waste streams and for minimizing the use of toxic cleaning agents. Data collection and recordkeeping requirements under the pollution prevention compliance option include preparing the PMP and maintaining records to demonstrate compliance with the procedures and provisions of the PMP. Records will be stored on site, and there are no reporting requirements.

Burden Statement: The regulated community includes approximately 316 indirect discharging facilities. EPA assumes that all regulated facilities will evaluate the alternative pollution prevention compliance option to determine whether it would be less costly than complying with numerical limits. Based on discussions with industry stakeholders and pretreatment authorities, EPA assumes that 25% of these facilities will select the pollution prevention compliance option.

For the TEC pollution prevention compliance option, the burden is estimated to average 240.3 hours per respondent per year. This estimate includes time for preparing and submitting the statement of intent, preparing and submitting the PMP, collecting information and recordkeeping, and operator training. The estimated total labor for respondents is 19,144 hours, with a total cost of $554,451.

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

1. Docket . EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP-2003-0401. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access . You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ Federal Register ” listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ . To access the RED document and RED fact sheet electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm .

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPP-2003-0401. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to opp-docket@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0401. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

2. By mail . Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0401.

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-2003-0401. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.B.1.

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

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

• Crop production (NAICS 111)

• Animal production (NAICS 112)

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311)

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532)

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

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

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2004-0110. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-0280.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i. EPA Dockets . Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select “search,” and then key in docket ID number OPPT-2004-0110. The system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.

ii. E-mail . Comments may be sent by e-mail to oppt.ncic@epa.gov , Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0110 and PMN Number or TME Number. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e- mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

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

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

3. By hand delivery or courier . Deliver your comments to: OPPT Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Bldg., Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-20040110 and PMN Number or TME Number. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is (202) 564-8930.

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

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

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

1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.

2. Describe any assumptions that you used.

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

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

5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.

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

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

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

Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from July 13, 2004 to August 06, 2004, consists of the PMNs pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.

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

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

OMB Control Number: 3060-0824.

Title: Service Provider Identification Number and Contact Form.

Form No.: FCC Form 498.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 5,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 10,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Administrator of the universal service program must obtain contact and remittance information from service providers participating in the universal service high cost, low income, rural health care, and schools and libraries programs. The Administrator uses the FCC Form 498 to collect service providers' name, phone numbers, other contact information, and remittance information from universal service fund participants to enable the Administrator to perform its universal service disbursement functions under 47 CFR part 54. FCC Form 498 also allows fund participants to direct remittance to third parties or receives payments directly from the Administrator. This collection is being revised to add a reference to 18 U.S.C. 1001 concerning punishment for willful false statements.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0853.

Title: Receipt of Service Confirmation Form; Certification by Administrative Authority to Billed Entity of Compliance with Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)—Universal Service for Schools and Libraries; Certifications for Libraries Unwilling to Make a CIPA Certification for 2003.

Form No.: FCC Forms 479, 486 and 500.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 40,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5-2 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 75,000 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, contemplates that schools and libraries should be able to acquire Internet access and other telecommunications services on a discounted basis, and that the schools and libraries should seek reimbursement from the Universal Service Fund (Fund) for the services and equipment acquired. FCC Form 486 is necessary to confirm that recipients of schools and libraries funding adhere to the requirements of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and to allow schools and libraries to confirm that they have received, or are scheduled to receive, the applied-for eligible services, so that invoicing may proceed. FCC Form 479 is necessary to confirm that schools and libraries that are part of a consortium adhere to the requirements of CIPA. FCC Form 500 permits schools and libraries to modify their filed records to reflect reductions in the funding they are due, or to modify the beginning or ending dates for the eligible services for which they will request reimbursement. This collection is being revised to require additional expanded certifications and information that will not cause an increase in the burden. The 486t form is being removed from this collection because it was a temporary form that is no longer needed.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0856.

Title: Universal Service—Schools and Libraries Universal Service Program Reimbursement Forms.

Form No.: FCC Forms 472, 473 and 474.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 39,300.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 hours.

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

Total Annual Burden: 58,950 hours.

Total Annual Cost: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, contemplates that schools and libraries should be able to acquire Internet access and other telecommunications services on a discounted basis, and that the schools and libraries should seek reimbursement from the Universal Service Fund (Fund) for the services and equipment acquired. FCC Form 472 is necessary so that the schools and libraries can confirm that they are receiving, or have received, the eligible services, and that they have filed the proper documents for reimbursement from the Fund. FCC Forms 473 and 474 facilitate the reimbursement process by giving the providers of eligible services to schools and libraries a means to confirm that their invoices are in compliance with the Commission's rules. This collection is being revised to require additional expanded certifications and information that will not cause an increase in the burden.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0852.

Title: Application for Transfer of Control of a Multipoint Distribution Service Authorization.

Form No.: FCC Form 306.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time per Response: 58 hours (15.2 hours—transferor, 40.8 hours—transferee, and 2.0 hours—licensee).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 110 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $211,275.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 306 is to be used to apply for authority to transfer control of an Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) Authorization pursuant to 47 CFR 21.11, 21.38 and 21.39. The data is used by FCC staff to determine if the applicant is qualified to become a Commission licensee or permittee and to carry out the statutory provisions of section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

The Commission is now revising FCC Form 306 to request additional information to complete the Universal Licensing System (ULS) data elements since MDS/Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) has been implemented into ULS. Additional information such as the licensee's e-mail address, fax number, type of applicant, contact's e-mail address and fax number will be added to this collection.

There will also be clarification of data elements, instructions and corrections of mailing addresses and web sites.

There is no change to the estimated average burden or number of respondents.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0851.

Title: Application for Assignment of a Multipoint Distribution Service Authorization.

Form No.: FCC Form 305.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and not-for-profit institutions.

Number of Respondents: 160.

Estimated Time per Response: 55 hours (14.2 hours—assignor; 40.8 hours—assignee).

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 800 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $1,610,350.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 305 is to be used to apply for authority to assign an Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) Authorization pursuant to 47 CFR 21.11, 21.38 and 21.39. The data is used by FCC staff to determine if the applicant is qualified to become a Commission licensee or permittee and to carry out the statutory provisions of section 310(d) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

The Commission is now revising FCC Form 305 to request additional information to complete the Universal Licensing System (ULS) data elements since MDS/Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) has been implemented into ULS. Additional information such as the licensee's e-mail address, fax number, type of applicant, contact's e-mail address and fax number will be added to this collection. There will also be clarification of data elements, instructions and corrections of mailing addresses and Web sites.

There is no change to the estimated average burden or number of respondents.

The Order dismisses without prejudice joint Petitioners' request that the Commission declare that the ICAM surcharges proposed by US West (now Qwest) in each of the fourteen states in which it provides telecommunications services violate the cost-based interconnection standards of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Order also dismisses Petitioners' request that the Commission initiate proceedings to preempt any state commission action allowing US West to implement ICAM surcharges. Qwest never pursued recovery of interconnection costs through ICAM surcharges, instead recovering them through a separate unbundled network element operations support system charge or a local interconnection service charge. Therefore, there appears to be no remaining controversy, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice unless any interested party provides notice within 30 days that there is still a genuine dispute that remains to be resolved.

This is a summary of the Bureau's Order in CC Docket No. 97-90, adopted on July 9, 2004. The complete text of the Order is available for public inspection Monday through Thursday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. in the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available also on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365. The complete text of the Order may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copying and Printing, Inc., Room CY-B402, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563 or e-mail at http://www.bcpiweb.com.

Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Service Act (42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program (NVP) to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The Secretary designated the Assistant Secretary for Health to serve as the Director, NVPO. The National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director, NVPO, on matters related to the program's responsibilities. A Public Participation Working Group has been established to assess how to enhance public engagement in vaccine policy issues.

A number of Federal models for enhancing public engagement will be examined. A tentative agenda will be made available on or about September 6 for review on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac.

Public attendance at the meeting is limited to space available. Individuals must provide a photo ID for entry into the Humphrey Building. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the designated contact person. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the meeting. Public comment will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Preregistration is required for both public attendance and comment. Any individual who wishes to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should email ejoyner@osophs.dhhs.gov.

The fee schedule for sanitation inspections of passenger cruise ships inspected under the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) was first published in the Federal Register on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45019), and CDC began collecting fees on March 1, 1988. Since then, CDC has published the fee schedule annually. This notice announces fees effective October 1, 2004.

The formula used to determine the fees is as follows: Average cost per inspection = Total cost of VSP divided by the Weighted number of annual inspections.

The average cost per inspection is multiplied by a size/cost factor to determine the fee for vessels in each size category. The size/cost factor was established in the proposed fee schedule published in the Federal Register on July 17, 1987 (52 FR 27060), and revised in a schedule published in the Federal Register on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48942). The revised size/cost factor is presented in Appendix A.

The fee schedule (Appendix A) will be effective October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005. The fee schedule, which became effective October 1, 2001, will remain the same in Fiscal Year 2005. If travel expenses continue to increase, the fees may need adjustment before September 30, 2005, because travel constitutes a sizable portion of VSP's costs. If an adjustment is necessary, a notice will be published in the Federal Register 30 days before the effective date.

The fees will apply to all passenger cruise vessels for which inspections are conducted as part of CDC's VSP.

This draft guidance identifies special issues associated with hospital bed systems and provides recommendations intended to reduce life-threatening entrapments associated with these devices. Manufacturers may use this guidance to assess current hospital bed systems and to assist in the design of new beds.

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

To receive the “Hospital Bed System Dimensional Guidance to Reduce Entrapment” you may either send a fax request to 301-443-8818 to receive a hard copy of the document, or send an e-mail request to GWA@CDRH.FDA.GOV to receive a hard copy or an electronic copy. Please use the document number 1537 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

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

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

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

Title of Proposal: Floodplain Management.

OMB Approval Number: 2506-0151.

Form Numbers: None.

Description of the Need for the Information and Its Proposed Use: HUD grant recipients proposing to use HUD funds for projects within floodplains or wetlands provide information indicating compliance with relevant requirements. Respondents must publish notifications of intent and inform affected private parties (potential purchasers, etc.).

Frequency of Submission: On Occasion.

Total Estimated Burden Hours: 2,700.

Status: Extension of a currently approved collection.

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

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

Title of Proposal: Data Collection for the Indian Housing Block Grant Program under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act: Indian Housing Plan, Annual Performance Report, and Federal Cash Transactions Report—Office of Native American Programs (ONAP).

OMB Control Number: 2577-0218.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act requires recipients (which includes both tribes and tribally designated housing entities) to submit to ONAP specific information that is necessary if they want to implement low-income housing programs in their communities using Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds. IHBG funds are made available using a formula developed through negotiated rulemaking procedures.

Agency Form Number: Indian Housing Plan (HUD-52735); Annual Performance Report (HUD-52735-AS); Federal Cash Transactions Report—ONAP (HUD-272-I).

Members of Affected Public: Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.

Estimation of the Total Number of Hours Needed to Prepare the Information Collection Including Number of Respondents: 366 respondents, 1 response for HUD-52735 and HUD-52735-AS per respondent and 4 responses for HUD-272-I per respondent, 2,196 total responses, 181 average hours per response for HUD-52735 and HUD-52735-AS per response and 1 1/2 hours per response for HUD-272-I, 134,592 hours for a total reporting burden.

Status of the Proposed Information Collection: Extension of currently approved collection.

For background information and questions regarding the Trinity River Restoration Program, please contact Douglas Schleusner, Executive Director, Trinity River Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300, 1313 South Main Street, Weaverville, California 96093, (530) 623-1800.

Title: 30 CFR 250, subpart F, Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0043.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. ), as amended, requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to preserve, protect, and develop sulphur resources on the OCS; make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources offshore; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary to prescribe rules and regulations “to provide for the prevention of waste, and conservation of the natural resources of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the protection of correlative rights therein” and to include provisions “for the prompt and efficient exploration and development of a lease area.” These authorities and responsibilities are among those delegated to MMS under which we issue regulations to ensure that operations in the OCS will meet statutory requirements; provide for safety and protection of the environment; and result in diligent exploration, development, and production of OCS leases. This information collection request addresses the regulations at 30 CFR 250, subpart F, Oil and Gas Well-Workover Operations and the associated supplementary notices to lessees and operators intended to provide clarification, description, or explanation of these regulations.

MMS District Supervisors use the information collected to analyze and evaluate planned well-workover operations to ensure that operations result in personnel safety and protection of the environment. They use this evaluation in making decisions to approve, disapprove, or to require modification to the proposed well-workover operations. For example, MMS uses the information to:

• Review log entries of crew meetings to verify that safety procedures have been properly reviewed.

• Review well-workover procedures relating to hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) to ensure the safety of the crew in the event of encountering H 2 S.

• Review well-workover diagrams and procedures to ensure the safety of well-workover operations.

• Verify that the crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function and avoid accidents.

• Verify that the proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and will provide adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources.

• Verify the reasons for postponing blowout preventer (BOP) tests, verify the state of readiness of the equipment and to ascertain that the equipment meets safety standards and requirements, ensure that BOP tests have been conducted in the manner and frequency to promote personnel safety and protect natural resources. Specific testing information must be recorded to verify that the proper test procedures were followed.

• Assure that the well-workover operations are conducted on well casing that is structurally competent.

Responses are mandatory. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.196 (Data and information to be made available to the public) and 30 CFR part 252 (OCS Oil and Gas Information Program).

Frequency: The frequency varies by section, but is primarily monthly or on occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees and operators.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The estimated annual “hour” burden for this information collection is a total of 19,459 hours. The following chart details the individual components and estimated hour burdens. In calculating the burdens, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no “non-hour cost” burdens.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. ) requires each agency “* * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

To comply with the public consultation process, on December 24, 2003, we published a Federal Register notice (68 FR 74645) announcing that we would submit this ICR to OMB for approval. The notice provided the required 60-day comment period. In addition, 250.199 provides the OMB control number for the information collection requirements imposed by the 30 CFR 250 regulations and forms. The regulation also informs the public that they may comment at any time on the collections of information and provides the address to which they should send comments. We have received no comments in response to these efforts.

If you wish to comment in response to this notice, you may send your comments to the offices listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove the information collection but may respond after 30 days. Therefore, to ensure maximum consideration, OMB should receive public comments by September 29, 2004.

Public Comment Policy: MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor the request to the extent allowable by the law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer: Denise Johnson (202) 208-3976.

Title: 30 CFR 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations.

OMB Control Number: 1010-0067.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to preserve, protect, and develop oil and gas resources in the OCS; make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; balance orderly energy resources development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environment; ensure the public a fair and equitable return on resources offshore; and preserve and maintain free enterprise competition. Section 1332(6) of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1332) requires that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.” This authority and responsibility are among those delegated to MMS. To carry out these responsibilities, MMS issues regulations governing oil and gas and sulphur operations in the OCS. This collection of information addresses 30 CFR part 250, Subpart E, Oil and Gas Well-Completion Operations.

The MMS District Supervisors analyze and evaluate the information and data collected under Subpart E to ensure that planned well-completion operations will protect personnel safety and natural resources. They use the analysis and evaluation results in the decision to approve, disapprove, or require modification to the proposed well-completion operations. Specifically, MMS uses the information to ensure: (a) Compliance with personnel safety training requirements; (b) crown block safety device is operating and can be expected to function to avoid accidents; (c) proposed operation of the annular preventer is technically correct and provides adequate protection for personnel, property, and natural resources; (d) well-completion operations are conducted on well casings that are structurally competent; and (e) sustained casing pressures are within acceptable limits. The MMS district and regional offices plan to issue an NTL, in the future, and they will use paperwork requirements in this new proposed Gulf of Mexico Region NTL to determine that production from wells with SCP continues to afford the greatest possible degree of safety under these conditions.

Responses are mandatory. No questions of a “sensitive” nature are asked. MMS will protect proprietary information according to 30 CFR 250.196 (Data and information to be made available to the public) and 30 CFR part 252 (OCS Oil and Gas Information Program).

Frequency: Varies by section, but is mostly “on occasion” or annual.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur lessees.

Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The following chart details the components of the information collection requirements in subpart E, which we estimate to be a total of 11,995 burden hours. In estimating the burden, we assumed that respondents perform certain requirements in the normal course of their activities. We consider these to be usual and customary and took that into account in estimating the burden.